Vacation = Breach

Legal Legal - Work
41

Seven hours a week and this person gets a work permit? They must be very very very well paid hours unless his income is supplemented elsewhere which would be what? Illegal? Probably. Smacks of yet another “I come to Taiwan to do what I want and if I don’t get what I want, I am going to whinge about it me me me me me person”.

How much tax have you paid on your seven hours a week? How much have you contributed to the society in which you currently reside as a guest?

Nothing probably.

Very difficult to be sympathetic to someone who puts a free air ticket above responsibilty to uphold an agreed contract. Perhaps the OP should think very carefully about what this “I want my cake and eat it” mentality says about him. IMO: unemployable.

BroonArbeiter

42

In the U.S. it’s tough to fire someone even if employment is “at-will” and even if the employer has a good reason, because companies are so afraid of being sued by a disgruntled ex-employee. Therefore, when attempting to get rid of a bad employee, the tactic used by many managers is to write up their problem employees for every tiny mistake and micromanage them to the point that they quit on their own accord.

Whether it’s legal or not in Taiwan, schools get rid of employees they don’t like all the time. One way they do this, aside from firing teachers outright, is to reduce their hours to almost nil, so they’re forced to find a job elsewhere.

But the point of this is? Employees should be free to leave their jobs as long as they give notice, and employers should be able to get rid of employees who are incompetent. I won’t disagree with you there.

As an aside, it’s interesting that certain posters who are getting moralistic on the OP have failed to follow through on commitments themselves. I know first-hand one who was hired to help a school write a textbook, but after failing to meet deadlines, simply bailed out without giving any notice at all. Another left a high-school job halfway through a semester because he decided he couldn’t bear another winter of driving his motorcyle up the mountain in the rain.

You’re right about that, but that’s true of 99.9% of the world population Broon. Bosses, teachers, students, highly-paid expats, restaurant managers, diners, Forumosans, and 2-year-olds alikes. Looking out for “me first” is a hard habit to break, and most people never do. But it is the force that drives a capitalism, no?

What I can’t stand are hypocrites, but I suppose we all are to some degree, so perhaps I should leave them alone, too. Cheers :beer:

43

Loretta, I already plainly stated that “This post is about the consequences of a decision (is it a breach? What are your legal rights? What are your bosses?) not whether or not you are a jerk.”

How can you be so baffled that my posts continue to talk about “legal jargon”? You’re right that was is reasonable to me is not relevant. But what is reasonable in the eyes of the law is a question that might best be answered by looking at some of that dreaded legal jargon.

To address the topics you raised, my boss cannot hurt be by withholding my paycheck, as my monthly pay is much lower than the 32000 she is asking for. And because my boss cannot withhold enough money to hurt me, I will most likely not have to hire a lawyer to sue her.

As for your childish name calling and amateur detective work, I’ll only say that it truly adds nothing helpful to this discussion. Is there any reason you could not have included all of your points above while still being civil?

44

[quote=“LawFerret”]
my monthly pay is much lower than the 32000 she is asking for. [/quote]

Keep pushing the authorities and they might have a little dig and question how you managed to sustain yourself (legally) on seven hours a week. You may claim to have lived life as an ascetic during your stay in Taiwan but it might not hold water. IMO, you are not thinking this through in terms of the investigative consequences. I concur that Loretta’s assertion of selfishness is correct and that by playing the aggrieved party when it seems both you and the employer have been bending the rules a bit and disregarding where this might lead you, smacks of occidental hubris/arrogance.

The likely outcome is you getting questioned on your real source of income and why you haven’t paid income tax. You could of course say that you are not liable for income tax because you taught illegally. Good luck with your ‘case’. I hope no one spots it as a visa scam.

I work 5 hours a week for shed loads of money.

BroonAdvice

45

Hi BroonAle,

Thanks for the warning (about my legal situation and tone of writing). To be honest, I have tried to keep this post away from discussions of who is a bad guy and who is a good guy. I did indicate why I feel my boss is more than happy to see me breach, rather than use a sub. In hindsight, I should have left that information out and simply given the facts. If I’ve come off as trying to play an aggrieved party, standing up against an evil boss, that was not my intention. I’ve really just tried to focus on what rights we have.

The situation now is that I have given notice of my last day and offered to pay her 2/12 of my training fee. I feel we are not on the brink of a lawsuit or government investigations. I would like to know the law because, at some point, we will have to sit down and see if we can work this out. If I understand both my legal rights and her legal rights, I feel I will be in a better position to negotiate from. That’s why I am very interested in whether this contract clause is legal or not.

Yet, even if I was 100% sure that the contract was invalid and I wouldn’t have to pay anything, I’m not going to tell my boss, “see you in court.” I will still negotiate with her, as I have no desire to be sued, blacklisted, etc. But on the other hand, I don’t want to let the fear of being harassed by the government or my boss cow me into paying what I feel is an unreasonable amount.

Finally, if my boss can explain to me why 2/12 of the training fee is unreasonably low, I’ll be glad to listen to her. I realize some people believe whatever the contract says is reasonable. But I don’t believe the law is quite so black and white.

46

After much discussion with myself, I have decided that 5 hours per week is too much and have reduced this to 3 hours and 40 minutes. I have amended my contract to reflect this. There was no argument, well a little, but eventually I came to an agreement with myself. Basically a wholly satisfactory outcome for me, myself and I.

BroonArbitration

47

You may believe what you like but if there is a mandatory minimum of 14 hours and you get an ARC because you signed a contract that commits you to only 7 hours, you and your employer are breaking the law. Ergo, you are working illegally.

You are merely attracting attention to yourself and by persuing it, you only increase your chances of having your personal finances and living sustainability looked into. That may lead you to have to admit to working illegally elsewhere to supplement your meagre income. Oh dear. Then you’d have to pay taxes. And you may get deported.

There is a solution but I doubt that you have the necessary negotiating skills or cultural awareness (an assumption based on your stated actions to date being founded on wildly irrelevant western ideals of conflict resolution) to conclude the matter. You will find no solace in the law.

Give it up. Your tenacity is misplaced and foolish.

BroonAdvises

48

Today, one of my co-workers asked me to help him translate for him and my boss. He wanted me to help him explain that he found another job and that he wanted to quit because she is giving him less than 14 hours per week. Both of our contracts state that we will have at least 14 hours per week. I did not sign a contract limiting my work to 7 hours.

I told him that I have a conflict with the boss as well, and thus it would probably not be a good idea to serve as a translator for him.

49

[quote=“LawFerret”]Today, one of my co-workers asked me to help him translate for him and my boss. He wanted me to help him explain that he found another job and that he wanted to quit because she is giving him less than 14 hours per week. Both of our contracts state that we will have at least 14 hours per week. I did not sign a contract limiting my work to 7 hours.

I told him that I have a conflict with the boss as well, and thus it would probably not be a good idea to serve as a translator for him.[/quote]

Two of you. I sense a class action suit in the making. Think I’ll stick around and watch the kids off the boat make tits if themselves as they take on the system.

BroonAudience

50

This is veering a bit off topic, but the subject of legal termination has been brought up a few times in this topic already. I don’t think that reduction of hours would be legal, particularly in the case of a foreign worker who is required to have a certain minimum work schedule to be qualified for an ARC, or if the contract specifies a certain minimum number of hours.

So what are valid reasons for an employer to terminate employment? The Labor Standards Act lists valid reasons for firing an employee without notice in Article 12:

[quote]In any of the following situations, any employer may terminate a labor contract without advance notice:

  1. Where a worker misrepresents any fact at the time of signing of a labor contract in a manner which might mislead his employer and cause him to sustain damage therefrom.
  2. Where a worker commits a violent act against or grossly insults the employer, his (or her) family member or agent of the employer, or a fellow worker.
  3. Where a worker has been sentenced to temporary imprisonment in a final and conclusive judgment, and is not granted a suspended sentence or permitted to commute the sentence to payment of a fine.
  4. Where a worker is in serious breach of the labor contract or in serious violation of work rules.
  5. Where a member deliberately damages or abuses any machinery, tool, raw materials, product or other property of the employer or deliberately disclose any technical or confidential information of the employer thereby causing damage to the employer.
  6. Where a worker is, without good cause, absent from work for three consecutive days, or for a total six days in any month.
    Where an employer desires to terminate a labor contract pursuant to Items 1 and 2, Items 4 to 6 of the preceding paragraph, he (or she) shall do so within thirty days from the date he (or she) becomes aware of the particular situation.[/quote]

Pretty reasonable stuff, but Items 4 and 5 can possibly be broadly interpreted.

Article 11 covers situations where an employer may terminate employment with advance notice:

[quote]No employer shall, even by advance notice to a worker, terminate a labor contract unless one of the following situation arises:

  1. The business ceases to operate or has been transferred.
  2. The business suffers an operating loss or contraction.
  3. Business suspension for more than one month is necessitated by force majeure.
  4. A change in business nature requires a reduction of workers and the particular workers cannot be assigned to another suitable position.
  5. A particular worker is clearly not able to perform satisfactorily the duties required of the position held.[/quote]

This still requires a valid reason, but it’s pretty clear that an employee who is not performing their duties could legally be terminated with advance notice.

In addition, Article 14 governs when an employee may quit without notice:

[quote]A worker may terminate a labor contract without giving advance notice to the employer in any of the following situations:

  1. Where an employer misrepresents any fact at the time of signing a labor contract in a manner which might mislead his (or her) worker and cause him (or her) to sustain damage therefrom.
  2. Where an employer, his (or her) family member or his (or her) agent commits violence or grossly insults the worker.
  3. Where the work specified in a labor contract is likely to be injurious to the worker’s health and the worker has without success requested his (or her) employer to improve working conditions.
  4. Where an employer, an agent of the employer or a fellow worker contracts a harmful, contagious disease and there is a possibility that the worker may contract this disease.
  5. Where an employer fails to pay for work in accordance with the labor contract or to give sufficient work to a worker who is paid on a piecework basis.
  6. Where an employer breaches a labor contract or violates any labor statute or administrative regulation in a manner likely to adversely affect the rights and interests of the particular worker.
    Where a worker desires to terminate a labor contract pursuant to Items 1 or 6 of the preceding paragraph, he shall do so within thirty days from the date he becomes aware of the particular situation.
    Where there exists any of the situations provided in Item 2 or 4 of the Paragraph 1 to this Article, and the employer has already discharged the agent concerned or has hospitalized or discharged the person suffering from such harmful, contagious disease, the worker may not terminate the labor contract.
    The stipulations of Article 17 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the termination of labor contracts pursuant to this Article.[/quote]

However, with advance notice an employee can quit for any reason, so if anything I think the law favors the employee.