Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gollum]

How did the LOR become a requirement to deter teachers from quitting?

Did so many people quit because Korean hagwon bosses were being typical jerks, that they had to impliment this?

Anyone remember a time when it was different?

[Homer]

The LOR is a requirement to cancel your visa...it is not a deterent to quit.

It was required when I first got here back in 1997, don't know how far back it goes.

[Ya-ta Boy]

It was a requirement in '94.

[panthermodern]

With regards to E-2 visas:

The LOR is a statement that your sponsor no longer sponsors you ... thus you are free to seek a new sponsor, not a new job ...

"Contract Law", and I use that term very losely, is biases towards the sponsor of the visa; i.e. your employer ...

[the eye]

the LOR actually infringes on our rights under contract law as far as i understand.
it has only become an acceptable practice through it's continued use.

were enough people willing to fork out the cash to litigate against it's use, it would no longer be permitted by the courts.
anyone wanting to leave a hogwan could challenge the requirement in court. if you have the time and money, that is.

[marlow]

[Derrek]

Any idea how much money we're talking about for a challenge like this?

I'm thinking we should hold a couple of big teacher parties at bars and raise money with games, etc., then give it to EFL law to use as a challenge some day when the proper case comes up.

[panthermodern]

[iiicalypso]

I was wondering the same thing. The LOR and its likely illegality is something that effects everyone, whether they realize it or not. It is a restraint on trade, and the more serious you are about staying in Korea the more important this issue is. The LOR is bad for honest teachers and honest owners, since all it does is discourage people from operating in an honorable way. Why give notice if your owner is going to refuse you the letter of release? You get the screw either way.

In fairness, though, I am a recent victim. I gave more than 30 days notice, and the owner claimed he couldn't give it to me because he didn't have a replacement. Now, a week after I had to give up the job I intended to take, the grapevine tells me I am goign to get fired next week. Maybe I can be the test case.

[susmin]

Just want to point out, a foreigner in the U.S. who is sponsored by a company cannot just quit and find another employer either. If they leave or lose their job, they usually have to leave the country. It is not just about finding a job. As teachers we are in this country working because our schools have sponsored our visas. If we quit our job, we leave our sponsoring company. So, we have to find another sopnsor. The release letter says that our former sponsor is no longer sponsoring us. I do not see how our rights are violated. I realize some schools are difficult, but the foreigners in our country have to go thtough red tape if they want to change emplpyment as well.

[the eye]

[susmin]

While, that is true, the fact remains that these schools are sponsoring us to be in this country. I know many schools are not good places to live and employers may not make it easy for teachers to quit. I think though this is not a problem with the law, but with the schools. I do not think teachers should be able to float from school to another with no regard for the visa process. While there are teachers in bad conditions who need to switch jobs, there are also a number of teachers that I have seen who think being asked to grade a test is too much work. I think there are flaky teachers who make this law necessary. Maybe the solution is that whether a school gives a release letter should not be optional. In otehr words, if a teacher has given ample notice, the employer should be required to give a release letter.

Also, not every company that hires employers in the states is on the up and up. There are foreigners who end up in the states in jobs that are much worse than what they thought they would be and they are trapped because if they quit they will be deported.

[the eye]