Most cram schools want APRC holders to work there but most do not know (or wilfully ignore) the requirement to pay into the pension. I think it is because the Taiwan pension office doesn’t effectively enforce this so most places just slide by.
Compared to Japan which actively and strictly enforces the pension requirements for all legal residents. Over there you will get rejected for PR if you don’t pay into the pension and they aggressively go after people for back payment.
Are you still in Taiwan now?
Yes I am. I have a family and I’m older so I am sticking it out.
No kids/No wife and I would be out.
Everyone’s kind of over stressed these days. I think that’s just whining. Just noise aimed at no one in particular. No target, no reason - just frustrated chatter.
I’m not sure if eligible cram school teachers on APRC are newly included to MOE’s package or they were already in the original package.
Some of them may be newly qualified to MOL’s package?
I think so, too. Everyone assumes “foreign English teacher” when they see “cram school”, but it’s a huge industry that employs many Taiwanese teachers, especially those teaching math.
She shot herself in the foot! If she also made you fill out leave request forms titled 請假單, she shot herself in both feet! 
(She could easily accomplish the same things – monitoring your entry and exit times and dates and reasons for taking leave – without these exact methods, but the courts seem to be in love with the idea that conventional 打卡 and 請假單 are unambiguous markers of 從屬性.)
One must be careful with the wording here. An LSA contract is a 勞動契約, labor contract, and at the same time it’s most likely but not necessarily a 僱傭契約, employment (or “hire of services”) contract. It can be a 承攬契約 (“hire of work” contract) instead of a 僱傭契約 but still be a 勞動契約, though I don’t think that’s common.
I think you’re thinking of employment insurance (jiubao). You can have an APRC and still not qualify for compulsory laobao at a buxiban, if the buxiban has not registered as a laobao unit (at least that’s how I remember it).
seems not certainly. The employer can claim it is just to calculate compensation because it is an hourly paid contract, and it seems a judge could accept it as reasonable.
At one level I agree with you, but from what I’ve seen they tend to make a big deal about the external appearances of certain things. The title of the contract doesn’t matter, because that one would be too easy to cheat with – retitle an employment contract “Commission Contract” but keep everything else the same, and it’s still actually an employment contract (or vice-versa). So the jurisprudence is clear: the title of the contract is of minimal importance.
But beyond that, there’s a danger of falling into habitual ways of thinking (or at least pretending to). If you have a stack of papers titled “Leave Request Form” that employees use to request leave, those are obviously leave request forms. If you have a policy that employees must email the employer to request leave and in doing so state the reason and start and end dates of the leave and wait for approval, that policy serves exactly the same purpose as conventional leave request forms, but lawyers for the employer can nonetheless make a big fuss about how the employee is not obligated to use leave request forms and therefore not in a relationship of subordination and so on, and judges have been known to go along with this nonsense. 
Great, they are being inclusive. Although, I am not eligible , and do not need help now (apart from my vaccine ha), but at least permanent foreign residents are on their radar. Would not have been a decade or so back.
Whether young or old or single or married, the cost of relocating back to USA/Europe is very costly right now. There’s no way I could afford to fly my family of 4 back to the States. 
Unfortunately only schools losing 50% of their revenue can apply on their teachers behalf , perhaps it should be teachers making less than 50% of their revenue can apply on their own behalf. The school would have to admit that it is losing 50% of its revenue which most businesses are not or do not admit to.
They probably faked their numbers in the past. Under reported so it is impossible to prove they lost 50% now.
The whole idea must be that if the schools haven’t lost 50%, they should still be paying their employees.
And if they have, the government can help.
But their past accounting will be a problem now. Plus many haven’t lost 50%, but still aren’t paying their employees.
So basically pond scum. Now, I know why so little sympathy for Cram schools on here.
Many don’t pay laobao either right ?
And they didn’t pay tax until recently. If they do pay tax it’s vastly underreported .
I think the situation is much better than in the old days where it was paid per hour, tax went into their pockets etc. Obviously still a long way to.go to clear up this industry. Do you think the government is fully aware that few can apply , so that is why they are offering ? Are they that naive?
Reminds me of all of the privately run stores and shops that only sometimes use their cash registers and provide receipts. They likely only report half of their transactions/revenues so can’t easily show drops. They surely are cushioned as long as they are not levered up on the school and outside dealings - cars, real estate, so and so. The real hurt will come in the next 3 months as there is no way the schools will open with over 600 kids already infected. Kids won’t social distance and they will bring the virus home to parents and grandparents. How can kids eat and drink water wearing masks?
This new normal is going to be very miserable.
Yes, forgive my English rendering of terms as I don’t speak Chinese.
Re the employment insurance, the rules are: if they have registered any workers, all subsequent eligible workers must be enrolled; if they have more than five employees, they must register as a unit (school had 9 employees, but had not registered).
This is true and is just what they argued, that the time card was “to help me” by protecting me from any miscalculation of pay. However, the contract stated that payment depended on time card data, undercutting this argument.
(If you’re not a lawyer, you should be!)