Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jrwhite82]

I've reviewed a number of contracts lately and they ALL seemed to have a clause that the new teacher would have to pay back recruiting fees to the school if they quit/got fired before their contract was up.

First of all, this is a ludicrous request to make in my opinion. Teachers are not responsible for paying recruiters. The recruiter get's paid by the school. What's next? They want teachers to pay rent for remaining months on a lease of an apartment we are not living in or signed on as a tenant? Oh wait....they're trying that too!

Any way, my questions are these:

How soon after a teacher signs a contract and starts working do recruiters get paid? If a teacher quits early do recruiters ever have to reimburse the school their recruiting fee or find them a teacher for free?

Maybe one of the posters who is a recruiter can answer this.

[northway]

I've heard that a recruiter has to find someone new free of charge if the teacher they found peaces out shortly after arrival.

[jrwhite82]

That's what I feel like is the policy too. So it almost seems like the hagwon is double dipping. Getting a free new employee AND having the old employee pay him.

[northway]

I'm pretty sure they can't legally make you pay anything back, as the school makes a choice to use a recruiter. It's not the same as an airplane ticket.

[pinishee]

I used to work for a recruiter. The wait before we would have gotten paid was 1 month. 1 million won per person. The wait is set in place so that if the teacher decides to chunk the deuce within the first month, the school didn't have to pay us.

Yet again, if you decide to pull a runner, you're not going to reimburse your air fare, the recruiter fee or apartment expenses. Contracts are worthless.

[sojusucks]

[northway]

[blonde researcher]

The following may help you understand who is responsible for what.

The government (EPIK GEPIK etc) require all their recruitersto either pay back the fee they receive from placing a teacher (900 000-1 million) if the teacher leaves for what ever reason before 6 months.[/u] Some EPIK contracts with recruiters insist on 9 months responsibility-- three quarters of a teachers work contract!

Also if the teacher leaves at any time before 6 months (even 5.5 months) without paying back the airticket entry of 1.3 million [u]then the recruiter MUST pay the airticket cost of 1.3 as well back to the school.
Recruiters for EPIK also have to pay for much of the costs involved upfront themselves such as airport pick up, couriering of documents etc. They never get reimbursement for this from EPIK.

Considering the teachers pay nothing to a recruiter for any of the help to get an EPIK public school job, airport pick up etc, if they did a runner at 5 months then the recruiter would be left holding a debt of 1.3 million that was actually bigger than the fee they got in the first place --correct?- Plus who provides the next teacher and for what fee?

In the hagwons it is getting common for the employer to insist that the recruiter buy the airticket first (often in advance to the teacher to arrive in Korea)
Then the director will pay the recruiter back after the teacher safely arrives and starts work (m,aybe 1-2 months time) . BUT if the teacher is not satisfactory to the director for any reason (even a pathetic reason -such as 'too fat') or fires the teacher - or the teacher does a runner the recruiter has to refund the fees back -- usually up to 3 months - sometimes 4 months. Hagwons sometimes demand a partial refund up to 6 months!

Therefore if a teacher gets a free service for EPIK jobs and then runs away before 6 months without paying back an airticket they agreed to pay back in their contract - is it fair the recruiiter should pay it for them ?

Who should hold the cost responsibility for fees or airfare for a teaching contract as agreed by both teacher and director at the start -the recruiter or the teacher?

What is starting to happen nowdays is that many hagwons are acting like EPIK and applying the same conditions on to the recruiters. If EPIK can get away with it why should'nt they?

Also Korea is the only country still paying for air travel to arrive and depart. I wonder how long this will continue as standard policy if there is an over suppply of applicants ??

[jrwhite82]

Thanks for the info. I agree fully that a teacher should reimburse airfare if they quit early and I never stated otherwise. However, paying recruiting fees is not a teacher's responsibility. Likewise, I feel like these hagwons are going to charge the teacher for the recruiting fees, and then on the other end, take the money back from the recruiter as well. And what you said provides further evidence that this practice is true.

I feel like the teacher is responsible for the airfare. If you can't finish 6 months, then you pay it back. The recruiter is responsible for finding suitable candidates that can complete a year contract. If the teacher doesn't finish six months than the recruiter pays the recruiter fee back. This is very fair. Half the contract, right down the middle. Or prorate it would be even more fair. I don't think the recruiter should reimburse airfare though.

[wylies99]

[blonde researcher]

Many Korean recruiters do get ripped off by the directors and hagwons they recruit for.

The directors put a lot of pressure and costs on to the recruiters because they know that every week another Korean 'would-be' new recruiter starts up, or a Korean breaks away from the existing agency they were working for to 'go it' on their own. These new recruiters will go knocking on directors doors. Loyalty is not an option for many directlors who seriously shop around and use many many recruiters playing them off against each other. First in with the best looking applicant wins!!

I have watched directors fend off many hopeful recruiters-while all the time doing cut throat deals to get the best outcome for himeslf.-like forcing the recruiter to pay for the airticket!

Korean recruiters often will be prepared to get hagwons working with them, even at a loss !!
In Korea it is all about connections and looking like you are successful - even if you know nothing about how to correctly get a foreign teacher hired.
The recruiting practices that happen from the never-ending stream of 'wanna be' recruiters moving in and out of the market means it all becomes a body selling biz in Korea.

My advice is to stick to getting the best advice from the long established agents such as Footprints - at least they have some history in the market. No - I dont work for them !

However I do agree that if a teacher has screwed over a hagwon or a public school by just using them as a stepping stone into Korea and does a runner before 3 months , then there should be some sort of pay back to the recruiter. There are genuine problems and bad directors but equally many unethical teachers who just want to find the 'greener grass' or a bigger city once they arrive in Korea. In many cases like this the hagwon does nothing wrong.

The fact the 'pay back' of the recruitment fee is getting put in the contract more often means nothing in reality as recruiters would have a hard job getting the money back if you did a runner.
Giving the correct notice if you really are in a bad situation usually means you get huge deductions from your last pay- or get no pay at all!!

[Njord]

I'm going into my 6th year in Korea, having worked multiple jobs in that time. I've never used a recruiter.

The reason teachers do not pay for recruiters is because recruiters really do not offer any valuable service to teachers. They offer a valuable service to some employers who may be clueless about the immigration process or do not want to take the time to sift through resumes or perhaps want to have a teacher on a moment's notice. How employers negotiate with recruiters to pay for this service is really none of our concern.

My advice, if some employers are putting things like this in contracts, is to simply find a job without a recruiter. It is easy, will often get you connected with a more competent or experienced employer, and will avoid these potential problems.

[sojusucks]

[blonde researcher]

Yes - but many are not 'registered' as they simply work in cash-type "deal" situations with directors and work alone.

Companies that register as a business in Korea and therefore pay Korean tax are few and far between. They will have a business number, but a very high number of them are still hopefuls with no deep knowledge of native recruiting or immigration rules and the changes. ......(but all will think it is easy to do and that anyone can do it!)

The registration number you see advertised is a company business number and nothing to do with accountability or skill of recruitment or training - it is simply a number showing they are a legitimate company for Korean tax systems.

There are no official regulations or checks in place in Korea for recruiters of native teachers or anywhere in the world! Anyone can start up as an agent at any time in any country or on the Internet.

There are also hundreds of 'one man band ' opportunist Koreans operating out of USA, Canada NZ UK etc only using a cell phone and Graigs list to recruit, often onselling their 'catches' to "registered" companies in Korea.
Many of these Koreans are transnational or operating recruiting as a side line - once again with no training.

As the market gets tighter and the jobs get fewer you may find that more hopeful new recruiters without any credibility increase as the stable older recruiters who do have a good long standing reputation (like Footprints who has been around I think about 10 years) will start departing from the market.

[WillTurnerinVanCity]

Just a couple of things- Blonde Researcher is pretty much on point.

As to Njord's comments about why teachers don't pay recruiters...it really isn't about the value of the service. In our case (Footprints) it is because it is against the law. It differs province to province, but according to the Employment Standards Act in BC:

10 (1) A person must not request, charge or receive, directly or indirectly, from a person seeking employment a payment for

(a) employing or obtaining employment for the person seeking employment, or

(b) providing information about employers seeking employees.

Further, especially in this economic climate, I don't think we would want to charge a fee. If the teachers paid us a fee for a job, there would be a very high expectation that they get a job. We aren't a school, or an employer, so we can't guarantee a job (no recruiter can, really). If we had 100 people pay us, but only 10 job openings, then we would have 90 very pissed off people...and who wants that?