I think @yyy or @lostinasia can chime in.
Sorry, I don’t know! I’m in the private university system, which I think is a different system - not that I understand the one I’m on either.
you say about old-age benefits 勞工保險老年給付 of labor insurance, and
The one non spouse foreigners on ARC cannot join is 勞工退休金制度. Right? @yyy
Private schools – not to be confused with buxibans – don’t have an absolute exemption from the LSA, but if they play their cards right they can get away with it. (I’m assuming they haven’t closed the loophole yet.)
As for international schools that qualify as 外國僑民學校 (“schools [or educational institutions, depending on which article of the official translation you use] for international residents”), they need to follow the law of the relevant foreign country.
This misunderstanding is very understandable. 
Laobao has nothing to do with your residential status. Whether an employer needs to register you and pay its part of your premiums (and also deduct your part from your salary) depends on the Labor Insurance Act and relevant official interpretations. Tldr: for most employers, it’s obligatory.
Laobao will not give you much of a pension, but it will give you something (勞工保險老年給付).
Yes.
However…
If you’re a part-time (or unclear status) teacher at one of these schools, check with the labor department.
That iirc is another translation that’s been used for the above definition of “staff”. For ordinary jobs under the LSA (like buxiban teaching), this definition doesn’t apply.
The main discussion of that is here:
Tldr: PR’s and foreign spouses qualify for the new system (LPA) and only qualify for the old system (LSA) if they chose to keep it before the deadline. Other foreigners (normal ARC) qualify for the old system only (last time I checked). This doesn’t apply to all teachers in (non-buxiban) schools.
Some countries might have an escape clause for that, you know, like criminals deducting the cost of guns etc. from their income for tax purposes. 
4 Likes
@yyy thanks for this thorough explanation
Loophole is still open. Me and several collegues have called various government departments.
A few told me that they needed my name and school’s name to investigate. They told me will would be contacted and my babe would be revealed. That’s a good way to lose your job. The others assured me that not paying my pension was legal
Right, and there seems to be no enforcement of that. It remains optional in practice.
I have worked at both kind of schools mentioned above. They have all assured me that their lawyers tell them it’s legal not to pay APRC foreign staff a pension
1 Like
Thank you @yyy and @eCanada your posts in particular have been very useful and informative for me. My colleagues and I have been very confused and frustrated trying to get clear information about this particular topic from my school and the Labor Department, with the school stonewalling any discussion, and different government officials telling me different things every time I try and get a clearer answer. I have worked in Taiwan for more than 5 years and have the princely sum of NTD0 paid into any pension thing by my employer. My best idea seems to be to die immediately after retiring 
I think now I am correct to conclude that, as an APRC holder working as a teacher for a 外僑學校, my school is under no obligation to provide any pension benefits for me. Someone in the Labor Department told me if I have my spouse added to my APRC then I can at least get the 6% thing, but I don’t know if this is actually true, and I don’t see why I should become dependent on my spouse to receive any pension benefits when I have been a taxpayer here for so long. Sorry for the “woe is me” post, but it really is a fundamentally unfair situation being exploited by immoral schools.
4 Likes
yes, you in my sentence refers to teachers without management duty at private grade schools.
Article 39 of the law clearly says it is applied to foreign teachers too, if they are within establishment staffing.
The provisions of this Act apply, mutatis mutandis, to the handling of the retirement, severance, resignation, and bereavement compensation payments of full-time, qualified, paid personnel in the categories listed below employed within the establishment staffing of a private school:
…
4.Foreign nationals holding a full-time post within the establishment staffing of a registered private school at any level as a qualified, paid teacher or in a capacity listed in any of the preceding three subparagraphs.
What exactly does this mean?
It seems to be yet another grey area. Private schools do hire foreigners who have a wide spectrum of “qualifications”.
I’ve seen the following hired to teach:
-
Licensed teacher from abroad. Has own APRC.
-
Licensed teacher from abroad who needs an ARC.
-
Master’s Degree holding foreigner without a teaching license. Has an APRC.
-
Bachelor’s Degree holding foreigner without a teaching license. Has an APRC.
-
Non degree holding foreigner without teaching license. Has an APRC.
Which of the 5 categories is “qualified” to meet the terms of being able to get the pension? All, some, none?
Also, if you have an APRC and are married to a local, does this change anything about being qualified for any of the pension programs?
What if you’re working for a private company on an APRC and you just discovered they haven’t been paying into the pension fund?
first step is to ask them to correct this ASAP, it could be an honest mistake. If they do not do this they are breaking the law…
Not only you are qualified, but you should be employed as a teacher within establishment staffing (maybe almost equal to minimum required staffing to be approved as a regal school).
You means teachers.
And somewhere I read illegally hired teachers should get retirement if employed within establishment staffing, iirc.
In Chinese
If you are a foreign spouse or on APRC and your job is subject to LSA, you are a mandatory pension contributor.
Ask them, they need to pay 6% of your monthly salary for the entire time you have been working at that company and had APRC. if they don’t they are subject to fines.
I am hesitant to do that in case they take the whole amount for the past two years out of my next pay check.
They will not take it out of your paycheck, that money had to come from them in the first place. It is included in the cost of your head, or whatever cost the company has to incur to keep your butt on payroll.
this post was totally wrong.
@Rocket says about the old pension 勞工退休金制度, and what @frank_hnd says seems to be applied to everyone who aren’t eligible to the new pension but subject to LSA, except for blue collar workers?
勞動部
一、查我國勞工退休金制度包括勞動基準法之退休金規定（勞退舊制）及勞工退休金條例（勞退新制），係國家透過法律課予雇主對其所僱用勞工負擔一定之老年照顧義務。勞退新制之適用對象為適用勞動基準法之本國籍勞工、外籍配偶及陸港澳地區配偶；至不適用勞退新制之「外籍勞工」，應適用勞退舊制之規定，雇主應依勞工每月薪資總額2％至15％範圍內，按月提撥勞工退休準備金，專戶存儲。
I assume that’s a typo for my name would be revealed, but either way it’s extremely fishy.
(LSA inspection case secrecy and handling banfa, no official translation available)
Basically: The office receiving the complaint must keep the informant’s identity secret unless (1) the informant’s identity is already known due to a non-secret complaint about the same matter, or (2) the informant consents.
Now the obvious way out would be to say but this job isn’t subject to the LSA ergo that banfa doesn’t apply. Obviously, if the purpose of the complaint is a suspicion that the LSA does apply despite the employer’s claim to the contrary, it defies common sense to say the complaint can’t be handled under the banfa or that the secrecy provision will cease to apply in the event that the investigation results in a finding that the LSA doesn’t apply. Even before they came up with this banfa in 2017, it was standard practice when you went to the labor department to file a complaint (i.e. a request for inspection, not to be confused with a request for mediation) that they would keep your identity secret unless you signed the part of the form that gave them permission to reveal it.
I would raise this with a higher power, like the MOL.
1 Like
Edit: I’ve revised this post, but it’s even longer now. Scroll down to the summary near the bottom to save time.
That looks like something they wrote before PR’s were added to the new system (新制, what I call the LPA system). Remember, neither the LSA nor the LPA was amended for this; instead, they just did it through Art. 11 of the AREFP.
And Art. 12 of the AREFP makes the public school teachers’ retirement system apply to PR’s – but not the private school teachers’ retirement system. 
Oh, but wait. They did amend the LPA after all, last year.
(Skip explanation of the amendment to save time.)
That Art. 7 Par. 1 Subpar. 4 reference means
- Foreigners other than those mentioned in the preceding two subparagraphs who are permitted to reside permanently in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and are employed in Taiwan.
in other words, permanent residents.
So again:
-
normal (LSA) job + normal status (not PR or foreign spouse etc.) ==> LSA pension (old system)*
-
normal (LSA) job + PR/spouse status ==> LPA pension (new system)
-
public school 編制 job + PR status ==> AGRSBCTOSMPS pension
*but of course under the old (LSA) system, you don’t qualify for the pension unless you have X years with the same employer, which is why the new (LPA) system is probably better for most people.
But what we want to find out is…
-
public school 編制 job + normal status ==> ?
-
private school 編制 job + PR status ==> ?
-
public or private school non-編制 job ==> ?
The LIA (laobao) old-age benefit (老年給付) sometimes called a “pension” is completely separate, so you can qualify for it no matter which system you’re in, as long as you’re registered for laobao and reach retirement age.
As for (non-buxiban) teachers, the LIA has the following provision in Art. 6 (compulsory insurance):
4.Employees of government offices or public or private schools who are not legally entitled to join civil servants’ insurance or the insurance of teachers and employees of private schools;
The Chinese version says you only need to be a 員工 (staff member) who doesn’t qualify for teachers’ insurance. It doesn’t say 編制, so if I’m not mistaken it applies to all employees who are not 編制.
And also in Art. 76 it permits you to transfer from laobao to private school teachers’ insurance (or military or public servants’ insurance) without losing your seniority for 老年給付 purposes.
The Teacher’s Act (which applies to both public and private schools) does state in Art. 31 that teachers are entitled inter alia
- To enjoy rights to and protection of remuneration, benefits, retirement, bereavement compensation, severance with pay, and insurance.
And yet, the same law states in Art. 38 that
Teachers’ retirement, bereavement compensation, resignation, severance with pay, and insurance is governed by separate legislation.
So where would this legislation be? 
(Not in the Statute Governing the Retirement of School Faculty and Staff, as that was repealed in 2019.)
For public school teachers it’s easy enough to find the retirement part:
As we’ve seen, this is only for 編制 (establishment staffing, staffing complement, manning strength… it would be nice if they would pick one translation and stick with it) teachers, i.e. full-time and qualified.
NB Art. 7 allows a former private school teacher who now works at a public school to use the private school years of service towards seniority for retirement, severance and bereavement, under certain conditions. The 編制 caveat also applies to the private school years.
As for the insurance part:
The Public School Teachers’ Insurance Act (no official translation available) includes inter alia the following as the objects of so-called 公教人員保險:
二、公立學校編制內之有給專任教職員。
編制 teachers at public schools
三、依私立學校法規定，辦妥財團法人登記，並經主管教育行政機關核准立案之私立學校編制內之有給專任教職員。
編制 teachers at private schools
and
四、其他經本保險主管機關認定之人員。
anyone else the competent authority (which is actually part of the Examination Yuan 
in this case) deems worthy.
What about non-編制 teachers?
First of all, about private school teachers’ insurance outside the scope of the above:
That’s right(?). They have a whole banfa just for transferring from laobao to military / public servants’ / private school teachers’ insurance, but apparently private school teachers’ insurance no longer exists, the relevant law having been repealed on 1999-05-29, presumably because it got merged with “public” school teachers’ insurance. What’s even funnier is that the banfa was last amended on 2008-12-31 without removing reference to it.
But at the very least, public/private school teachers who have no teachers’ insurance should automatically qualify for laobao (which isn’t much but is something).
As for private school teachers’ pensions…
If we go back to the Private School Law, we find this in Art. 64:
Matters relating to retirement, compensation, resignation and severance of employees of school legal persons and teachers and staff members of their schools shall be handled by regulations separately drawn up.
There’s more, but that’s the important part. The translation is a bit off as usual.
學校法人及其所屬私立學校教職員工之退休、撫卹、離職、資遣等事項，另以法律定之。
It’s not a separate regulation but a separate law.
And that law is, as Tando pointed out, the Act Governing the Retirement, Bereavement Compensation, Discharge with Severance Pay Benefits for the Teaching and Other Staff of School Legal Persons and their Respective Private School(s).
It also allows you to count years spent teaching at a public school towards your private school pension, but again, you need to be 編制.
We should also note Art. 39:
The wording of Par. 1 Subpar. 4 (外籍人士擔任各級已立案私立學校編制內專任合格有給教師及前三款人員) is ambiguous. You don’t need to be 編制 if you have one of the jobs in Subpar. 1 to 3 – unless you’re foreign? Or the mention of 編制 there is superfluous because it’s implied anyway in the mutatis mutandis (going back to Art. 3)?
If we go back to the analogous law for public school teachers, there is a similar provision in Art. 94 Par. 1:
With the exception of the provisions of Article 15, Paragraph 2, the provisions of this Act apply, mutatis mutandis, to the retirement, bereavement compensation, severance pay, and resignation-related refunds for professional staff members of public social education institutions, and research personnel at academic research institutions subordinate to the associated competent authority.
And then they mention foreigners in Art. 95:
Why bother mentioning in the AREFP that PR’s with 編制 public school jobs are subject to the public school teachers’ pension system, when according to the law for that system they don’t even need to be PR’s? Was Art. 12 considered necessary to stop them from having two pensions (LPA pension + public school pension)?
Answer: apparently yes.
But then why make no mention in the AREFP that foreigners with 編制 private school jobs are subject to the private school teachers’ pension system? Does that mean they do get two pensions if they’re also PR’s? 
Answer: no, because Art. 7 of the LPA prevents that.
Anyway, to sum up, for insurance:
-
any job that qualifies for compulsory labor insurance (laobao) – which should include non-編制 jobs at public and private schools – or voluntary labor insurance that the BLI approves ==> LIA old-age benefit (老年給付)
-
public school 編制 job ==> public school teachers’ insurance old-age benefit (養老給付)
-
private school 編制 job ==> also public school teachers’ insurance old-age benefit (養老給付)
And to sum up for pensions:
-
normal (LSA) job + normal status ==> LSA pension (old system)
-
normal (LSA) job + PR/spouse status ==> LPA pension (new system)
-
public school 編制 job + any legal status ==> AGRSBCTOSMPS pension (public school system)
-
private school 編制 job + any legal status ==> AGRBCDSPBTOSSLPRPS pension (private school system)
-
private school job that falls under the LSA ==> see above for normal (LSA) jobs
And, unless I’m missing something…
- public or private school job that is neither 編制 nor LSA ==> black hole of pensionlessness
Commentary:
The exclusion of non-編制 teachers at both public and private schools is in my opinion a form of discrimination against the precariat, which – based on the finding by the Executive Yuan’s human rights committee ~10 years ago that the clause in the LIA making laobao non-compulsory for employees of small companies (fewer than 5 employees) was incompatible with the international human rights standards that Taiwan officially incorporated into domestic law around that time – should also be changed, as it needlessly excludes some hard-working people. It could be changed by adding precarious teachers to the LSA/LPA pension system, by adding them to the same pension system as 編制 teachers, or by creating a new system.
That finding by the EY still hasn’t resulted in an amendment, so don’t hold your breath. 
There is a human rights committee at that suddenly-in-the-news-again institution (the CY), in case anyone wants to give it a shot.
Again, my apologies in case I’ve missed anything.
7 Likes
all employees except for teachers who just do teaching jobs.
And here is the regulation for private schools.
2 Likes