Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Tiberious aka Sparkles]

[Tiberious aka Sparkles]

[dulouz]

Its just you. My analogy is fine. I know you more than you do about her. Much more in fact.

[canuckistan]

Edit: sorry, I can see you were obviously making 2.0, but it could look like you were making 3.6

[dulouz]

I refer to the school business and the school. The school business paid me 2 million each month, the school paid me 3.6 million each month and the school business took the money every month. Yea, they made alot. We always had a clerical employee to copy tests and talk to the parents and the like but he or she was not spending 40 plus hours a week working on the needs of the school.

Was I being ripped off? Yes and no. 2 million is competitive and I always got paid at least until the end. The hours weren't bad and there was no hogwan work. It was all at public schools. I liked that plenty.

The yes part? What exactly is the relationship and yes I'm asking some deeper questions now that I'm irked. Most of this arrangment was off record. That whole part about the school throwing cash to the school business is simply not documented anywhere. Looking at the two documents side by side, you could not tell there was any relationship whatsoever. So much of this was arrangement was illusionary and fragile. It was more of an agreement than a contract.

[canuckistan]

[dulouz]

C-stan, ty for the reply. The papertrail has problems. The deposits are documented with the depositors account number. The withdrawls are not documented that way. The withdrawls are assumed to be by those authorized to make the withdrawls. There usually is a video camera associated with ATMs but I'd have to find each ATM and then get the video to prove who actually made the withdrawl. However, circumstantial evidence being what it is, its very tempting for judge to simply say that he or she is satisfied that the school-business made the withdrawl based on past behavior. That would be kind of them.

[Hollywoodaction]

You really need to contact a lawyer, or at the very least the labour board. If they successfully argue you were aware of the scam, there's a certain principle in law, ex turpi cause, that might be applicable to this case (persons involved in an immoral act cannot sue eachother after the fact), but then you'd have to deal with the law. In other words, you can keep the 1.6 if you were an accomplice, but you don't have much of a claim for any of the money if you weren't (your contract does state your salary as 2.0?). With that said, there's no guarantee the Korean government won't confiscate the money. I guess the best thing to do would be to help the government to nail them and forget about the money. Sorry about the rambling on, but it's a very confusing case, far too complex for my limited knowledge of the principles of law.

[dulouz]

No, thats fine. I'm aware of that mitigation concept whereby I cannot claim against ill gotten gains if I was knowingly involved in the activity. I'm aware that was out there waiting and I am trying to determine the appropriate limits and excuses.

[tzechuk]

[fusionbarnone]

That's really terrible. The ethics here are slowly becoming internationally known.

I't sounds like the "good ol voluntarily complicit" trick for a scam the owners have created themselves.

This happened to a friend who was prosecuted for teaching at a school the hogwan had arranged(without notifying immigration). She had to pay the fine as well, according to the hogwan commandant, because, she had been "teaching" at said school. Her lady boss punched her once(arm) she punched back(friendly, but hard), it never happened again. It's an ownership thing.

I object to gently being co-erced into anything questionable. My defence/s are to feign misunderstanding, remember a late appointment, change the subject(go wee- wee now boss), or, discreetly disappear removing battery from hand phone whilst mobile.

Other tricks are to forever remain ambiguous without allowing anyone to obligate or "fix" you to anything(this means, no promises, favors, time frames, pre-offering helpful deeds). Do you remember all those culturally 'insensitive" things you were told not to do in Korea? Do them. Blow your nose, etc to diffuse and take their mind/s off the game. Get away and turn off your phone, or, remove battery whilst mobile.

Avoiding an "invitation of coffee" helps too as you are not sitting long enough to get netted.

Getting too cozy with your friendly boss only gives your coordinates away. Thus, being cagey about answering questions will mean more bolt holes for you.

To add punch to something that could get serious, I'd usually leap frog over heads.

For example;talk/request/argue for information from an immigration official(any relevant department) who will than include the entire team, who will tire of the collective non-problem-solving .exe. Will then, refer you to the head honcho(who's been there all that time) who will then need to demonstrate a face/authority ritual with you(so be polite) play dumb(make a big sad lost in Seoul story), without mental resources of one's own(in need of learned help) and then be very forceful about seeking closure(i.e, what am I supposed to do, etc?) otherwise you'll be sent on your way.

Then, miraculously "produce" the target persons phone number(or the target persons superiors phone number, offering that, first.) They'll put you through anyway after everyone goes through their routine.

A big huf n' puf via phone 'conversation"will ensue( all about face)lasting under 10 minutes(am still unable to figure what a non-professional 3rd-person,would have to argue with recognized appointed officials). This is usually enough to make the hometeam a little unsure of you and your "new" friend including, your relationship to the hierarchy(meaning criminal relationship if your complicity was originally being sought).

Sometimes you have to play the naive and earnest foreigner in order to gather or deputize "official witnesses" of your own.

This will give you an unseen form of power which will afford you some lee-way.