Yeah, we all definitely have our work cut out for us. Information must be communicated better to English teachers about the environment and the law. There must be IMO, much more pressure put upon the buxiban owners/association to improve their business practices. Whether through sheer ignorance, incompetence, or downright unethical behavior, these owners have to take responsibility and be educated as well. Letting the parents know their kids English education will be hurt by the government is a good tack too. The government angle will be a hard slog but with parents involved, itâll have a better chance for change.
[quote=âboblâ]Thanks ML,
That qoute came directly from a gov. website. Looks like we have to educate some gov. departments as well as teachers and employers.[/quote]
My office continues to handle matters associated with this. When I return from my business trip, Iâll have a lot more to add to this thread. Iâve received some good news, but I had more astoundingly not so good news. The effect on both teachers and buxiban owners will be huge. Bottom line, if this has happened to you, no matter the fact youâve been told âItâs alrightâ, it is NOT alright to you as the English teacher and you must take affirmative action ASAP.
For the buxiban owners, thereâs a greater burden of responsibility now facing you. I believe that itâs no longer âbusiness as usualâ. If thereâs a buxiban industry association, maybe there needs to be a meeting on this. Big chains, small private schools have all been hit hard so be on guard. Make sure youâve crossed your Tâs and dotted your Iâs.
I will also go out on the limb to state that these types of administrative proceedings are in my western legal opinion, criminal in nature and that one should approach it with utmost care.
I thank so many people already who have contributed a lot of information and thought on this issue. Your feedback has helped our office tremendously during our follow up inquiries with the relevant authorities. Feel free to contact our office via email immigration@ml-mclean.com. We will respond ASAP.
I didnât bother reading the other posts, but did you know that you can teach and go to immigration with all your track records and pay your taxes and hence your work is deemed legal? Or they might say, âHow did you support yourself?â if youâre on a tourist visa and overstaying. If you stupidly tell them, they tax you. You pay the tax and you go. Is there a fine for teaching illegally? Never heard of it.
Very interesting, who said that to you itâs legal? They they mean to say that paying taxes makes illegal work immediately legal? Legal work status is not the same thing as paying taxes under the law as is currently written. The tax folks care about taxes. They are not in the business of reporting illegal workers to the FAP or CLA folks. That much is clear to me. The ongoing teaching crackdown is coming straight from CLA. The MOE and the FAP are operating under their directions.
According to the Employment Services Act, the fine for buxiban owners are usually not less than NTD 150,000 and not more than NTD 750,000. For certain things the range is NTD 30,000 to NTD 150,000.
Is there a fine for the teacher? No, although there seems to be the idea (not sure where it came from) that the buxiban owner failure to pay will be forced upon the illegally working teacher to make good when leaving the country. AFAIK, this is false information.
The punishment for illegally working teacher is expulsion and a 5 year penalty of not being able to return to Taiwan. We know that the 5 year penalty of not being able to return to Taiwan isnât absolute but they may be the exceptions, rather than the rule.
I am still chasing up the document that states that foreigners can commence work provided that a work permit application has been submitted. From memory it was contained within a working procedures document produced by the CLA and is not actually stated in the legislation that has been quoted here. The foundation for the working procedures is however contained in the legislation and a reference to this has been quoted by ML McLean.
[quote=âML McLeanâ] Q34: What is illegal working?
A34: Any foreigners who work without applying for a work permit through employers, or work while permit being revoked, or work with invalid permit, or work for non-permit applicant employers, or work for employers other than permit applicants, are considered illegal working in Taiwan. [/quote]
The bold text in the above quote is obviously somewhat ambiguous and in itself is difficult to determine the true meaning of. It could mean of course that you need to apply for and receive the work permit prior to commencing work, or it could mean that you merely need to apply for the work permit before you can commence legal work. This is not of course the âlegislationâ but it is in essence what the legislation has to say on the matter.
This is why the procedures that I am searching for are so relevant in this case as they seem to rule that it is the latter, and that you can commence work provided that you have submitted the relevant documentation.
Article 5 of this legislation quite clearly stated that:
This law has now been abolished.
I have personal experience that falls in line with my contention that we can work legally provided that our paperwork has been submitted.
Now, having read ML McLeanâs post I am left wondering whether the reason I canât find the procedure that I am looking for is due to the fact that it no longer exists.
From the above I read that ML McLean have very recent experience that differs from the procedures that I have referred to in the past, and also from my own personal experience which dates back a couple of years now.
So assuming that the FAP have now decided that one needs to have received approval of the work permit, it would be interesting to know what they base this upon. Are they basing this upon the above quoted and somewhat ambiguous regulation? If so I wonder whether if any deportation carried out could not be overturned in a court as the legislation is somewhat ambiguous in this regard?
ML McLean, can you confirm that you have examples of teachers who were deported for working during the period after the paperwork was submitted but prior to approval of the work permit? In those cases was the work permit being processed by the CLA or had the school perhaps misled the teacher into thinking that it was being processed?
[quote=âML McLeanâ] If this is the true and correct understanding of both the law and bureau rules and regulations, then I can safely make this statement as true:
If you ever stepped foot into a school and did âworkâ without having a work permit approved or an ARC in hand to work at that specific school, then you were working illegally.
As I understand it, that would mean 99.9999% of English teachers in Taiwan.[/quote]
I do not agree with this.
Assuming that the work permit now needs to be approved prior to a teacher being considered legal then of course a work permit would be required. But I donât agree that the teacher would also need the ARC to be legal. Surely the teacher could legally commence work once the work permit had been received and during the period during which the resident visa and ARC were being processed. If not, then I would like to know where it is stipulated anywhere that the teacher must first obtain the ARC prior to commencing work.
I will continue to search for this procedure I have been talking about as it was quite clear in this regard and would certainly help to clarify what was at least standard practice up until at least a few months ago.
The document I saw showed that the application was submitted to the CLA for work permit processing. Not just a case of âwe said it was so we believed youâ.
Also, the law that I quoted from the Employment Services Act (both English and Chinese) are in effect and state quite clearly that the work permit must have been approved and issued by the CLA for every place you do work at. Everyone that we have spoken to say the same thing. My impression is that this is settled law (see the above references) both in fact and in procedure by the CLA and the FAP. We tried presenting some of your arguments to the relevant people and were totally shot down. We donât bother challenging this point on behalf of our clients any longer.
I know that is not 100% the practice in Taiwan but in the Taipei area, they intend to insure that people do follow this law (or at least this interpretation of the law). I have no doubt that the procedures have changed. Our office had received information indicating this change and we had posted it. At the time, we didnât know how much of a change. Unfortunately, it took a few deportation cases and a crackdown to give us an opportunity to see what has changed and how the changes are being applied in practice.
Legal challenges arenât our thing and hopefully you or someone else can take that on. There is room for that weâve seen. What we offer that no one else can is understanding the procedural and administrative issues (inter and intra departmental/bureau/ministry) and tackling the cases that way. Time is usually of the essence in these cases and we donât have the luxury of challenging the law.
Hope to get some more information from your side of things. We need as much as possible from the players at hand:
CLA
FAP
Buxiban/MOE
Direct information from the third group is hard to come by so anything you can show (or from the buxiban owners on Forumosa), just email us.
Yes, good point. The view by the CLA and FAP is that ARC processing upon CLA approval is a minimal effort - should be done immediately. In practice, it can be, but itâs not done. In other words, the expectation of the authorities is that the buxiban owners should not be delaying the paperwork of their teachers. My interpretation of the information of whatâs happening is that (1) CLA and the FAP know that the buxiban folks are not in compliance with the law, (2) the authorities want to know the whereabouts of foreigners, particularly foreign teachers but they cannot achieve this without buxiban compliance. The authorities do not understand why the employers would want to delay teacher paperwork, especially the work permit and ARC because the ARC is the one piece of identification the teacher should carry all the time in Taiwan. That requirement is Iâm sure a legal one somewhere. If a person does not carry an ARC, then that foreigner has a completely different status in Taiwan vis-a-vis one that does have an ARC. So if you should have an ARC, then you better be carrying one.
So, ironically, and this is only a subjective interpretation is that the teachers are being used to ensure compliance of the law by the buxiban industry! Yes, that is right, in my opinion, the authorities are using English teachers to get at the buxiban industry to shape up. English teachers are collateral damage in the enforcement war between the government and the buxiban industry. :saywhat: :loco: :loco:
I also know thereâs been posts that say this will pass, itâs seasonal, happens every year. Perhaps, just like was in previous years. But in my discussions, when I did ask, it was made very clear to me that no, itâs going to be âworseâ in 2006.
Now, we can wait to see, or we can take proactive steps to protect ourselves. English teachers have their methods. Buxiban owners have their methods. The choice is yours. Knowing what we know, Iâm not going to roll that dice.* Thatâs our (un &)official position to anyone who asks us.
*Especially if youâre an English teacher because your penalty is supposed to be 5 year denied entry to Taiwan. Thatâs more painful than a NTD 150,000 fine per violation/per teacher. Maybe if the fines were NTD 500,000 per violation/per teacher then buxiban owners wouldnât be so cavalier about their paperwork. Later I will post why I believe the burden falls squarely on the buxiban owners, rather than on the English teachers under the current regulatory scheme. Iâll give a hint - âaffirmative dutyâ.
It certainly does seem that this is all due to recent changes and I am willing to accept that teachers are now technically illegal until such time as they have obtained their work permit. (That is until I can find that damned stipulation to the contrary )
I still feel that the legislation is ambiguous in this regard and that it does not clearly state that the work permit must be approved prior to work commencing, but I certainly do not wish to be responsible for teachers getting into trouble for not complying with this so I definitely back you up in your suggestion that teachers consider that they are not legal until they have obtained a work permit.
I believe that someone could likely win an appeal against a deportation for working during the work permit application process due to the ambiguous nature of the legislation, but then I am not a lawyer so I am probably just talking through my own backside.
Finally, I still donât agree that you would first need to obtain an ARC to be considered to be totally legal as the ARC is merely an ID card and serves no other legal purpose. Once you have the work permit you have been accepted for work in this country so I believe that you are legal once you have that.
I suppose that there is some argument for the fact that technically until you change your visitors visa into a resident visa that you would be illegal as you would be technically working on a visitors visa until such time as you get the resident visa. But even that is an area of contention. When exactly does the resident visa come into play? Upon acceptance of your application or when you pick up your passport with the visa in it? I tend to think that it would be the former as it is my understanding that once they accept your application that the visa is a given and this is why you can hand in your resident visa application on the same day that your visitors visa expires and not need to worry about an overstay.
What I am curious about is what the authorities expect teachers to do while all of these documents are being processed? Assuming that teachers are not legal until they have their ARC in hand then we are talking about a period of over a month (10-14 days for the work permit, 10-14 for the resident visa, 7 for the ARC). What does the CLA expect teachers to do for that month if they canât work, and is the CLA willing to explain to schools that they need to wait for this period of time before the teacher can start work?
Obvious silliness on behalf of the CLA and while some people are no doubt not surprised by this behavior, I am. I have always considered the CLA to be one of the governments more progressive departments, but I am certainly not impressed by the backward steps they are taking if all of what seems to being transpiring actually does transpire.
In your discussions with them have they actually given any explanation for any of the above. I mean, what exactly are they trying to achieve. Obviously compliance will be next to zero on any of this as neither the teachers nor the schools are going to want to sit around for a month waiting for paperwork to come through. So either the government is going to have to shorten the paperwork period which seems to me to be a feasible but somewhat unlikely option, or they should just ditch the whole idea (just like they did before when they took over from the MOE) and go back to how it was when it worked.
Thanks for the updates ML McLean, it is really good to have someone on the front line of all of this.
What are the buxiban owners hearing about all of this? We know that some of you are out there. Are you getting any information?
My feeling is very much the same as Brianâs here. Iâm also one of the few people on this message board that does have faith in the Taiwanese Government. As a general rule, I do think they try to do the right thing.
However, the recent actions by the CLA and FAP are quickly eroding my confidence. The actions that they have taken have already created permanent ill will in the teaching community here which will take years to undo. Unfortunately, as ML McClain has said, it seems things will get worse before they get better.
There was an article in the Taipei Times today about the recent crackdown. It didnât really shed any light on the situation other than that the government really doesnât know what they are doing. It actually quoted someone from the CLA as saying, âBuxibanâs and KINDERGARTENS need to register with the CLA to hire foreign teachersâ.
Of course, we all know that working at Kindergartens is technically illegal, although the law is universally ignored by teachers and schools. It just shows how silly the entire system is that the CLA itself doesnât even know that working at Kindyâs is technically illegal.
I canât say it enough: The biggest loser in all of this is Taiwan. Itâs only going to discourage the good legal teachers from coming here. On the flip side, it does nothing to scare the illegal, fake degree, etc. teachers.
If the government really wanted to do something positive to change the industry, there is so much they could do. So many positive actions they could take for the betterment of schools and students. However, they decided to simply lash out in a short sighted and unhelpful way.
My hope is that eventually someone in the government will lose their jobs for this.
A friend who was deported was actually told by an FAP officer, âYou have no chance to win your appeal. Donât even bother trying. You are kicked out of the country, so just leave. You have no chance at all for an appeal.â
What business does that officer have to say something like that!? He works for the FAP, NOT the legslative Yuan where appeals are heard. Itâs a disgrace that he spoke that way and he only serves to embarrass himself.
Weâll see what happens, but it seems we have a long road ahead of us.
brian, Taiwaner, yes, you both have clearly stated the problem with the whole thing.
Before getting to the Taiwanese governmentâs thinking (thatâs a joke now isnât it, hah hah), just trying to deal with each individual case at a time.
Hopefully, with that kind of exercise, we can peel away layer by layer and discover (some) truth in the process (donât hold your breath :s).
Forgive me if this question has been posed before. I have read several threads and am still confused. If anyone could point me in the direction of an answer I would be most grateful.
I am about to apply for an APRC and subsequently an Open Work Permit.
My question: Once I successfully acquire the Open Work Permit, am I then still obligated to get a work permit from each different school I work for in addition to my main school? If not, what would be the advantage of having the Open Work Permit other than being able to legally do other work besides teaching?
Any advice or direction to some answers would be very welcome.
[quote=âYellow Cartmanâ][quote=âboblâ]
Bottom line, if this has happened to you, no matter the fact youâve been told âItâs alrightâ, it is NOT alright to you as the English teacher and you must take affirmative action ASAP.
=YC[/quote][/quote]
When I first came to Taiwan, I had set up the work over the Internet with a foreigner who worked for the dept. I was interested in (at Kojen). He suggested I come out, we meet, and then I
Your comment that the regulation is completely unworkable is also right on. As an aside, the current laws if implemented to the letter would pretty much eliminate the current substitution business of English teachers. If you think about it, all substitution is ILLEGAL unless youâre a JFRV by marriage holder (I purposely donât mention APRC holders because the law is silent on that and not many people hold APRCs so thereâs no practical examples of such that I know of). So postings for substitute teachers is an open invitation for someone to break the law and do illegal activities as none of the substitution postings can ever satisfy âlegalâ work for the majority of work ARC holders which most English teachers are (unless youâre already illegal in which case it doesnât matter then).
The current recruitment of English teachers is from beginning to end, violates much of the law that I know with respect to work permits, employment law and related rules and regulations as intended by the authorities. Itâs just so broken on so many levels that itâs hard to know where to begin. And it doesnât just relate to English teachersâŚ
Richard Hartzell has offered through his connections to help raise the issue with relevant CLA people and I suggest people to take him up on his great offer. This would be my first story to him to lay the groundwork for what exactly is wrong with the regulatory scheme as current stated on paper. Changes do need to be made but the authorities need to understand the effects of their laws and its enforcement. My office has been told that the CLA doesnât know about these issues and concerns.
[quote=âYellow Cartmanâ]
Richard Hartzell has offered through his connections to help raise the issue with relevant CLA people and I suggest people to take him up on his great offer. This would be my first story to him to lay the groundwork for what exactly is wrong with the regulatory scheme as current stated on paper. Changes do need to be made but the authorities need to understand the effects of their laws and its enforcement. [/quote]
Iâm totally willing to talk or write about my experience, and I know others who would, too. I know a lot of people think it is a futile action, though. I kind of side with them because, as a foreigner, I know how seriously Iâm taken here. But, why not give it a shot?
Hi Mentapart. You raise some very good points. Iâll try and give my two cents in answering some of your questions and responding to your assertions.
First of all, clearly everyone agrees the system is currently broken. As Cartman said, there is much that needs to be done and itâs difficult to konw where to start.
Your main point about your work permit is that you are working illegally until you actually receive your ARC. This is entirely true. However, no teacher has EVER been in trouble for working at a school AS LONG AS THEIR APPLICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED and they are teaching at that school. This is why itâs important for everyone to encourage their school to start their ARC application right away (and you can help with this by having all your required information prepared and ready to be submitted.) If you came to Taiwan via a recruiter, make sure they are helping to get the school to begin the process for you as soon as possible.
The current laws arenât the schools fault. So, in that sense, itâs not really fair to blame it on Kojen. They and all other schools are doing their best within a broken system. There is NOTHING they can do to get you your permit abroad. 99.9% of all teachers first come with a 60 day visitorâs visa. Itâs actually not a bad system as long as the government doesnât decide to randomly enforce things. As Brian has said many times, this actually gives teachers some flexibility. Itâs also worth pointing out that you want to receive your work permit before coming out to Taiwan. You also said you would like to have the flexibility to choose a school once you arrive. You canât have it both ways!!!
Schools and recruiters should give candidates all the information about the unique legal situation here before they arrive. I know Kojen usually does this. If those who recruited you didnât tell you, then you should let the head office know. Teachers should be given all information about Kindyâs etc, before coming to Taiwan (or at least pointed in the right direction as to HOW to find all this info at places like Buxiban.com). Even with the recent deportations, a very, very, very small percentage of teachers ever encounter any trouble in Taiwan. To the contrary, most teachers here are actually treated a lot better than their Chinese peers! Still, everyone needs to make their own decision.
Itâs always interesting to hear how much training people expect to receive in Taiwan. I know from friends that Kojen does a lot more training than almost any other school. I received almost zero training when I arrived in Taiwan and I think 90% of teachers have had the same experience. You should be happy that you received some training!! Itâs always interesting to hear peoples different reactions to training and their school situations. Itâs all a matter of perspective.
How much training really happens in public schools back home?
Your experience isnât any different from everyone else who comes to Taiwan. However, your school definitely SHOULD HAVE let you know how things would have proceeded. I know a lot of people who work at Kojen and they do usually let people know how things work before they get here⌠thatâs more than most people know! Iâve met a lot of people who come and go without even knowing that working at a Kindy or substitue teaching is technically illegal. It goes to show you that it still isnât a huge problem here. Still, everyone should know their rights and hopefully threads like this can help.
I donât know if this is helpful, but last Friday I was in the CLA applying for my teachers work permit. I inquired as to the legality of starting work before this paperwork was processed.
Me: âCan she do teacher training in the classroom?â
CLA: âYes, as long as she has NO INTERACTION with the students whatsoeverâ
Me: âOk, can she assist in say, grading papers and handing them back to the students as my TA?â
CLA: âNo, she can have no contact with the students whatsoeverâ
I guess my conclusion is, that is you donât have your work permit in hand, then you are illegal, even if your paperwork is being processed.
Now, I have a couple of questions of my own (after getting rid of the incomptent agent I paid to do this):
Next I head to the Ministry of Foreign affairs in Taipei, and then from what I understand Iâm off again to the FAP. One of the documents required at the FAP was a âTzai Jr Jen mingâ (sorry for my horrifying pinyin). My question is this; Do I need this document at the MOFA or no?
Iâve already run back and forth to Taipei more times than I care to count, and tomorrow Iâm going to tell them about this site, and demand a detailed process that any simpleton (such as myself) can understand. Iâll post back tomorrow with whatever info they give me.
Just to clarify a bit, I want to adress some of the stuff you brought up.
The current laws arenât the schools fault. So, in that sense, itâs not really fair to blame it on Kojen. ⌠You canât have it both ways!!!
I just want to make it clear that I am definitely NOT blaming Kojen or the schools AT ALL. My reason for writing about my experience was to show that the regulation is completely unworkable. Schools have to do things in an underhanded way because of the regulation. I have plenty of complaints about Kojen, but this isnât one of them.
Schools and recruiters should give candidates all the information about the unique legal situation here before they arrive.
When I came out I can guarantee you that NOTHING was mentioned about the âunique legal situationâ - and I am not the only one hired there who dealt with that. I didnât go through a recruiter.
Itâs always interesting to hear how much training people expect to receive in Taiwan. I know from friends that Kojen does a lot more training than almost any other school.
Not sure why weâre talking about Kojenâs quality, but here goes. I didnât work for the regular school - I taught business classes around the city. The training I got consisted of sticky balls and the standard Kojen book teaching program. Neither of these were usable in a business situation. So, granted, my experience was different than most at Kojen, but it still was one of the worst times of my life. I love the job I have now.
To go back to the topic, I want to again clarify that I am critiquing the regulation (not the schools who are trying to deal with it). With the insanely expensive price of a visa for people from the States and this regulation, coming to Taiwan is an expensive hassle. I just donât understand whyâwith Taiwan so desperate for good teachersâthere would be so many deterrents.
:loco:
)
