|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:34 am Post subject: sigh what a moron |
 |
|
Okay I will type this real slow because I know if I type fast you will have trouble reading it.
Employees can choose when to take their holidays, yes the employer can request the employee change his vacation time if it causes a SERIOUS impedement to the business. Did you actually read that part? A SERIOUS IMPEDEMENT. I does not say that the employer can tell an employee no for any reason whatsoever...as you are saying.
To support my claims I simply refer to the same section of the labor law as you do.
Article 59: Section 5:
An employer shall grant paid leave pursuant to Paragraphs (1) though (4) upon request of a worker, and shall pay ordinary wages with employment rules or other regulations : Provided, that the period concerned may be altered, in case it might cause a serious impediment to the operation of the business to grant paid leave at a time when the worker requests.
The difference is in the interpretation of the laws. An anal retentive view...aka Gord, or the sane and applicible view aka Grotto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now we are down to what qualifies to a serious impediment. You are suggesting that a foreign teacher can simply book time off with no serious negative issues to the company, a stand which you will find you stand very much alone on with neither court nor government backing.
I'm amused that you are suggesting parents who are paying a serious premium to have their children learn from a foreign teacher wouldn't care that this service they are paying for would not be provided. Most schools are pretty minor affairs with few to no options available on covering the absence of a native speaker, especially one gone for days at a time. When I pay for extra pepperoni on the pizza and I don't get it, I complain, and that's only over an extra 1,500 Won.
And the lack of a native speaker qualifies as a serious impediment regardless of what your opinion is.
This while we haven't even discussed the application of days off being assigned before the contract was even signed. If the school suddenly went from a traditional 5.5 day workweek to a forced 5 day week that consumed all the holidays, you might have an issue to discuss. But to be told up front that one will be working a 5 day work week that consumes the legally required minimum days off, then it would be accepted by the courts and government that the days off are in fact being given to the employees on their demand as it's part of their contract.
I was waiting for you to claim that a large school with many teachers could somehow magically yet easily cover for a native speaker with no consequences before I tossed up that part about how the days off were already negociated as to when by employee request, but you've been rather useless in this discussion at sticking to facts and logic, and instead you've been trying to insult me as your primary vehicle of discussion.
You walked into this thread with an idea based on a myth. You didn't have a clue how the law worked, and you got burned. But you stuck to your flawed position, even after I highlighted the law for you. Despite this, you refused to accept what the law said and now are trying to invent new law meanings. All this for a lost cause as the courts and government have already upheld that being told in advance of a contract that being told the job will be running on a 5 day week entails acceptance of a vacation schedule that is technically an employee demand.
It's like watching a 5 year old swinging wildly trying to hit me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't you get a real job Grotto instead of trying to make your hagwon sound good? 10 days, 2 weeks, whatever. It's jack. Besides, Gord is right. He ain't always, but he is here. Koreans often don't get any vacation at all. Do you know any? Go ask em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:35 pm Post subject: misleading and off topic |
|
|
Question? Is it the English teachers job to run the business for the owner?
No. As an employee you are entitled to PAID VACATION TIME. It is not the teachers responsability to arrange for a replacement, nor is it the teachers responsability to work a year without getting the vacation time he or she is entitled to.
As to Koreans not getting vacation time, who gives a rats ass? If they are stupid enough to slave away instead of standing up for themselves and demanding what is legally their right why should I care?
I'm amused at the fact that Gordo seems to think that the responsabiliy lies on the shoulders of the Foreign teacher. I am very amused that Gordo is still confusing days off with VACATION TIME, I had hoped he could tell he difference between the two by now.
If they have set school holidays in the year I have no problem with that as that would be listed upfront in the contract(hopefully). But what about the hogwans out there that dont have any set holidays during the year? My last contract was at a hogwan such as this. Their suggestion was that I take my vacation after I finished my contract 
How sweet....the ramblings you rant on about that were not even in discussion. Every time you post you add in some other rant about how the colour of cheese is an issue when we are discussing vacation time.
You keep ranting on about how 5.5 workweeks if changed to a 5 day workweek would consume all holidays. WHAT HOLIDAY? It is simply a day off not a Holiday. Do you get paid for your Sunday off? NO!
As to not having a clue you are the one who is continuing to post about a day off is a vacation. 
What courts have upheld that? Whose government? Post a link or shaddup.
Insulting you is just a fringe benefit of reading your juvenile rants and replying in kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellofaniceguy
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: On your computer screen!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: misleading and off topic |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
As to Koreans not getting vacation time, who gives a rats ass? If they are stupid enough to slave away instead of standing up for themselves and demanding what is legally their right why should I care? |
All the responses to my original post all correct; subjective impressions, subject to interpretation.
Even the law as it is written is subjective. Hell, being in korea is subjective!
But as for koreana and the above quote....it's sad but true. I know many who slave away and for what....fill the hakwon owners pockets!??
Very few koreans will stand up for themselves. Very few. But look out if something is negative against the U.S.! Then the whole country jumps on the band wagon! Yet, quality of life issues...koreans just mumble and grumble, whin and cry behind the boss' back! Instead of to his/her face.
Why? I don't get it. If teachers just take a stand and follow through...the school owners will have no choice but to start being fair to all.
If you go to the labor office, you will also get different answers to the same question from different workers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: misleading and off topic |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| Question? Is it the English teachers job to run the business for the owner? |
Irrelevant to the conversation. A smokescreen question because you have been unable to address the facts.
| Quote: |
| No. As an employee you are entitled to PAID VACATION TIME. It is not the teachers responsability to arrange for a replacement, nor is it the teachers responsability to work a year without getting the vacation time he or she is entitled to. |
Again, you speak as though this is true. The law does not say the employee must provide a replacement, but it also does not say that the employer must find one. It simply says "in case it might cause a serious impediment to the operation of the business to grant paid leave at a time when the worker requests" As I clearly demonstrated in my last message and of which you appear to agree with now by your decision to shift away to a position of "it's not the teacher's responsibility to find a replacement", failure to provide a native speaker to the students who have paid for one would likely be a serious impediment to the operation of the business.
As well, the law does not say that vacation time must be given in blocks. You continue to claim this to be a fact and have ignored my requests that you provide legal evidence in support of this claimed fact. The law clearly states that it can be requested, but that it does not have to be granted if it would be a serious issue to the employer. Plus it's something negociated away when agreeing to a five day work week anyway.
If you disagree with these facts, please provide information to support this rather than empty claims which are already proven false by the laws provided in this thread.
| Quote: |
| As to Koreans not getting vacation time, who gives a rats ass? If they are stupid enough to slave away instead of standing up for themselves and demanding what is legally their right why should I care? |
Because you are claiming that the laws support your claims, yet are unable or unwilling to provide a single example while I have clearly shown how the law applies to both Korean and foreign workers.
| Quote: |
| I'm amused at the fact that Gordo seems to think that the responsabiliy lies on the shoulders of the Foreign teacher. I am very amused that Gordo is still confusing days off with VACATION TIME, I had hoped he could tell he difference between the two by now. |
In the eyes of the law, there is no difference. Employers are simply required to give X number of days of paid leave. And if you read the Labor Standards Act, you will clearly see that it addresses "days of paid leave" instead of this illusion of "vacation time" that must be given in block shifts.
Again, you've ignored my requests to provide links to any information that supports your claims that vacation must be given in blocks or that days off not given in blocks does not apply towards the annual paid days off.
| Quote: |
| If they have set school holidays in the year I have no problem with that as that would be listed upfront in the contract(hopefully). But what about the hogwans out there that dont have any set holidays during the year? My last contract was at a hogwan such as this. Their suggestion was that I take my vacation after I finished my contract |
Acceptable under the law, which this conversation was about. By an employer requesting a 5-day work week in the contract, the employee in accepting that is viewed as requesting their annual paid days off to be given one day at a time which is acceptable before law (the Labor Standards Act, section 59) despite your claims to the contrary which have been unsupported by any documentation.
With regards to any extra vacation time above the government mandated minimum which was not the original discussion, that is up to you to settle with your employer as to when you would take it. There is no law that says they must provide it when you request, only a contract agreement they provide it to you at some point during the year in which case taking it at the end of the contracted period would be fine.
Double plus irony that you would move away from government mandated minimum paid days off to negociated extra days off right before accusing me of moving off-topic and introducing unrelated statements, as seen in the next quote:
| Quote: |
| How sweet....the ramblings you rant on about that were not even in discussion. Every time you post you add in some other rant about how the colour of cheese is an issue when we are discussing vacation time. |
Attempts to summarize how the law works have only encouraged you to try and make grand claims to new facts. My explaining things in great detail while citing large chunks of the law were required to soundly demonstrate most everything you have said is false. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to ignore what I post and do nothing more than make things up as you go along.
| Quote: |
| You keep ranting on about how 5.5 workweeks if changed to a 5 day workweek would consume all holidays. WHAT HOLIDAY? It is simply a day off not a Holiday. Do you get paid for your Sunday off? NO! |
Do I get paid for my Sunday off? Well, yes. Anyone with a full time job does. The way a full-time salary job works in Korea is that everyone works every day before substracting one day a week, one extra day a month worked, and 10/15 extra days that may be used at the end of a year (for companies of less than 1000 workers. For larger companies with 1000+ employees that are mandated by government to have a 5 day work-week, employees who use a monthly paid day off has that day substracted from the 15 days total annual leave while not having to wait until the first year is complete to use). This was covered earlier in the thread and clearly explained in section 59 of the Labor Standards Act.
Though this doesn't matter as the 10/15 days of vacation time isn't a legal requirement until the second working year. It isn't something that must be given in the first year, but is time off as a reward upon completing the first year. So much effort you put into something you don't actually understand.
| Quote: |
| As to not having a clue you are the one who is continuing to post about a day off is a vacation. |
I'm just pointing out that the law clearly states X number of paid days leave must be given. Your claims of "a vacation" are a work of fiction not supported by the law, despite my repeated requests you cite a law that says it is.
| Quote: |
| What courts have upheld that? Whose government? Post a link or shaddup. |
Double plus irony that you demand I post links for the only thing I haven't posted links to while you have ignored my repeated requests you post links to claims made in contrast to the laws I have linked to.
| Quote: |
| Insulting you is just a fringe benefit of reading your juvenile rants and replying in kind. |
Juvenile? I was unaware linking to the law and clearly explaining how it worked while requesting you cease your poor insult efforts directed at me qualified as juvenile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:19 pm Post subject: yawn |
|
|
First I have never said the vacation must be given in blocks. An ass-u-mption on your part.
A serious impedement.....again it is up to an employer to find replacements for staff who is going on a vacation.
The law also doesnt say you cannot have your vacation time in blocks. What does that have to do with anything? Your twisted interpretation is assinine!
Look up the labor laws at no time does a contract supercede the laws of Korea. Korean law has precedence, if your contract violates that law the section violating it becomes null and void! You dont sign away your legal rights when you sign a contract that is violation of the law.
Again many Koreans dont stand up for their rights under the law. Does this mean that I should lay down and be a doormat as well?
Yah yah yah x amount of paid days of leave...no where does it say blocks or single days. It just says at the employees request.
| Quote: |
| Acceptable under the law, which this conversation was about. By an employer requesting a 5-day work week in the contract, the employee in accepting that is viewed as requesting their annual paid days off to be given one day at a time which is acceptable before law (the Labor Standards Act, section 59) despite your claims to the contrary which have been unsupported by any documentation |
| Quote: |
How is them telling me to take my vacation time after the contract applicable? The vacation time is to be taken during the year. The labor laws state that it cannot be saved over and accumulated.
You get paid for your Sunday off? Bullshyte! My contract stated30 hours per week between Monday to Friday. I did not get paid for Saturdays or Sundays and neither do any other workers that have M-F written in their contracts. Once again an ignorant assumption on your part.
Well you have changed your tune, previously in this thread you have incorrectly stated that the half day off on Saturday was the vacation time you were entitled to. You continue to confuse mandatory time off with paid time off.
Your attempts to continually condescend to your betters is tiresome at best. I still suggest you crawl back to your comic book/gam store and attempt to feel superior to the teenagers who are obviously your intellectual superiors. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:23 pm Post subject: take a look at your original thread |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| calypso wrote: |
| Schools are required to provide 10 days of vacation by Korean law. |
No.
They are required to give a minimum of 24 days off, which they are doing by the simple act of having a 5 day work week.
Any additional time off, such as the six days offered here, is above the government mandated minimum. |
Days off are not vacation/holiday time. Days off are without pay and holidays are with pay. I hope this clarifies the whole process for you.
In your statement here you are contradicting your further threads.....so in a year a worker is only entitled to 24 days off a year? Less than one day off every two weeks?
Doesnt the labor board state that all workers must be given one day off out of every seven?
Your original incorrect post is the start of all this and you are continuing to argue your erroneous stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: yawn |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| First I have never said the vacation must be given in blocks. An ass-u-mption on your part. |
You just said that single days off don't count as vacation days, to which I noted that the law states that it only counts the number of paid days off and not vacation days which you cite as needing to be multiple days off together.
| Quote: |
| A serious impedement.....again it is up to an employer to find replacements for staff who is going on a vacation. |
Can you please cite the law that requires this?
| Quote: |
| The law also doesnt say you cannot have your vacation time in blocks. What does that have to do with anything? Your twisted interpretation is assinine! |
You were the one saying that individual days off do not count towards the magical number of vacation days that must be given. So now that you accept that you were wrong, you attack me still?
| Quote: |
| Look up the labor laws at no time does a contract supercede the laws of Korea. Korean law has precedence, if your contract violates that law the section violating it becomes null and void! You dont sign away your legal rights when you sign a contract that is violation of the law. |
Great. I agree. However it's not illegal to agree to having one's holidays spread over the entire year.
If you disagree, please cite the law the law that says it is.
| Quote: |
| Again many Koreans dont stand up for their rights under the law. Does this mean that I should lay down and be a doormat as well? |
That's lovely, but you are yet to establish that any rights have been trampled. You've said they are, but the laws quoted in this thread are uniform in contradicting your claims. If you feel that any rights are being trampled by having a five day work week, please cite the laws in question.
| Quote: |
| Yah yah yah x amount of paid days of leave...no where does it say blocks or single days. It just says at the employees request. |
Employee request if it can be done without serious impediment to the business, please do not try and change how the law works. Further, you are (again) ignoring that by agreeing to a five day work week when starting the contract than lawfully and legally it is recognized that the employee has requested the days off be spread over the entire year.
If you disagree with this, please cite the law that makes it illegal.
| Quote: |
| How is them telling me to take my vacation time after the contract applicable? The vacation time is to be taken during the year. The labor laws state that it cannot be saved over and accumulated. |
Actually, if you read the law, it says that the yearly allotted overtime of 10/15 days is intended used in the second year and does not expire until the day 1 of the third year. Employers may let employees use the annually collected days off during the first year at the employers discretion, but legally they are not required to do that until the start of the second year.
Legally, if an employee chooses to work only one year, earns their annual holiday time, and then quits on the first day of the second year, then they are choosing to forfeit their annual paid days off. All very clearly explained in section 59 (section 3 I believe).
Think of it this way: In Canada, new employees get a 4% vacation allowance. Or in short, 2 weeks off a year. Now if an employee works six months and takes a vacation, they have only earned 1 week off. They still get two weeks off, but not until the first year has been completed. Same model, but three months in, they have earned 2.5 days of pay. Only in Korea, this number doesn't get credited to the employee until they have completed the year instead of a running total that builds up.
If you disagree with article 59 of the Labor Standards Act, please cite the law that clearly states that annually compiled vacation time must be taken in the year being worked.
| Quote: |
| You get paid for your Sunday off? Bullshyte! My contract stated30 hours per week between Monday to Friday. I did not get paid for Saturdays or Sundays and neither do any other workers that have M-F written in their contracts. Once again an ignorant assumption on your part |
.
You are shifting from minimum number of days off to contractally agreed to work days. Just like the law states that minimum wage is 2,200 Won an hour but you agree to work for much more. If you agree to work for eleventy bazillion won a month and instead they pay you 10,000 Won an hour, it's a contract violation and not a Labor Standards Act violation. Plesae do not introduce contract violations as being Labor Standards Act violation to bolster you empty claims.
Article 59 clearly states you are being given a monthly wage and that you are being credited as though you were working every day of the week. As the vacation time unfolds, you must be given one day off per week without being docked in pay, as well as the monthly and annually complied days off. As you only working 5 days off puts you above the minimum number of annual days off as required by law, there is no Labor Standard Act violation.
And we are talking about what qualifies as a Labor Standards Act violations and nothing more.
| Quote: |
| Well you have changed your tune, previously in this thread you have incorrectly stated that the half day off on Saturday was the vacation time you were entitled to. You continue to confuse mandatory time off with paid time off. |
Mandatory time off = paid time off as discussed in this thread. I simply noted that by crediting the unworked time on Saturdays, it places an employee above the minimum number of paid days off and do not place the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act.
| Quote: |
| Your attempts to continually condescend to your betters is tiresome at best. I still suggest you crawl back to your comic book/gam store and attempt to feel superior to the teenagers who are obviously your intellectual superiors. |
Condascending? I have simply brought your attention to how your stated opinions were incorrect and cited the law for you to read. Correcting you does not mean I am being condascending despite how you may read it. You have already changed half of your opinions and beliefs without thanking me, while the other half that remain you refuse to substantiate with any support while suggesting that my links to the law are actually incorrect and trumpted by other laws elsewhere which you refuse to cite.
If you want me to be condescending, that can be arranged though I would rather not. I know who you are, where you work, where you live, and will probably run into you at a social event run by a mutual friend of ours in the future so I am simply being blunt (and possibly tactless), but not condescending.
I am making you a better man, and damn it, when you meet me in person you are going to think "Gosh, I like Gord, he made me a better man. He made me actually look into reading how things work instead of listening to the false myths of others. I will never forget him and wish that everyone I knew was as enlightening as he."
Last edited by Gord on Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if those who cite the Labor Standards Act: (a) are citing from the most recent version (pro tip: publication of English translations lags behind amendments to the laws themselves, which are, of course, available for perusal in Korean); and (b) bother to review the Enforcement Decrees/Regulations, which detail how the Labor Standards Act provisions are to be interpreted and applied in various situations.
Not that anything anyone posting has said is necessarily incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would like to have a look at how Korean courts have interpreted the Labour Standards Act. Especially the "detrimental to employer" part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: Re: yawn |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| First I have never said the vacation must be given in blocks. An ass-u-mption on your part. |
| Quote: |
| You just said that single days off don't count as vacation days, to which I noted that the law states that it only counts the number of paid days off and not vacation days which you cite as needing to be multiple days off together. |
Actually butmunch I said that unpaid days do not count towards vacation days. I also said that your regular days off do not count towards your vacation time. Which you continue to disagree with
| Quote: |
| A serious impedement.....again it is up to an employer to find replacements for staff who is going on a vacation. |
| Quote: |
| Can you please cite the law that requires this? |
Can you cite the law that does not require this?
| Quote: |
| The law also doesnt say you cannot have your vacation time in blocks. What does that have to do with anything? Your twisted interpretation is assinine! |
| Quote: |
| You were the one saying that individual days off do not count towards the magical number of vacation days that must be given. So now that you accept that you were wrong, you attack me still? |
I never said that taking a vacation day here or there does not count. What I said is that your regular days off do not count as you keep saying they do which is just stupid. You continue to blend sections (working hours), (monthly leave with pay) and (annual leave with pay) together muddying the waters.
| Quote: |
| Look up the labor laws at no time does a contract supercede the laws of Korea. Korean law has precedence, if your contract violates that law the section violating it becomes null and void! You dont sign away your legal rights when you sign a contract that is violation of the law. |
| Quote: |
| Great. I agree. However it's not illegal to agree to having one's holidays spread over the entire year. |
Never said I disagreed! You can have your holidays spread whenever or wherever you like.
| Quote: |
| If you disagree, please cite the law the law that says it is. |
| Quote: |
| Again many Koreans dont stand up for their rights under the law. Does this mean that I should lay down and be a doormat as well? |
| Quote: |
| That's lovely, but you are yet to establish that any rights have been trampled. You've said they are, but the laws quoted in this thread are uniform in contradicting your claims. If you feel that any rights are being trampled by having a five day work week, please cite the laws in question. |
I never said any rights were being trampled by working a 5 day work week. But if an employee is not given the additional time off every year for vacation time whether it be in blocks or the occasional long weekend it does violate Korean labour laws. It is called annual paid leave and is in addition to statutory holidays and regular days off. The labour laws do state that the time off will be given 'at a time when the worker requests' article 49 section 3.
| Quote: |
| Yah yah yah x amount of paid days of leave...no where does it say blocks or single days. It just says at the employees request. |
| Quote: |
| Employee request if it can be done without serious impediment to the business, please do not try and change how the law works. Further, you are (again) ignoring that by agreeing to a five day work week when starting the contract than lawfully and legally it is recognized that the employee has requested the days off be spread over the entire year. |
Where does it say the employee has requested the days off be spread over the year? Where? I do disagree with this and how about you cite the law that makes it legal! Do not confuse working hours with annual leave they are not the same. Again you combine Working Hours with Annual paid leave. They are seperate!
| Quote: |
| If you disagree with this, please cite the law that makes it illegal. |
Sections dealing with working hours, monthly leave with pay and annual leave with pay can clarify this for you.
| Quote: |
| How is them telling me to take my vacation time after the contract applicable? The vacation time is to be taken during the year. The labor laws state that it cannot be saved over and accumulated. |
| Quote: |
| Actually, if you read the law, it says that the yearly allotted overtime of 10/15 days is intended used in the second year and does not expire until the day 1 of the third year. Employers may let employees use the annually collected days off during the first year at the employers discretion, but legally they are not required to do that until the start of the second year. |
Thats nice and totally unapplicable to someone with a one year contract. My contract makes provision for me to take my annual leave after completing 6 months.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Legally, if an employee chooses to work only one year, earns their annual holiday time, and then quits on the first day of the second year, then they are choosing to forfeit their annual paid days off. All very clearly explained in section 59 (section 3 I believe). |
Think of it this way: In Canada, new employees get a 4% vacation allowance. Or in short, 2 weeks off a year. Now if an employee works six months and takes a vacation, they have only earned 1 week off. They still get two weeks off, but not until the first year has been completed. Same model, but three months in, they have earned 2.5 days of pay. Only in Korea, this number doesn't get credited to the employee until they have completed the year instead of a running total that builds up.
If you disagree with article 59 of the Labor Standards Act, please cite the law that clearly states that annually compiled vacation time must be taken in the year being worked. |
Which is why we have our holidays written into our contracts. It seems redundant to have vacation time once you no longer work for a company!
| Quote: |
| You get paid for your Sunday off? Bullshyte! My contract stated30 hours per week between Monday to Friday. I did not get paid for Saturdays or Sundays and neither do any other workers that have M-F written in their contracts. Once again an ignorant assumption on your part |
.
| Quote: |
You are shifting from minimum number of days off to contractally agreed to work days. Just like the law states that minimum wage is 2,200 Won an hour but you agree to work for much more. If you agree to work for eleventy bazillion won a month and instead they pay you 10,000 Won an hour, it's a contract violation and not a Labor Standards Act violation. Plesae do not introduce contract violations as being Labor Standards Act violation to bolster you empty claims.
Article 59 clearly states you are being given a monthly wage and that you are being credited as though you were working every day of the week. As the vacation time unfolds, you must be given one day off per week without being docked in pay, as well as the monthly and annually complied days off. As you only working 5 days off puts you above the minimum number of annual days off as required by law, there is no Labor Standard Act violation.
And we are talking about what qualifies as a Labor Standards Act violations and nothing more. |
Article 59 states I am getting a monthly wage? Strange I didnt even see my name in there! You are still mixing working hours, monthly leave and annual leave all together in one pot. Stop doing this.
| Quote: |
| Well you have changed your tune, previously in this thread you have incorrectly stated that the half day off on Saturday was the vacation time you were entitled to. You continue to confuse mandatory time off with paid time off. |
| Quote: |
| Mandatory time off = paid time off as discussed in this thread. I simply noted that by crediting the unworked time on Saturdays, it places an employee above the minimum number of paid days off and do not place the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act. |
Sigh listen closely if you work half a day it is not a day off, you still worked that day! Do not claim that you got a 1/2 day off. There is no such thing. A day is 24 hours, if you work during that 24 hours you worked, period! Or do you also claim that in a regular day you got 2/3 of a day off? Well then no one would ever need time off they could work forever hell they get 2/3 of a year off 
| Quote: |
| Your attempts to continually condescend to your betters is tiresome at best. I still suggest you crawl back to your comic book/gam store and attempt to feel superior to the teenagers who are obviously your intellectual superiors. |
| Quote: |
| Condascending? I have simply brought your attention to how your stated opinions were incorrect and cited the law for you to read. Correcting you does not mean I am being condascending despite how you may read it. You have already changed half of your opinions and beliefs without thanking me, while the other half that remain you refuse to substantiate with any support while suggesting that my links to the law are actually incorrect and trumpted by other laws elsewhere which you refuse to cite |
.
Poor Gord, how can an opinion be incorrect? Opinions are never incorrect, misinformed, biased, bigoted or stupid okay but an opinion is never incorrect. Main Entry: opin��ion
Pronunciation: 0-'pin-yun
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin��ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
I know you have trouble with some of your words...working in a gaming store must have been so intellectually stimulating.
You dont know who I am, where I work, where I live. Yet more erroneous thoughts.
If you want me to be condescending, that can be arranged though I would rather not. I know who you are, where you work, where you live, and will probably run into you at a social event run by a mutual friend of ours in the future so I am simply being blunt (and possibly tactless), but not condescending.
I am making you a better man, and damn it, when you meet me in person you are going to think "Gosh, I like Gord, he made me a better man. He made me actually look into reading how things work instead of listening to the false myths of others. I will never forget him and wish that everyone I knew was as enlightening as he." |
| Quote: |
If we ever meet in person I will probably go damn, he's as much a pain in the ass in person as he is online..maybe not though. Perhaps I have dug more into this than I had before, but that was just to contradict you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dalton
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Annual paid leave. That's the ticket. I no longer have a copy of the translated Korean Labour Laws but I believe that was the clause for 10 paid vacation days per year. They don't have to be in a block. That's why every contract I've ever seen in Korea offers 10 paid vacation days. The slimey guys try to include weekends but the 10 paid vacation days must fall on days that you normally work. You don't work Saturdays then Saturday can't be a paid vacation day. Especially if not working Saturdays is specified in your contract .
Unless the Korean Labour Laws have been changed or were grossly misinterpreted then that is the law otherwise who gives a crap. I'm not signing a contract here without 10 paid vacation days because that's what they all say. There is a reason for that.
Only YBM has 10 unpaid vacation days in their contract (that I know of). 6 paid vacation days is better than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: yawn |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| Actually butmunch I said that unpaid days do not count towards vacation days. I also said that your regular days off do not count towards your vacation time. Which you continue to disagree with |
You failed to cite the law that says regular days off do not count towards one's vacation time. Though not surprising because Korean law states a minimum number of days off must be given rather than a time off based on percentage worked which is common in the west.
Since you have been unwilling or unable to cite the law that supports your opinion, we must conclude that your statements are either incorrect or simply deceptive.
| Quote: |
| Can you cite the law that does not require this? |
No, I cannot. There is no law that says an employer must not provide an employee to cover for another employee who is on a vacation.
Since you have been unwilling or unable to cite the law that supports your opinion, we must conclude that your statements are either incorrect or simply deceptive.
| Quote: |
| I never said that taking a vacation day here or there does not count. What I said is that your regular days off do not count as you keep saying they do which is just stupid. You continue to blend sections (working hours), (monthly leave with pay) and (annual leave with pay) together muddying the waters. |
Such days are allowed to be blended together and used in various patterns ranging from giant block shifts to reduced work weeks.
Since you have been unwilling or unable to cite the law that supports your opinion, we must conclude that your statements are either incorrect or simply deceptive.
| Quote: |
| Never said I disagreed! You can have your holidays spread whenever or wherever you like. |
Your stated position was that a paid day off did not count towards accumlated vacation days, which is a falacy. Repeated requests for you to cite the law that states agreeing with your statements were ignored, and now you agree that it was a falacy. Now do you feel better when you tell the truth?
| Quote: |
| I never said any rights were being trampled by working a 5 day work week. But if an employee is not given the additional time off every year for vacation time whether it be in blocks or the occasional long weekend it does violate Korean labour laws. It is called annual paid leave and is in addition to statutory holidays and regular days off. The labour laws do state that the time off will be given 'at a time when the worker requests' article 49 section 3. |
That's odd, article 49 only has two sections.
Perhaps you meant article 59 section 3. But you continue to ignore the last part of the law when citing it. Yes, it says the employer shall grant paid leave when requested by the employee, but it also says "however, the period concerned my altered, if it would be a serious impediment to the operation of the business to grant a leave(s) with pay at a time when the worker requests."
You can't use the law as a shield to defend your position while ignoring the parts of the same law that contradict your position. I've brought this to your attention now on multiple occasions. I suspect you are bright enough to understand what it says, so I must question why you are attempting to be so deceptive? Why does it pain you so just to admit you were wrong? Do you enjoy being embarrassed like this?
| Quote: |
Where does it say the employee has requested the days off be spread over the year? Where? I do disagree with this and how about you cite the law that makes it legal! Do not confuse working hours with annual leave they are not the same. Again you combine Working Hours with Annual paid leave. They are seperate! |
There is no law that says the days off must be spread though the entire year, much in the same way there is no law that says the days off must be compacted together. Though again I see you chose to simply attack me and failed to support your claims and cite the laws you say do exist. Not surprising, since nearly everything you've written has been a work of unsubstantiated fiction.
I agree that working hours and annual paid leave are not the same. One you get paid for working, one you get paid for not working. I don't believe this was even discussed before you suddenly rallied to this accused issue.
But since you have again failed to cite any actual laws that support your stated opinion, we are forced to accept that you concede to my position.
| Quote: |
| Sections dealing with working hours, monthly leave with pay and annual leave with pay can clarify this for you. |
That's the problem. We've read the sections, and I've posted large chunk of them. I've gone out of my way to explain how it works.
Yet all you've done is quote half of one article that you say supports your position while then ignoring the other half the completely contradicts your position.
If you wish to discuss the issue further, you're going to have to tell us specifically what article and sections apply, and you are going to have to stop ignoring the parts you don't like. And please, no more "la la la, I can't read that second part of the law section says I am wrong, la la la". It only embarrasses you and further erodes what people think of you on this forum. Though technically, it is my understanding that most people believe you are compulsive liar anyway which was why you changed your user name. I don't know if it's true that you are a complusive liar, but your actions in this thread to declare that laws exist which don't coupled with your decision to pull stunts like quoting half a law that supports you while ignoring the second half that removes that support certainly lends support to the ideas put forth you are a compulsive liar.
Please, don't be a compulsive liar. Stop inventing new laws you hope do exist and stop quoting laws while ignoring their qualification sections.
| Quote: |
| Thats nice and totally unapplicable to someone with a one year contract. My contract makes provision for me to take my annual leave after completing 6 months. |
Great, your CONTRACT gives you vacation time. So what? Your contract also gives you a very nice salary (I know I'm very well paid for my academic high school classes) while the government minimum is 2,200 Won an hour. The law does not say an employer can not give you more time off than the minimum required by law.
However, we are discussing government minimums. The law clearly states that the annual paid leave only becomes a legal requirement after the first year. If a person quits after the first year, then they are out of luck.
Please stop citing your contractually agreed to conditions as being at all relevant to what the law says.
| Quote: |
| Which is why we have our holidays written into our contracts. It seems redundant to have vacation time once you no longer work for a company! |
Contact agreements have NOTHING to do with what the law says. A contract says a person gets vacation time above the government mandated minimum? Well, great. Rock on. Why do you cling to this as though it matters in the slightest. It doesn't suddenly change the government mandated minimums.
Though if a person should not get any extra vacation time beyond the weekly/monthly/stat days off, then I guess one should think about that before quitting after one year and allowing their unused annual vacation time to be lost.
Not that it matters as the paid time off has been already been given to the English teachers who were working a 5 day work week during the year.
Valiant try on the attempt to divert the discussion though.
| Quote: |
| Article 59 states I am getting a monthly wage? Strange I didnt even see my name in there! You are still mixing working hours, monthly leave and annual leave all together in one pot. Stop doing this. |
Oh, you got me! I made a grammar mistake and left out "when" in "Article 59 clearly states when you...". This mistake has completely nullified my entire point that I was trying to make with regards to how weekly, monthly, and annually days off can be spread about through the entire year rather than compacted together. Zing! Well, that's it for me. I lost. It's fortunate that I made such a mistake when I did because so far in this little conversation you've been getting murdered with your complete misunderstanding of how the law works coupled with your decision to just make things up.
I have been defeated! How will I ever live this shame down? The facts of law where on my side! I had it all! But I lost because I made a grammar mistake.
Oh, wait, wait. Earlier when you cited section 49 instead of section 59, that too was a mistake. But instead I simply went with what you intended to say. Oh joy! We will now do the same here! Rock on! Victory is mine, snatched from the jaws of defeat! No defeat due to a grammar mistake this time!
Though I am still amused that you cite the annual days off to be counted which aren't even a legal requirement for employees in their first year.
| Quote: |
| Sigh listen closely if you work half a day it is not a day off, you still worked that day! Do not claim that you got a 1/2 day off. There is no such thing. A day is 24 hours, if you work during that 24 hours you worked, period! Or do you also claim that in a regular day you got 2/3 of a day off? Well then no one would ever need time off they could work forever hell they get 2/3 of a year off |
Section 49 and section 50 of the Labour Standard Act address this, had you actually read them before going off on saying how the law doesn't actually address your claims. That being a working limit of 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week, as well as a base week comprising of 44 working hours at 8 hours a week.
Again, I see you have chosen to simply declare what the law is without actually reading it or citing it.
| Quote: |
| Poor Gord, how can an opinion be incorrect? Opinions are never incorrect, misinformed, biased, bigoted or stupid okay but an opinion is never incorrect. |
Anecdotal evidence in this thread suggests that opinions can in fact be incorrect.
| Quote: |
| I know you have trouble with some of your words...working in a gaming store must have been so intellectually stimulating. |
Holy crap, I ran a game store as an investment a couple years back after I left my job at IBM doing financial network installations because I thought it would be a good investment. Now I do mostly government work in Asia while having declined jobs from other companies such as Microsoft and EA.
You're right, I'm just a 350 pound fat bastard living in my parents' basement. Running a game store was the high point of my life and all that I will ever accomplish. Everything I do is downhill from here on in. You win, you got me. Wait, even that is a lie. I didn't even finish high school, have never held a job, and I really weigh 425 pounds. I am less than nothing.
Or according to my resume:
I'm a fat bastard tipping the scales at who the hell knows because Asian scales don't go that high. I've got so many chins that I decided to move to China. Why China? Because of all the chins I have. I've hired an agent to book me for TV gigs and media appearances. "Come see the man and together we will count and see if he really does have more chins than a Chinese phonebook!". I figure I'll start in the smaller towns to build up suspence towards the larger cities when there are more Chins in the phonebook. I've also tossed out the idea of doing a lottery based on that as well.
| Quote: |
| You dont know who I am, where I work, where I live. Yet more erroneous thoughts |
You're right, I just make this stuff up.
Bonus info: Your job was actually offered to me first as I am already doing work a girl's academic high school, but I didn't want to accept as I rather like where I live now so the commute would have been a bit high, as well I didn't want to cut any of the classes at my the academic high school to do the schedule at your school. Plus it would have occasionally conflicted with my morning work at the government office. Though I'm told that they wish to meet with me in January to work out a schedule starting in March. Probably not the same school though as I requested to work at one closer to where I live.
| Quote: |
| If we ever meet in person I will probably go damn, he's as much a pain in the ass in person as he is online..maybe not though. Perhaps I have dug more into this than I had before, but that was just to contradict you. |
It will be the best Christmas ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:05 pm Post subject: you are a donkey |
|
|
As per your original post Gord...You stated that workers are only entitled to 24 days off per year. Let us clarify this. 44 hours a week at 8 hours a day with a half day on Saturday. 52 weeks in a year. That means a minimum of 52 days off a year.
Employees are entitled to x amount of days off per year. When they choose to take holidays they can request them. Yes if the boss claims serious impedement to the business he can ask the employee to reschedule them. HOWEVER if there is in actuallity no impedement to the business and the boss is being a dickhead, something like a poster on this thread, he would have to prove the impedement to a labour board arbitrator if the employee demanded action. That is in the labour board act.
ONE MORE TIME.....regular time off is not paid time off. These laws are in place to protect all workers, hourly, salary, and contractual. Do hourly workers get paid for their days off. NO! This is cited clearly in section 59 which you covet so dearly.
You are the one twisting the labour laws meanings to fit your own interpretation of them. By continuing to stick to your flawed perception you are just proving what a buttmunch you are.
Oh so neither of us can cite a law that says an employer is responsible for finding a replacement I am wrong and you are right Yeah right....
For the love of Pete read the labour laws, carefully closely. The days are only allowed to be used together with the consent of the employee. Even then the employee is entitled to request his holidays when and where they want them.
Since you are unable of unwilling to admit this I must conclude you have your head up your ass.
| Quote: |
| Your stated position was that a paid day off did not count towards accumlated vacation days, which is a falacy. Repeated requests for you to cite the law that states agreeing with your statements were ignored, and now you agree that it was a falacy. Now do you feel better when you tell the truth? |
Again another ass-u-mption on your part. Does a statutory holiday count towards your annual paid leave? No! It is only when the employee requests a day off that this is applicable. Your failure to provide a law that says that all days off are paid vacation times shows your inability to admit that you were wrong.
"however, the period concerned may be altered, if it would be a serious impediment to the operation of the business to grant a leave(s) with pay at a time when the worker requests."
Oh how you love to pull out the 'if's' If it causes a serious impedement. That does not give any business owner carte' blanche to refuse holidays without just cause.
Any embarrassment from this thread is yours. You continually quote this section trying to make it the end all. It is a clause that can be used but should only be used if there is an actual impedement.
From the start I have steadfastedly said that the employee has the right to request their vacation when they want it. If they want it in blocks, of spread throughout the year is up to the employee. Which is clearly stated in your coveted section 59.
Not surprisingly everything you have written has been twisted to favor the employers view. Trying to buffalo people into believing they do not have the right to vacation time. Your continued rant through all your postings on all the threads you pollute continues to favour the Hogwan owners. Why is that?
You have no position, we are for the most part arguing about the interpretation of the same labour laws. You claim that workers are only entitled to 24 days off a year and anything past that is gravy and I say bullshyte!
You couldnt explain how to get a tic-tac out of a box.
You say I have changed my user name? NOPE. Still the same Grotto I have been. I know you have changed your user name due to the amount of hate PM's you recieve. Your erroneous rants and adherence to assinine positions irritate even the most sane member here.
When you continue to lie in every post Gord. people just read your trolls roll thier eyes and say what a moron! You know who I am? Where I live? Where I work? They offered you my job?
Article 59, you keep quoting from section 3 while ommiting the other two sections of it. Employees can request time off when they want it. Section 3 yes if a SERIOUS IMPEDEMENT, do you understand serious impedement?however, the period concerned may be altered, if it would be a serious impediment to the operation of the business to grant a leave(s) with pay at a time when the worker requests.
Contracts are not irrelevant to the law.
Again your assinine assumption that people who work 5.5 days a week are paid for 6 full days is wrong. Talk to Koreans who work 6 days a week, even with a half day off they are not paid for the rest of the day. Therefore your continued insane claims that the vacation time is all used up on those half days is wrong, WRONG, WRONG  Nowhere in the law does it say that the half days use up all of your vacation time. Just another pathetic attempt of yours to twist the Labour Standards Act to fit your little twisted world. Pathetic 
My lack of knowledge of the law.....hmmm interesting....My knowledge and interpretation of the law is pretty good. Your interpretation of life, law, liberty and pretty much the world is a twisted evil travesty.
| Quote: |
| Section 49 and section 50 of the Labour Standard Act address this, had you actually read them before going off on saying how the law doesn't actually address your claims. That being a working limit of 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week, as well as a base week comprising of 44 working hours at 8 hours a week. |
Now who is taking one little peice of a section and twisting it again? In certain cases an employer can request employees to work extra hours for a short period of time not to exceed one month. Not at whim as you seem to think.
Opinions are like assholes as you have proven again, and again, and again. They are neither correct or incorrect, I had hoped you had read the definition, but maybe that was too much to ask.
| Quote: |
| Bonus info: Your job was actually offered to me first as I am already doing work a girl's academic high school, but I didn't want to accept as I rather like where I live now so the commute would have been a bit high, as well I didn't want to cut any of the classes at my the academic high school to do the schedule at your school. Plus it would have occasionally conflicted with my morning work at the government office. Though I'm told that they wish to meet with me in January to work out a schedule starting in March. Probably not the same school though as I requested to work at one closer to where I live. |
Pathetic lies, it must be sad to stroke your own ego like that. Doesnt your hand ever get tired? Oh I am sure that in your little world people are beating down your door throwing job offers your way and begging you to share your towering intellect with them. In truth you have always seemed to me a sad little boy who is in search of any attention he can find, whether it be negative or positive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
