| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:44 pm Post subject: '5 or less employees' = less legal protection for the NET? |
 |
|
I've read in more than source that should a hagwon have five or fewer employers, the E-2 English instructor has fewer legal protections.
Is this correct? If it is, then this is very disturbing, and, in my opinion, irrational and unfair.
Can anyone shed some light on how the law differs for a foreign teacher at a smaller school, compared to one at a bigger school?
Here are the sources from which I read the information:
http://www.k-labor.com/tiki-view_faq.php?faqId=3
Employers with 5 or fewer Employees do not have to reinstate the Employee if they are unfairly dismissed.
http://www.efl-law.com/contracts.php
If you are going to accept a contract, remember this:- employers who have less than 4 employees (namely some smaller private schools) are not entirely subject to all the provisions the Korean Labor Standards Act. Thus if something goes wrong, your options for help are reduced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: '5 or less employees' = less legal protection for the NE |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
I've read in more than source that should a hagwon have five or fewer employers, the E-2 English instructor has fewer legal protections.
Is this correct? If it is, then this is very disturbing, and, in my opinion, irrational and unfair.
Can anyone shed some light on how the law differs for a foreign teacher at a smaller school, compared to one at a bigger school?
Here are the sources from which I read the information:
http://www.k-labor.com/tiki-view_faq.php?faqId=3
Employers with 5 or fewer Employees do not have to reinstate the Employee if they are unfairly dismissed.
http://www.efl-law.com/contracts.php
If you are going to accept a contract, remember this:- employers who have less than 4 employees (namely some smaller private schools) are not entirely subject to all the provisions the Korean Labor Standards Act. Thus if something goes wrong, your options for help are reduced. |
Your sources are a tad outdated and slightly in error.
Here's what Article 11 of the Korean Labor Standards Act states:
(1) "This Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces in which five or more workers are ordinarily employed. This Act, however, shall not apply to any business or workplace which employs only relatives living together, and to a worker who is hired for domestic work.
(2) With respect to businesses or workplaces which ordinarily employs fewer than five workers, only part of the provisions of this Act may be made applicable as prescribed by the Presidential Decree."
So if you have five employees at your workplace...you are still protected.
Fewer than five and yes you may not have all the protections. This was probably put in place to help small businesses avoid higher costs of complying. Unfortunately some may have used this clause to shaft their employees.
So it's not "five or fewer" or "less than 4"
It's "less than five". And this is an important distinction because being covered by the KLSA and NOT being covered by the KLSA can potentially mean a millions-of-won difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: '5 or less employees' = less legal protection for the NE |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Here's what Article 11 of the Korean Labor Standards Act states:
(1) "This Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces in which five or more workers are ordinarily employed. This Act, however, shall not apply to any business or workplace which employs only relatives living together, and to a worker who is hired for domestic work.
(2) With respect to businesses or workplaces which ordinarily employs fewer than five workers, only part of the provisions of this Act may be made applicable as prescribed by the Presidential Decree."
So if you have five employees at your workplace...you are still protected.
Fewer than five and yes you may not have all the protections. |
Oh no! This is not good because I work at a place with less than five employees. Do you know specifically which provisions of the act are not applicable to workers at a small school?
(I'm at a franchise school that receives support from a huge corporation, but I think it will almost certainly still be considered a business or workplace with fewer than five workers) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sesyeux
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Location: king 'arrys
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| less than five NETS or less than five employees total? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sesyeux wrote: |
| less than five NETS or less than five employees total? |
Less than 5 non related employees.
Family members working in the business don't count.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D-Jay
Joined: 24 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This rule might also apply to the pension. One time I went to check on my pension balance, and I found out that one of my former hagwons didn't pay into the pension (even though they deducted it from my pay every month). I had the pension officer (or whatever the lady sitting behind the counter is called) contact my former director to find out why, and when she got off the phone, she told me that my former director said they are exempt from paying into pension because they have less than five employees. I asked her if there really is such a rule, but all I got was a deer-in-the-headlights look from her. Funny how the pension office employees don't even know their own rules! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| D-Jay wrote: |
| This rule might also apply to the pension. One time I went to check on my pension balance, and I found out that one of my former hagwons didn't pay into the pension (even though they deducted it from my pay every month). I had the pension officer (or whatever the lady sitting behind the counter is called) contact my former director to find out why, and when she got off the phone, she told me that my former director said they are exempt from paying into pension because they have less than five employees. I asked her if there really is such a rule, but all I got was a deer-in-the-headlights look from her. Funny how the pension office employees don't even know their own rules! |
*-*
I have 2 full contract employees and 2 ARBEID at the moment
The full contract employees pay all legally required deductions, including pension .... I think you need a second opinion on that.
Arbeid does not pay into any deduction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
