|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Does anyone else think this whole topic would sound ridiculous to any normal adult/parent back home-
"Korea is racist."
"Why?"
"Because they test foreigners who will be teachers (a group that is predominantly made up of recent college grads) for marijuana."
"And they don't test Koreans?"
"Right. They think all foreigners are pot heads."
"And yet they still recruit you to be a teacher?"
"Well, yeah."
"Do people in Korea grow or smoke a lot of pot?"
"Well, no. It's hard to find."
"What are the penalities for posession?"
"Pretty stiff."
"So would you smoke over there?"
"No. That's a dumb idea."
"Why?"
"Because I have to get tested on entry and its really hard to find and I would get in big trouble."
"And you said that most of these kids are recent college grads. Are they English/Education majors?" (Pictures typical college kid in head, remembers finding bag of pot in kid's backpack in high school. Imagines getting a call from kid in Korea saying htey are going to prison for 5 years.)
"Well, no."
"So for many of them this is their first salaried job"
"Yeah."
"Uh huh...so is the testing random?"
"No, its in your contract and you're notified about it before you leave the country. It happens once a year"
"So most people have advanced notice that they are going to quit...and its not random (Imagines random test at the office where he/she works) and its in the contract you signed?"
"Yeah. Bunch of baloney right?"
(Smacks kid upside the head) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NilesQ
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is not really a thread of people ranting that it is unfair that they should be tested, and Koreans not, it is about the fact that the intended goal of such policies, keeping kids safe, is not really served by instuiting drug testing. I think the criminal record check was LONG overdue. I couldn't believe I didn't need one when I first came to Korea to teach. That is the kind of screening that can serve as an indicator. Testing positive for pot on a publicized, manditory drug test just shows that you are an idiot! It is screening, but easily navigated screening.
Whether or not you have smoked pot for about a month before you went to Korea is the only concrete piece of information that can be gained from this test. It is not an indicator of character or likelyhood that you will commit a crime while in Korea. Does this health check occur every year if renewing your visa with the same school, or is it only upon issuance of a new E2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeplessInHannamdong
Joined: 27 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Few sane people would disagree that sovereign countries should have the right to set whatever conditions they wish for entry of foreign nationals (which in fact they do.) |
And now I am reminded of why I stay away from Internet discussion boards.
"Few sane people would disagree that..."
Why not just state and substantiate a claim? Why include the bit about sanity?
When we remove the "Few sane people would disagree that..." and the "(which in fact they do.)", we are left with the clear, concise, and much improved "Sovereign countries should have the right to set whatever conditions they wish for entry of foreign nationals". Ironically, having shed its hubristic self-importance, the statement now rings of confidence.
Personally, I don't believe sovereign countries should have nor do have the right to set whatever conditions they wish for entry of foreign nationals.
I suppose then that I must be of questionable sanity.
As are all the member nations of the UN. .
To quote directly from the United Nations resolution entitled "Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which they Live", adopted by the General Assembly in Dec 1985:
| United Nations Resolution A/RES/40/144, Article 2 wrote: |
| Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as legitimizing the illegal entry into and presence in a State of any alien, nor shall any provision be interpreted as restricting the right of any State to promulgate laws and regulations concerning the entry of aliens and the terms and conditions of their stay or to establish differences between nationals and aliens. However, such laws and regulations shall not be incompatible with the international legal obligations of that State, including those in the field of human rights. |
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r144.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeplessInHannamdong
Joined: 27 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Does anyone else think this whole topic would sound ridiculous to any normal adult/parent back home-
"Korea is racist."
"Why?"
"Because they test foreigners who will be teachers (a group that is predominantly made up of recent college grads) for marijuana."
|
"Sounds reasonable, what's wrong with that?"
"Well... they don't test all foreigners. Some foreigners get a pass."
"Oh yeah? Who?"
"Korean-Americans, Korean-Canadians, Korean-Brits, Korean-Kiwis, Korean-Aussies..."
"Wait, what?"
"Yeah... they're a different visa class... because they have Korean bloodlines."
"So wait a second. As long as a foreigner has Korean blood, they don't need to take a special drug test?"
"Nope."
"Two identical Canadians, only difference is where their parents were born... you're saying the one whose parents were born in Korea gets to skip the test?"
"Yep"
"Well that's kind o... wait, hang on, Dr Race Card. There must be something justifying this. There must be substantial evidence that only foreign teachers WITHOUT Korean blood are the ones convicted of related offences."
"err... http://goo.gl/pZ2f oh and also http://goo.gl/B27O "
"*facepalm*"
Fixed it for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepless: Don't bother. This is one of the issues you will never get Steelrails to honestly portray. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SleeplessInHannamdong wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Does anyone else think this whole topic would sound ridiculous to any normal adult/parent back home-
"Korea is racist."
"Why?"
"Because they test foreigners who will be teachers (a group that is predominantly made up of recent college grads) for marijuana."
|
"Sounds reasonable, what's wrong with that?"
"Well... they don't test all foreigners. Some foreigners get a pass."
"Oh yeah? Who?"
"Korean-Americans, Korean-Canadians, Korean-Brits, Korean-Kiwis, Korean-Aussies..."
"Wait, what?"
"Yeah... they're a different visa class... because they have Korean bloodlines."
"So wait a second. As long as a foreigner has Korean blood, they don't need to take a special drug test?"
"Nope."
"Two identical Canadians, only difference is where their parents were born... you're saying the one whose parents were born in Korea gets to skip the test?"
"Yep"
"Well that's kind o... wait, hang on, Dr Race Card. There must be something justifying this. There must be substantial evidence that only foreign teachers WITHOUT Korean blood are the ones convicted of related offences."
"err... http://goo.gl/pZ2f oh and also http://goo.gl/B27O "
"*facepalm*"
Fixed it for you. |
"Do all Korean-Whoevers who go over there get that visa?"
"Well no, a lot of them get the same visa as us"
"Are all Koreans who are on that other visa going to be teachers?"
"No."
"Do Korean-Whoevers who teach at Public Schools have to take the test?"
"Yes."
"If their private employer requires it, will those Korean-Whoevers still have to take the test?"
"Yes"
Nice attempt to make it seem like F4s don't have to take the test. My two trips to the hospital so far must have been some sort of hallucination man.
The point I was trying to make was that this might have more to do with age than whether you are foreign or not.
Again, if you can't get off the grass for 30 days, you shouldn't be teaching.
Under 20 somethings tend to smoke pot at greater rates and are more apt to try something like smuggling a bunch of seeds or what not.
It's not like the test is random. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As other people have said before, pot is highly illegal in Korea so why bother? We should make an effort to accept local laws and customs. So, tonight I'm going to drink 3 bottles of soju and head to the nearest red light district for some action. Good times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Really, now? Accept local customs? In this instance, it sure looks like the local custom is to tar an entire group of people with absolutely no evidence and false statistics to boot as demons. I should accept that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SleeplessInHannamdong wrote: |
[
Why not just state and substantiate a claim? Why include the bit about sanity?
Personally, I don't believe sovereign countries should have nor do have the right to set whatever conditions they wish for entry of foreign nationals.
I suppose then that I must be of questionable sanity.
As are all the member nations of the UN. .
To quote directly from the United Nations resolution entitled "Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which they Live", adopted by the General Assembly in Dec 1985:
| United Nations Resolution A/RES/40/144, Article 2 wrote: |
| Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as legitimizing the illegal entry into and presence in a State of any alien, nor shall any provision be interpreted as restricting the right of any State to promulgate laws and regulations concerning the entry of aliens and the terms and conditions of their stay or to establish differences between nationals and aliens. However, such laws and regulations shall not be incompatible with the international legal obligations of that State, including those in the field of human rights. |
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r144.htm |
You should read that bit again. "nor shall any provision be interpreted as restricting the right of any State to promulgate laws and regulations concerning the entry of aliens and the terms and conditions of their stay OR TO ESTABLISH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATIONALS AND ALIENS"
So if you don't believe that sovereign countries have the right to set whatever conditions they wish you are going against the reality of life. They do and ARE. That is just a fact.
And as far as incompatibility with international legal obligations...that's just so much window dressing. Again when it comes to real-life scenarios there are very few countries that haven't violated this at some time or another. (Turkey-Kurds, Israel-Palestinians, USA, Iraq/Afghan nationals...)
And let's get real, drug testing (which is the topic under discussion) is not a human rights issue. It is also required for certain jobs in the West as well. End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Really, now? Accept local customs? In this instance, it sure looks like the local custom is to tar an entire group of people with absolutely no evidence and false statistics to boot as demons. I should accept that? |
So the AES suddenly represents local customs? With their 40,000 netizens?
Talk about tarring an entire group of people on flimsy evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Really, now? Accept local customs? In this instance, it sure looks like the local custom is to tar an entire group of people with absolutely no evidence and false statistics to boot as demons. I should accept that? |
So the AES suddenly represents local customs? With their 40,000 netizens?
Talk about tarring an entire group of people on flimsy evidence. |
Talk about flimsy reading comprehension! You did notice this thread is about the Ministry of Justice's proposed action, did you not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Really, now? Accept local customs? In this instance, it sure looks like the local custom is to tar an entire group of people with absolutely no evidence and false statistics to boot as demons. I should accept that? |
So the AES suddenly represents local customs? With their 40,000 netizens?
Talk about tarring an entire group of people on flimsy evidence. |
Talk about flimsy reading comprehension! You did notice this thread is about the Ministry of Justice's proposed action, did you not? |
Based on the AES as some of the AES hounds would have us believe.
I have already laid out the various reasons why government agencies
may support drug testing beyond racism.
Did it ever occur to you that a clean test gives us a positive image? It's just like back home with "incensed, bonded. certified"
Not to mention your claim is pure hyperbole. How is the MOJ portraying us as demons? If they wanted to portray us as demons believe me it would be a lot more than reinstating a part of the drug test.
This I just posted on another thread:
So today at work all the Korean teachers are wearing name tags. I just found out that its to identify them to the parents so that the parents know they aren't sexual predators.
Of course I was left out of the loop because "everyone knows who I am so it won't be a problem." Funny I don't hear any of my colleagues wailing about how unfair it is that they have to wear name tags and I don't.
Yeah its really drilled into their heads that us NETs are out to get their kids and foreigners are perverts.
You seem to think that the average Korean pays as much attention to pot laws and the AES as we do. No, they don't. I swear 90% of these sensational threads I bring up with coworkers they are all completely ignorant of.
Believe it or not some of them think that because we went to college we didn't do drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeplessInHannamdong
Joined: 27 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Nice attempt to make it seem like F4s don't have to take the test. My two trips to the hospital so far must have been some sort of hallucination man.
|
If government policy does mandate that F4 visa holders take the same drug/aids tests as E2 holders, then I fully admit my mistake and apologize for my sarcasm and poor attitude.
It is confusing though. Based on my memory of comments from gyopo friends and articles like this http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/06/160_25753.html I was under the impression that F visa holders did not have to take the AIDS test nor the drug test.
Note that the article I posted originally as well as this one http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/07/117_69263.html mention only the E2 visa and nothing about the F4 visa.
This is certainly confusing too. Looks like the MOE was saying one thing while immigration was saying another.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/117_32920.html
Whatever the case, if Koreans do treat two people from the same country differently based on birthplace of parents, then I think it's fair to call that into question. If not, then I retract my implied complaint and commend the country for changing its backwards policies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SleeplessInHannamdong wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Nice attempt to make it seem like F4s don't have to take the test. My two trips to the hospital so far must have been some sort of hallucination man.
|
If government policy does mandate that F4 visa holders take the same drug/aids tests as E2 holders, then I fully admit my mistake and apologize for my sarcasm and poor attitude.
It is confusing though. Based on my memory of comments from gyopo friends and articles like this http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/06/160_25753.html I was under the impression that F visa holders did not have to take the AIDS test nor the drug test.
Note that the article I posted originally as well as this one http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/07/117_69263.html mention only the E2 visa and nothing about the F4 visa.
This is certainly confusing too. Looks like the MOE was saying one thing while immigration was saying another.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/117_32920.html
Whatever the case, if Koreans do treat two people from the same country differently based on birthplace of parents, then I think it's fair to call that into question. If not, then I retract my implied complaint and commend the country for changing its backwards policies. |
The F4 is a visa for Koreans born overseas who do not have Korean citizenship but have themselves or a family member with Korean registry. The visa allows them to enter, for I believe, three years and work any job or no job (I might be wrong on some of these points).
All NETs at public schools must comply with the HIV/CBC/Drug test whether they are F4s or E2s.
At Hagwons all E2s must comply. F4s are at the discretion of the employer. Often, though not always, those have already been residing in Korea do bypass the tests. However usually those that are coming over for the first time are subject to them.
In other fields besides English drug testing and CBCs are at the discretion of the employer. This means that many foreign workers do not get tested for drugs.
Not all foreigners in Korea get drug tested, only those on E2 visas, a visa specifically for teaching, a field in which the majority applicants are under 30, many who are entering their first salaried job.
But the Korea racism crowd seems to think this is about race, but if it were about race how come ALL foreigners are not tested, just teachers?
Maybe its more about age, job (in)experience, and the field. Yes, at some hagwons there are some F4s who did not have to do the test that the E2s there did. Many of those of F4s are known personally to an employee at that hagwon and are vouched for. Many of those of F4s have family here in Korea and if they were to be caught up in drugs/molestation the hagwon would make sure their family 'lost face'.
Lastly we have to remember not to fall into the hyperbole of 'they think we're drug addled pedophiles'. Really? You think they'd hire us then and send their kids off to be in our care? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeplessInHannamdong
Joined: 27 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
At Hagwons all E2s must comply. F4s are at the discretion of the employer. |
Right, so this is what I was talking about. Two Canadians with identical backgrounds applying for identical jobs. The sole difference between them is that one has Korean blood. The government demands to know whether the one without Korean blood has AIDS or takes drugs, and forces them to take relevant medical tests to prove it. It does not require those with Korean bloodlines to do the same.
I would be interested to hear the logical justification for this.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| In other fields besides English drug testing and CBCs are at the discretion of the employer. This means that many foreign workers do not get tested for drugs. |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But the Korea racism crowd seems to think this is about race, but if it were about race how come ALL foreigners are not tested, just teachers? |
I am not concerned with the government discriminating on things like job type, nationality, or income level. There are logical reasons for doing so. I'm concerned with the government discriminating based on race.
There is a difference between a Korean national and an American: they have different nationalities. So policies in Korea that treat Americans and Korean nationals differently are unquestionably justifiable. The problem is when Korean law discriminates between, say, a Korean-American and an African-American. The sole difference is race.
It is, by definition, racial discrimination, for which I struggle to think of any reasonable justification. Whether intentional or merely unfortunate, it is what it is. I find its continued existence rather distasteful, and I hope the discrepancy is eliminated. I could be convinced otherwise, of course, by a sound, logical argument. |
|
| 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
