|
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 |
-666-
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Sorry guys but you are talking out your butts!
An illegal clause in a contract does not transcend the labour laws. Korean labour laws are quite clear on this aspect...forced savings/deductions are illegal...period...end of conversation. If you call the labour board they will confirm this and if necessary take action against the party doing the deductions from your check.
Stand up for yourselves and call the labour board or EFL law for confirmation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -666- wrote: |
Sorry guys but you are talking out your butts!
An illegal clause in a contract does not transcend the labour laws. Korean labour laws are quite clear on this aspect...forced savings/deductions are illegal...period...end of conversation. If you call the labour board they will confirm this and if necessary take action against the party doing the deductions from your check. |
"Hater Depot" is correct and not talking out of his butt. If it's in the contract and been agreed to, then it's a lawful deduction (though the original poster claims it's not in the contract signed, so it wouldn't be legal in this case).
"Joe_donfu"'s suggestion would also be lawful, though unlikely to be agreed to.
Ironically, the only person talking out of their butt, as you like to say, would be you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-666-
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats very interesting Gord. Then why when I called the labour board and notified them of this exact same clause in my contract did they tell the school that it was illegal and to give me my money back?
Are you more knowledgable than the labour board itself?  Or does your lame advice transcend their rulings?  Seems to me that the labour laws are clear on this point...deducting anything but pension, taxes and health care from your check is illegal and they will stop people/hogwans/schools from illegally deducting money from your check.
If you any information or links to enlighten us please do share them...otherwise go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I gotta go with -666- on this one, but as a general point. Labor law will take precedence over a contract 99% of the time. Just becaue you agree to something in a contract does not make it legal. The labor laws of a country are "higher" and "more important".
Let's imagine that you agreed, without really knowing it, to a clause that says you will work anywhere need be it you don't have to tell anyone. Now, that clause is obviously against the relevant immigration/labor laws of the country, and would therefore be deemed illegal. Just because you agree doesn't make it legal. THE LAW IS THE LAW.
Of course, whether or not they enforce it is a whole other matter.
As for this point, I'm not sure about the law, so it's something you should definitely check into.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ekuboko
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Location: ex-Gyeonggi
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The deduction is set out in the Wisconsin program's contract (as well as in GEPIK's - I know people in both), but in my (EPIK) contract, it says nothing about taking money as 'security'.
I certainly do not agree to this and will be looking into it further (I feel sorry for my co-teacher!). Thanks for your responses so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -666- wrote: |
| Thats very interesting Gord. Then why when I called the labour board and notified them of this exact same clause in my contract did they tell the school that it was illegal and to give me my money back? |
I do not know the conditions of what you claimed happened, so I can simply comment on what is suppose to happen. Unilateral deducations are not allowed, agreed-to deductions are.
Though generally such deducations can't simply be buried in the contract as a surprise, but clearly presented so that a person can agree to them. Once an agreement has been reached, it's a contract and is not different than any other labour agreement condition.
| Quote: |
| Are you more knowledgable than the labour board itself? Or does your lame advice transcend their rulings? Seems to me that the labour laws are clear on this point...deducting anything but pension, taxes and health care from your check is illegal and they will stop people/hogwans/schools from illegally deducting money from your check. |
You will find no law that states a person can not agree to other deductions. In stark contrast, section Section 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act specifically allows for any agreed-to deduction.
| Quote: |
| If you any information or links to enlighten us please do share them...otherwise go away. |
Behold, the power of my crown! For the King of Spain can do anything.
Now that I have shown that the law does allow for such deductions [Section 42(1)], it's your turn to prove that that there is a law that states that such deducations are unlawful.
Cards on the table, Sparky. Let's see what you've got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ekuboko
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Location: ex-Gyeonggi
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
I do not know the conditions of what you claimed happened, so I can simply comment on what is suppose to happen. Unilateral deducations are not allowed, agreed-to deductions are.
Though generally such deducations can't simply be buried in the contract as a surprise, but clearly presented so that a person can agree to them. Once an agreement has been reached, it's a contract and is not different than any other labour agreement condition. |
Gord, if what you say is correct, then that is fine.
The thing is, that in typical Korean fashion, the 'powers above' have apparently decided this is going to happen (although maybe they think the EPIK contract has the same clause as Wisconsin's, I don't know; but I do know they don't read it closely, speaking from prior experience) without consulting us, the contracted ones.
Only one memo/notice written in Korean, for the respective schools to explain to the NETs and suck it up. I haven't agreed to anything, I've just been 'notified.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-666-
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well at first glance I can see a few items.
Article 30...the pertinent part seems to be "an employer shall not reduce wages or take other punitive measures against an employee without justifiable reason"
Article 29 "Probibition of compulsory savings"
1] an employer shall not enter into a contract incidental to a labour contract which stipulates compulsory savings or the management of savings.
Both these sections seem to say(and the labour board has agreed with me) that they cannot deduct money from your pay for a possible future violation that the employee may or not make. These sections in the contracts where they want to withhold, anywhere from 300,000-1,200,000 won are illegal and in violation of Korean labour laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -666- wrote: |
Well at first glance I can see a few items.
Article 30...the pertinent part seems to be "an employer shall not reduce wages or take other punitive measures against an employee without justifiable reason" |
An agreed-to deduction for covering of an agreed-to housing deposit is neither punitive nor qualifies as a wage reduction. Or else under your belief that when a person borrowed an advance on their salary and this advance was deducted from their salary on salary day as it was already paid, the employer would be violating the law. That would be quite silly to argue.
| Quote: |
Article 29 "Probibition of compulsory savings"
1] an employer shall not enter into a contract incidental to a labour contract which stipulates compulsory savings or the management of savings. |
This applies to a general forced savings account. Generally, a deposit to ensure bills are paid related to housing costs would not fall under that as it is not a savings account.
| Quote: |
| Both these sections seem to say(and the labour board has agreed with me) that they cannot deduct money from your pay for a possible future violation that the employee may or not make. These sections in the contracts where they want to withhold, anywhere from 300,000-1,200,000 won are illegal and in violation of Korean labour laws. |
Your claims would suggest that you landed a sympathetic ear. I know of several people who have tried to get their deposits ended through the Labor Board, I know of no one else who managed to get their housing deposits rebranded as forced savings and thus returned.
So that's the secret. Get someone at the MOL to believe it is an open-ended managed savings instead of being a housing security deposit that it really is, and victory will be certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doodly
Joined: 21 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's optional. If you want to give them the money then that's up to you. They won't tell you that you have the right to decline. But, tell them you won't be paying if you don't want to. GEPIK wanted to me to pay a deposit. I called the Ministry of Labor and they told me not to pay. GEPIK had to take it out of my contract. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JacktheCat
Joined: 08 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
So what do you think, Jack? Figure there were a few fake degree holders in that bunch, or did it take place before the recent busts?
|
Nope.
Two out of the three were fed up with the GEPIK bull shit, and the third was a fresh out of college Canadian who GEPIK dumped in a very rural elementary school.
Plus there was the high school teacher in Icheon who disappeared half way through last semester.
Public schools aren't the promised land for everybody.
That said, Gyeonggido's response to the disappearing teacher situation is typical. Instead of making the working conditions better to entice teachers to stay, they are cracking down on them, making the working conditions worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JacktheCat wrote: |
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
So what do you think, Jack? Figure there were a few fake degree holders in that bunch, or did it take place before the recent busts?
|
Nope.
Two out of the three were fed up with the GEPIK bull *beep*, and the third was a fresh out of college Canadian who GEPIK dumped in a very rural elementary school.
Plus there was the high school teacher in Icheon who disappeared half way through last semester.
Public schools aren't the promised land for everybody.
That said, Gyeonggido's response to the disappearing teacher situation is typical. Instead of making the working conditions better to entice teachers to stay, they are cracking down on them, making the working conditions worse. |
Perhaps they feel that the working conditions are good enough. And anyways it's not like they can't find a replacement. But in terms of making things better, all they'd have to do is change the terms of the E-2 visa so it's like Japan's in regard to changing work places. Then the bad schools/hakwons would have to clean up their act, or close. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-666-
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gord wrote
| Quote: |
| This applies to a general forced savings account. Generally, a deposit to ensure bills are paid related to housing costs would not fall under that as it is not a savings account. |
Is this fact or speculation on your part? It would seem that money deducted, held until the end of the contract before being returned to you would be a forced savings account. IF they are deducting this money from your check then shouldnt it be in an interest bearing account...or possibly a savings bond....after all it is your money and you should have some say(and protection) in how it is kept.
As I have said the labour board has agreed with me.....that the deduction of a deposit is illegal and contrary to Korean Labour Laws.
Until they tell me different I will continue to espose the refusal of paying a damage deposit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ekuboko
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Location: ex-Gyeonggi
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an update...
I wrote a letter of complaint to the 'Bigwig' and got no reply, so about 2 weeks later I called the Labour Board and was told that if I don't agree to it, then I don't have to pay such a 'security deposit.'
The Labour Board called said Bigwig straight away who denied knowledge of said deposit and also receiving any correspondence from me. 
A few days later, my co-teacher called Bigwig, who was out of denial by this stage and said that I had been the only one who complained and that basically I should suck things up and accept it. He had decided to impose this due to people leaving with huge phone bills and whatnot. He claims to have sent out a notice to all schools in Gyeonggi with a NET, so we apparently all know about it.
I told my co-t that the reason why no one else complained was probably because they didn't know about it. I contacted two others on EPIK that I know and they've asked and they're not being deducted (I am!).
So things are just looking peculiar... and out of principle I need to get to the bottom of this.
If you are on EPIK in Gyeonggi (or know anyone), please check your pay slips AND bank book to see if your usual pay is W100, 000 less than usual. Also ask your co-teacher, school, supervisor about a notice (from Gyeonggi Office of Ed) called "2005 ����� �������� ���� �ȳ�"...
and then, I'd really appreciate it if you would PM me to let me know if you're being deducted or not.
THANK YOU! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bellum99
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: don't need to know
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thing is...it doesn't really hurt you at all and you get the money back. It seems like a lot of effort on your part for a small thing. By it being only you complaining it makes you look really bad.
It would seem like something reasonable because the school doesn't want to be responsible for people skipping out on their bills (which teachers should pay anyway). Also some teacher before they run have also destroyed the apartment they are living. This is not fair to the school either. They deserve some protection from this kind of action...it seems fair to me.
It should have been in the contract but it wasn't. This is not a big deal. |
|
| 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
