Korean Job Discussion Forums

[tabbyfoof]

Is it legal for a contract to include this? Or a ban on disclosing "curriculum details or the business operation of the program without prior permission of Employer?" Does that imply to others that they're forbidding teachers to discuss their contract conditions with other people? Are curriculum details considered trade secrets? Do people working at places like Pagoda have clauses like this in their contracts (actually, maybe they're not allowed to say whether or not they do...)?

Just curious if anyone has ever had this come up. A friend was asked to sign a contract which included these items, and they sound a bit dodgy.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[thegadfly]

That clause had come up in a contract of mine back when I worked in Kangnam, Seoul...and yes it is to avoid giving away "trade secrets." Now, I do not necessarily agree that telling someone which textbook we use is giving anything away, but if my employer feels that it is, and I have agreed to keep it to myself (per my contract), then I should keep it to myself....

This might be a sign that the school is trying something new, and does not want a million copy-cats popping up before they have worked out the bugs...or it could be that they do not want the teachers to compare war stories and find out how badly they actually DO have it...could go either way

[tabbyfoof]

I guess I can understand the curriculum detail part more than the business operation part, particularly since my salary, housing, vacation time, and working hours affect my life outside of school. Did you have a problem signing that Kangnam contract or feel it was a bit shady of your bosses? Also, what about the penalty for inciting teachers to act collectively? Was that part of the Kangnam contract, too? It seems to me that that would probably be illegal. I mean, I consider it a huge red flag if the company is so obviously scared of any kind of unionization.

I don't really know much about how businesses are run, particularly hagwons, so forgive my naivete about this. It just seems that I should be able to discuss facts about my job and how they affect me personally with anyone I choose, as long as I'm not invading a co-worker's personal privacy or somehow putting the business at an unfair risk. With such a non-specific clause, what constitutes business operation details? Textbook names (ones publicly availably, mind you, not original in-house texts)? Class sizes? Class lengths? It'd be interesting to hear others' opinions on this, particularly from the point of view of a business owner. Do Western companies have similar clauses?

Thanks for answering, by the way.

[ChopChaeJoe]

In America, discussing your salary is grounds for immediate termination at many, if not most, companies.

[tabbyfoof]

I've got to admit, I've never worked for a place where I was aware of that as a policy; then again, the jobs in America I've had weren't very high-level. How do they enforce that? Do employees generally understand and accept that as fair? Not trying to bait you, and I know I sound like I'm just playing dumb, but I'm really curious about how this works. I mean, it's not like someone's salary is information only the company owns. It's transferred to the employee, and it seems like they should be able to share that information as they please.

[jaderedux]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

Simply don't sign at a place like that.

At my old hogwan my FT co-worker and I held our own 'meeting' where we decided that we'd act collectively. We'd simply disregard everything management said and just do things the way we like, and if they didn't like it they could fire us. Our lives got much easier after that.

[John Henry]

Umm, housing conditions are not trade secrets.

[jmbran11]

I have a similar clause in my contract. Aside from the curriculum issues, we are strictly prohibited from discussing any renumeration issues with our colleagues. The short answer is - they don't want you to be able to negotiate for salary/benefits by knowing what the other guys are making. One teacher was chastised for discussing whether or not she received a transportation reimbursement.

If it bothers you, don't do it, but I don't necessarily think it's a sign of a shady employer. My employer is super-unshady, and has never attempted to deviate from my contract.

[tabbyfoof]

I understand their motives, but I just don't see how that benefits employees. Do you think it does (not baiting, actually wondering)? It seems that if they've made a reasonable attempt to be fair to people that they'd have nothing to worry about. People that make a lot more than colleagues and wanted to avoid possible envy could just not talk about it. Also, aside from everything else, it seems that during off-duty times, they shouldn't have control over what is said by anyone.

And I think the more bothersome thing was about inciting people to act collectively. I mean, what if an employer, say, starts demanding that female teachers wear makeup and short skirts (not at the time of contract renewal, just out of the blue) and the teachers have a meeting and a petition is signed, or everybody decides together to just ignore the order, or legal counsel is consulted for a possible lawsuit. Is that acting collectively? Or would acting collectively only mean an actual teachers' union?

Thanks for your input, everybody. Fascinating. Wonder why I've never run into this before except in that movie 9 to 5.

[/i]

[denverdeath]

[tabbyfoof]

[OiGirl]

[ChopChaeJoe]

Obviously the public has a right to know how it's money is spent. Likewise, stockholders should be able to know about the salaries of executive management in corporations.

[alabamaman]