focustaiwan.tw/news/eng_intercom … 90001.aspx
^^^^^^^^^^Good article for all the English teachers here^^^^^^^^^^
To the experienced English teachers: is there more to know?
- btw, there’s no relation between me and the news company.
[quote=“Focus”]is there more to know?
[/quote]
Plenty. For starters, there hasn’t been a CLA for almost two years – it’s now the Ministry of Labor. If they would just translate the useful pages of their Chinese website (www.mol.gov.tw), people writing articles like that would have an easy job because they could just copy the official, up to date information. Alas, the MOL’s English website hasn’t been updated since May 1st (the Aug 22 headline is from last year) and barely addresses the issues that commonly affect foreigners here.
For those who can read Chinese, the MOL really is the source. Most laws that foreigners need to know are also available in English at law.moj.gov.tw.
that whole article seemed pretty iffy. For one they mixed up white collar office workers and ESL teachers in at least one part of the article. 40 hours is not considered full time.
Hypothetical question !
A= foreigner (ARC) B= other foreigner (APRC)
A and B both have worked at a kindy/cram school. B hates A because some truth was exposed about B’s intentions around the workplace. B also threatened A in the workplace and causes trouble. Maybe A had involved the boss and showed promising evidence that B’s intentions affect both A and the company, but the boss chose to side with B because of fear. Because of this, A wants to file a complaint on workplace environment and B’s intentions.
If A goes to the Department of Labor: Foreign Affairs, would A get into trouble or deported if B accuses A of illegally working in kindy when the investigation of Foreign Affairs takes place?
A does not work there anymore, so if B were to have photos or videos of A’s presence, how would A and B be treated in terms of rights?
Could A simply deny the evidence or just not answer, or does the situation become complicated and it depends?
This might seem too unclear, but the main question should be about - Would former illegal workers who are accused later with proof of doing illegal work in the past be enough to get deported?
Hey Subarticblast,
That’s an interesting hypothetical situation. I recommend asking that question in an entirely new post. Your question may get more attention that way.
I think they need to be caught in the act of working illegally.
[quote=“Subarcticblast”]Hypothetical question !
A= foreigner (ARC) B= other foreigner (APRC)
A and B both have worked at a kindy/cram school. B hates A because some truth was exposed about B’s intentions around the workplace. B also threatened A in the workplace and causes trouble. Maybe A had involved the boss and showed promising evidence that B’s intentions affect both A and the company, but the boss chose to side with B because of fear. Because of this, A wants to file a complaint on workplace environment and B’s intentions.
If A goes to the Department of Labor: Foreign Affairs, would A get into trouble or deported if B accuses A of illegally working in kindy when the investigation of Foreign Affairs takes place?
A does not work there anymore, so if B were to have photos or videos of A’s presence, how would A and B be treated in terms of rights?
Could A simply deny the evidence or just not answer, or does the situation become complicated and it depends?
This might seem too unclear, but the main question should be about - Would former illegal workers who are accused later with proof of doing illegal work in the past be enough to get deported?[/quote]
Let me get that straight.
A wants to defame B by proving some kind of malicious intention toward the workplace/company.
A lost the battle and got fired, since the boss concluded that A’s actions were malicious.
Now, A wants to get back at them by ratting them out to the government, possibly getting the whole business into trouble.
Conclusion A has a problem.
You should have threatened them to do that openly, while willing to take all the consequences including your own deportation.
Going behind their back, only proves that they got rid of a disloyal snitch.