| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Okay I am tired of this.....why dont you post the law that states it is illegal to talk about your workplace!
You always sit on your inbred ass and say prove it...prove it....why dont you prove it!
Come on put up or shut up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the eye
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
as an impartial bystander in this longstanding battle...
i can only say that the clause in question simply does not violate ANY laws.
Grotto...you said the clause about disclosure was ILLEGAL.
Gord challenged you...!
...if you can produce the text of the law it violates, do so. otherwise, retreat!
manipulating the argument does not help you.
Last edited by the eye on Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I stated already, there is no law that says that. However what we are discussing is a contractual agreement not to discuss the workplace. You say that a law is in place that prohibits this, I say that no such law exists. Please do not try to shift the goalposts.
You have refused or been unable to demonstrate that the law you claim exists does in fact exist.
If you didn't go around making things up, you wouldn't get called on making things up nearly as often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:15 am Post subject: ok |
|
|
fair enough:
| Quote: |
Article 6 (Prohibition of forced Labor)
An employer shall not force a worker to work against his own free will through the use of violence, intimidation, confinement, or any other means by which mental or physical freedom of workers might be unduly restricted. |
By not allowing a teacher to discuss the contract with the proper authorities you are forcing them to work and denying them their mental freedom to kvetch.
| Quote: |
Article 27 (Prohibition of Predetermination of Penalty for Breach-of- Contract)
An employer shall not enter into any contract in which a penalty or indemnity for possible damages caused by the breach of a contract concerned is predetermined. |
By stating the employee is responsible for all possible damages definately violates this section.
| Quote: |
Article 30 (Restriction on Dismissal, etc.)
(1) An employer shall, without justifiable cause, not dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer a worker, or reduce wages, or take other punitive measures against a worker |
There is no process to decide justifiable cause in the section of the ocntract. That is up to a court to decide not the employer!
| Quote: |
Article 32 (Advance Notice of Dismissal)
(1) When an employer intends to dismiss workers (including dismissal for administrative reason), he shall give the worker a notice of dismissal at least thirty days in advance of such dismissal, and if the employer fails to give such advance notice, he shall pay that worker the ordinary wages for not less than thirty days: Provided that this shall not apply where a natural disaster, calamity or other unavoidable circumstances prevent the continuance of the business concerned or where the worker concerned has, on purpose, caused a considerable hindrance to the business or inflicted any damage to property and it falls under any cause determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. |
Again it falls under jurisdiction other than the employers.
| Quote: |
CHAPTER IX RULES OF EMPLOYMENT
10. Matters pertaining to award and punishment; and |
The power to decide beforehand just does not rest with the employer.
The hogwan does not have the power to decide beforehand what punitive actions will be taken. That power rests solely in the hands of the proper authorities.
Oh yes and gord if you dont know the difference between a 'non disclosure agreement' and the crap in that contract I cant be bothered to continue to educate you! Look it up yourself! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:09 am Post subject: Re: ok |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| Article 6 (Prohibition of forced Labor) |
Does not apply to agreeing to not discuss things outside of work but rather actions related to forced employment (i.e. Work or we'll beat you).
| Quote: |
| Article 27 (Prohibition of Predetermination of Penalty for Breach-of- Contract) |
That refers to a cash punishment for a perscribed action. "hitting a student will result in a $50 salary reduction". Does not apply to recovery of costs due to losses created by the employee due to failure to maintain their contractual agreements. Apples and oranges.
| Quote: |
| Article 30 (Restriction on Dismissal, etc.) |
Violation of a specific contract clause that causes serious losses to the company is viewed as being a justifiable cause in terminating employment.
| Quote: |
| Article 32 (Advance Notice of Dismissal) |
The article cleary says, and you quoted, this shall not apply (...) where the worker concerned has, on purpose, caused a considerable hindrance to the business. Violating a contract clause to not discuss a business operation and this causes the school to begin losing money would fall under this.
| Quote: |
| CHAPTER IX RULES OF EMPLOYMENT |
As noted before, it refers to preset cash penalties for actions that cause harm to the company regardless of the actual damages.
| Quote: |
| Oh yes and gord if you dont know the difference between a 'non disclosure agreement' and the crap in that contract I cant be bothered to continue to educate you! Look it up yourself! |
A non-disclosure agreement and agreeing not to discuss business operations with outside parties are two of the same.
Anything else you wish to incorrectly cite as supporting your work of fiction? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
____________________ a corporation according to the laws of the State of ___________, having an address of ________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as "Recipient"), in consideration of receiving information regarding an idea entitled "_____________________________" (hereinafter referred to as the "Idea"), for the purpose of _________________, and _____________________, having an address of _______________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), hereby agree that:
1. Recipient will maintain the information concerning the Idea obtained from Owner in strict confidence.
2. Recipient will not disclose the Idea to anyone other to its employees.
3. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, Recipient shall not be liable for use, release or disclosure of any information that:
a) is required by judicial action after all available legal remedies to maintain the information in secret have been exhausted;
b) is known to Recipient prior to the disclosure to Recipient by Owner;
c) is independently developed by Recipient or one of its divisions of groups without any breach of this agreement; or
d) is approved by Owner for use or public release.
4. Nothing herein shall in any way affect the respective rights of either party under the patent, trademark and copyrights laws of any country.
5. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for one (1) year from the date set forth below.
6. The undersigned has the authority to execute this Agreement to hold confidential on behalf of himself and on behalf of Recipient.
The rights and duties of either party under this Agreement may not be assigned or delegated without the written consent of the other party. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Texas.
Owner
Date:
ACCEPTED BY RECIPIENT:
By:
Date:
This is an agreement of non disclosure.
The following is not!
11. DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
1) The instructor shall not disclose any of the contents of this agreement, including salary, to a third party (including other employees of the school).
2) The instructor shall not disclose any information relating to the contents of lecturers and business operation of the School without prior permission of the School. Violation of this portion of the contract will cause the Instructor to be responsible to compensate the School for all possible losses suffered by the School.
As I said in my original post the contract itself is illegal due to the specific laws I quoted. The Duty of confidentiality peice of crap is much like you...foul, dirty, and distasteful.
As I said in all of my posts the school does not get to decide whether or not the instructor is lible, nor do they get to state damages as I pointed out and posted proper parts of the applicable labor laws. But you just keep doing the same old shit time and time again. Get a new MO you fucking LOSER! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
This is an agreement of non disclosure.
The following is not!
11. DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY: |
Non-disclosure agreement = confidentiality agreement = duty of confidentiality = duty of non-disclosure. It's just an agreement not to discuss something. This is all basic business contract law.
| Quote: |
| As I said in my original post the contract itself is illegal due to the specific laws I quoted. The Duty of confidentiality peice of crap is much like you...foul, dirty, and distasteful. |
You cited a bunch of random laws that were not supportive of your stated position, and one that actually countered your stated position. Regardless of what you think of a "Duty of confidentiality" condition, it's legal.
| Quote: |
| As I said in all of my posts the school does not get to decide whether or not the instructor is lible, nor do they get to state damages as I pointed out and posted proper parts of the applicable labor laws. But you just keep doing the same old *beep* time and time again. Get a new MO you *beep* LOSER! |
You say a lot of things. The problem is that much of the legal positions you cite are wrong, be it you misunderstood what was said by others or flat-out creative writing. And when you get challenged on it, you start tossing out unrelated laws in the desparate hope that either people won't read quoted support pieces to see that they do not apply or that you hope by tossing out sheer amounts of quotes coupled with insults that you will in effect shout a person out.
I am also curious why you are mad at me for calling you on your works of fiction yet feel no guilt in knowing that you ae lying to others and that others may end up suffering financial harm due to your false words.
If you are really tired of my MO, then simply stop posting works of fiction as truths that if someone believes to be true will cause them harm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
once again why dont you post a law saying that it is legal....you claim the duty of confidentiality is legal. I say it is not. I have posted labor laws that state the labor inspector is the one to assess penalties and to decide whether or not the infringement is a violation of the contract.
put up or shut up 
The entire contract is illegal due to the two major reasons I accurately pointed out and cited. Now crawl back under your rock and hide from the light of day once again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
margaret
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Justagirl--I'm interested in working for your school but will not be ready to go back to Korea until March. Please let me know if your school will be needing someone then.
Thanks,
Margaret |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Legal" != "statutory".
Gord is correct. Parties contract among themselves all the time to keep this, that, or the other thing confidential. It's perfectly legal and acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the eye
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
agreed.
the clause IS a primitive confidentiality agreement.
nothing unlawful about it.
sorry, grotto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if anyone had bothered to look closely at the Agreement of Disclosure you will notice that there is an exemption for legal actions. It is not a violation of the agreement to contact the proper authorities nor is it a violation to give evidence against the employer.
In the crappy hogwan contract there is no provision for this.
By denying an employee the right to contact the authorities you are denying him the rights that the labor board gauranteees.
Any part of a contract that violates the labor laws will be declared null and void.
It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CanKorea
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Location: Pyeongchon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pick a contract. You can ask until you're blue in the face and won't come up with any satisfactory answers. You will never find a perfect one, just like you wouldn't find a perfect one back home either.
You take a risk no matter where you go. Go with your gut, pick the one that sounds right to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the eye
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
if anyone had bothered to look closely at the Agreement of Disclosure you will notice that there is an exemption for legal actions. It is not a violation of the agreement to contact the proper authorities nor is it a violation to give evidence against the employer.
In the crappy hogwan contract there is no provision for this.
By denying an employee the right to contact the authorities you are denying him the rights that the labor board gauranteees.
Any part of a contract that violates the labor laws will be declared null and void.
It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me! |
yes, it is simple. the whole legal system here is simple.
the fact that there was no provision in the confidentiality agreement to permit the contact the authorities, does not make the clause illegal.
korean contracts are not as specific and detailed as western contracts. there is no need for them to be so.
if the instructor, in this case, were to contact the labour board due to contractual problems...and the school were to say 'ok, now you have violated the contract, so pay us XXXwon!'
the school would be laughed out the door by the labour board and any small claims judge who recieved the case in court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Len8
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Location: Kyungju
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shesh. Can't you guys put your eloquence to use on another more informative post for us other users. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
