I certainly didn’t mean to stereotype at all and hope my post didn’t read that way.
This is what I meant and hope it clarifies things: The police are cracking down for some good reasons. There are a lot of people teaching in Taiwan who probably shouldn’t be. There must be some standards, no?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with a University degree being a requirement. I also don’t have a problem with keeping out people with criminal records or questionable pasts. The same thing is done in our countries.
I’m just saying there is nothing wrong with having some standards.
The police are cracking down because the end of the year is approaching and quotas need to be met if they’re wanting their bonuses. Another few weeks and they’ll be out out on the roads at night catching drunk drivers, etc. Happens every year.
I’ve been arguing harder than anyone that what is going on is wrong.
However, I’m also reasonable enough to admit that someone who didn’t graduate High School shouldn’t be teaching English. A beautiful white girl from Albania whose English I can’t understand also shouldn’t be teaching English. I would have little sympathy for people such as this if they are deported.
On the other hand, deporting someone with a legitimate ARC for substituting a Buxiban class seems excessive to me.
I’m simply saying that standards are ok. I don’t want to get too far off the topic of this thread as its for giving concrete information to teachers. Anyway, I think the point has been made.
On the other hand, deporting someone with a legitimate ARC for substituting a Buxiban class seems excessive to me.[/quote]
In ways some ways I fell it is harsh on this guy to get deported for substituting a class. Mainly most people feel this because the would’nt like it happen to them.
But to say the guy is getting deported for having a legitimate ARC is wrong. The guy did not have a legitimate ARC for the school he was working at when he was caught. (Thus the reason for deportation)
It up to each of us a teachers/ people to know the law and to make our decisions on weather we should run the risk of breaking it.
If this was a Taiwanese person in one of our countries, do you think he/she would be treated any differently? With this question I leave you to ponder.
Perhaps one idea would be to petition the relevant authorities to print either work permits or ARCs clearly and in English with words to the effect that “this document entitles the bearer to work at the address shown on this document and this address ONLY. Should the bearer be found working at an address other than the one on this document, he or she will be subject to immediate deportation.”
That wouldn’t be too difficult, would it? And it would very quickly clear up this whole mess, it seems to me.
[quote=“hey hey in the jobs forum”]morning job and evening job available in Zhanghua county
Morning from Mon to Fri in Hsi-Hu town and Ho-mei town in the evening
Hourly pay:600~700NTD
EMail:bryan@De-wey.com.tw[/quote]
This is a case in point. Job offers like this should be CLEARLY marked as to whether this person is prepared to offer TWO work permits for these TWO positions at different addresses. If not, this person is advertising illegal work and this should not be permitted on the site.
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“hey hey in the jobs forum”]morning job and evening job available in Zhanghua county
Morning from Mon to Fri in Hsi-Hu town and Ho-mei town in the evening
Hourly pay:600~700NTD
EMail:bryan@De-wey.com.tw[/quote]
This is a case in point. Job offers like this should be CLEARLY marked as to whether this person is prepared to offer TWO work permits for these TWO positions at different addresses. If not, this person is advertising illegal work and this should not be permitted on the site.[/quote]
I disagree. The people applying for these jobs are adults and it’s up to them to know whether or not they are legally qualified to work there. Remember not all native speakers have the same legal limitations. Some are married, and some have local citizenship.
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“hey hey in the jobs forum”]morning job and evening job available in Zhanghua county
Morning from Mon to Fri in Hsi-Hu town and Ho-mei town in the evening
Hourly pay:600~700NTD
EMail:bryan@De-wey.com.tw[/quote]
This is a case in point. Job offers like this should be CLEARLY marked as to whether this person is prepared to offer TWO work permits for these TWO positions at different addresses. If not, this person is advertising illegal work and this should not be permitted on the site.[/quote]
This [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/citys-english-new-adult-school-in-taipei/21611/2 is an example of an illegal job opportunity for most English teachers. Given that most of the English teachers who work here require work permits, saying that the school cannot/does not provide work permits means that a very small group of teachers are eligible.
People advertising this should clearly state that IMO. I assume that most English teachers do not understand the law. Most long term people here do not understand the law as it pertains to them. So the ones coming from overseas FOB are most vulnerable. Shifting the burden of responsibility onto the ones least able to handle that responsibility isn’t good civic duty.
There seems to be no room for punishment according to the level of indiscretion. What I mean is that it is impractical to suggest that as this guy was only subbing one hour that he shouldn’t be deported while that other guy was earning half of his income on a second illegal job so he should be deported. This would be too difficult to police as everyone would claim that they were only doing a demo or subbing one class, even though they were actually teaching a regular job. This is in fact why the police made doing demos in front of students illegal last year, as this was being used as an excuse by schools and teachers who clearly had a longer term relationship other than just doing demos.
What we all seem to agree upon is that the government really needs to expend more energy promoting the do’s and don’ts of working in Taiwan. I like Sandman’s suggestion about providing specific information to people once it is identified that they are going to be a foreign teacher in Taiwan. Perhaps the CLA should put together an English language pamphlet that outlines some of the do’s and don’ts and things to watch out for. Perhaps we can help them to help us by putting together such a document ourselves and asking the CLA to ensure that each work permit is accompanied by two pamphlets (one in Chinese for the school and one in English for the teacher). This way every teacher has been informed of their responsibilities and can choose to work legitimately. This is a two way street however as if this pratice was instituted then anyone caught breaching those conditions probably couldn’t claim that they were unaware.
I think that it is unfair to blame the schools for this. Sure some schools do take advantage of the fact that foreigners may not know certain things, and schools with clear intent such as this are best exposed and avoided. However, most schools are just trying to run legitimate businesses from which the students, the teachers, and of course the owners can all benefit. Many schools are just trying to run their operations within the often stupid framework of regulations that the government institutes and changes. I think that we would all be best served if we made the schools that employ us our allies as it is likely that they have greater power for change than we foreigners do.
The answer seems to be for us all to put pressure on the CLA. Although they are most certainly aware of what is going on, they most likely don’t want to open that can of worms but instead deal with individual worms that climb out of the can and come to their attention. We should dump the can of worms on their desk and force them to resolve this issue.
I agree with Taiwaner to some extent. I believe that the CLA should be working with ‘legitimate’ foreign teachers by ensuring that they are complying with the law, and fining those who don’t for a first or minor offence. Repeat offenders or those who exhibit a clear intent to break the rules should be the ones earmarked for deportation with a defined non-return period to ensure the severity of this penalty. How do they diferentiate? Well in my opinion there are two classes:
teachers who qualify to work in Taiwan, have arranged a work permit and ARC etc. but are caught working illegally in a second job should be fined and warned.
People who are caught working illegally without any documentation at all should be deported straight away.
Until recently the above was actually what was happening. Until this month I had never heard of someone with an ARC being deported for a second job. This is a big change for all of us.
What ever the authorities decide I hope that they stick with it. At least then we all know what to expect and can then make an informed decision. Also newbies can then be greeted with clear information about what will happen if you get caught - no exceptions!
[quote=“brian”]Taiwaner I agree with your sentiments and also your suggestion that we all need to let the powers that be know that we are dissatisfied with the current situation. I do think however that it is important to ensure that what we put out there is accurate.
That is correct.
[/quote]
I disagree. The restrictions on a visitor visa are that no work must be done without permission from the relevant authorities. That permission is usually in the form of a work permit. Mere acceptance of paperwork does not seem to me to be “permission”. However, if you have some legal references that would stand up in court I think it would be very helpful if you could post them, to put people’s minds at ease on this one.
Another point worth making is that some people will come from countries, such as the UK, which give residents blanket permission to work. In a nutshell, anyone with leave to remain in the UK for more than 12 months has permission to work unless it is specifically prohibited. (There is also a work permit scheme which is similar to Taiwan’s in restricting you to one employer.) It is not universally the case around the world that permission to work must always be granted, and the government here could help matters by explicitly pointing this out, as Sandman said. It used to be stamped on tourist visas. Not visas for the purpose of “study” though, as permission to work used to come from the university. I’m talking about proper study of Chinese at a university. And also ten years ago, so I’m a bit out of date.
I work for a company. I’m pretty sure I could go and work in any of their branches around the island and not be working illegally. That is probably because we are all the same company, not split into separate companies for tax reasons, or perhaps because I work at Head Office. The problem with the buxibans is that every branch school, even of a big chain, is spplit up into separate legal entities, which employ the teachers directly. Just because you work for Happy School Guting (for example) which would be Kuaile Xue Xiao, say, you can’t work at Happy School Xindian, which could be Kuaila Xue Xiao, and so on. A different company entirely. As different as Boeing and Budweiser.
What on earth would be wrong with giving English teachers blanket work permits to teach? Then you could focus on getting them to pay as much tax as possible and send the police off to do something useful. Everyone wins.
People can most certainly begin work prior to their work permit being approved whether you agree with this or not. The reference that I have posted here before pertains to instructions in the regulations posted by the government that state just this. Also I have personal experience with this and can attest to the fact that this is the way things are done. I will certainly post it again if I can find my source on this again, but suggest that you search yourself if you really want to know as it does exist.
No matter what the case may be in other countries, foreign nationals most certainly need a work permit to work in Taiwan. This is clearly outlined in the relevant regulations including the Employment Services Act, Labor Standards Law, and Immigration Actfor Taiwan. I suggest that you have a read of the legislation before commenting further.
Maybe you could but you would be wise to check this. There is no mention of work address on your ARC, so as long as the Chinese employer name on your ARC is the same as the name on the business registration certificate on the wall then you are okay. As I have said before, in the case of schools even though the English name may be the same, each school has a different registered Chinese trading name. I believe that the same is true for other businesses, but I am not sure of this.
I agree with your sentiments again here Brian, but again I don’t fully agree with the reality here on the ground. The schools should take more responsibility for this. Almost all schools do something illegal in Taiwan, from big bad Hess all the way down to the local Mom & Pop Buxiban. They have kindergartens that employ foreigners, they have ARC’s at one school and have their teachers work at another school. They do everything and anything to get around the system. I just don’t think it’s fair to place so much responsibility on the teacher here. It’s a two way street.
As you said, however, before the unwritten rules were pretty consistent. People knew the risks. If you had an ARC and subbed at a school, you wouldn’t be deported. The rules have now been changed. Will these new actions stay consistent? Who knows.
[quote]I believe that the CLA should be working with ‘legitimate’ foreign teachers by ensuring that they are complying with the law, and fining those who don’t for a first or minor offence. Repeat offenders or those who exhibit a clear intent to break the rules should be the ones earmarked for deportation with a defined non-return period to ensure the severity of this penalty. How do they diferentiate? Well in my opinion there are two classes:
teachers who qualify to work in Taiwan, have arranged a work permit and ARC etc. but are caught working illegally in a second job should be fined and warned.
People who are caught working illegally without any documentation at all should be deported straight away.
Until recently the above was actually what was happening. Until this month I had never heard of someone with an ARC being deported for a second job. This is a big change for all of us. [/quote]
Great stuff. I totally agree. I’m not sure about how to go about this, but would be happy to be a part of a movement to institute these ideas. These are the kind of ideas we need to take action on and, as Brian said, “Dump the whole can of worms on the CLA’s desk”.
I’m very far from a “The government is always wrong” kind of person. However, I really think the government is almost entirely to blame in this situation. They need to decide on what laws they want to have and then enforce them- consistently. Deporting people without a fair trial is entirely unacceptable.
I encourage everyone to write letters to the Taipei Times and China Post at opinion@mail.chinapost.com.tw, respectively.
Additionally, you can call the Ministry of Education at 02-2356-6051. The Ministry of the Interior can be reached at 02-2356-5000.
The International Community Support Hotline at 08-0002-4111 is run by the government and another good place to lodge complaints.
My suggestion is that everyone who reads this, please take 5 minutes out of your day to write a letter to these newspapers. Then take 1 minute to call the three numbers above and let them know that you feel this treatment of foreigners is unacceptable. Finally, print this email out and have 5 of your friends do the same thing.
People can most certainly begin work prior to their work permit being approved whether you agree with this or not. [/quote]
Oh, Brian, you have misunderstood me. Perhaps deliberately, as you state unsubstantiated opinion as fact. I’ll ignore the childish sarcasm for a while, and direct you back to my post. I am offering a possible explanation for why people who have just arrived here may incorerctly assume there is no need for further permission to work.
Fantastic. Where is it? Why not accept that there are people on the site who know as much if not more about Taiwanese immigration than you do, who are just trying to help, and keep the comments constructive. It’s pointless little jibes like yours that have driven people away from this site. Now I understand why Hartzell gave up.
Thanks, Brian. Both arrogant and unhelpful. Cheers.
No matter what the case may be in other countries, foreign nationals most certainly need a work permit to work in Taiwan. This is clearly outlined in the relevant regulations including the Employment Services Act, Labor Standards Law, and Immigration Actfor Taiwan. I suggest that you have a read of the legislation before commenting further.[/quote]
Did I disagree with you? Do I really deserve to be patronised by you? How is that helpful? Do you assume I don’t know the law because you are in a bad mood, or is it because I have disagreed with you? Do you honestly think you are helping the debate by presenting Taiwanese immigration law as if there was a “right way” and a “wrong way”? Over the years I’ve had various conversation with Richard Hartzell, various law firms here, and gone over the law (in the Chinese) with senior members of the Minsitry of Foreign Affair and the Foreign Affairs Police, as well as a senior legislator. The one thing I have learnt from that is there most certainly not “one way” to do everything (The Brian Way) and it is most certainly not found in any statute.
Instead of being a sarky know-it-all you could have cited the regulation or law which permits work upon submission of the work permit application. But you didn’t. You decided you couldn’t be bothered or couldn’t wait to find it before getting a childish little “my cock’s bigger than your cock” remark in. If such a thing exists then it can be printed out and presented to the FAP as and when required. The considered written legal opinion of two of the biggest international law firms here in Taiwan is that it is not legal to work until the work permit is issued, but that the consequences of doing so are not serious and the likelihood of being charged with an offence for doing so is small. However, it matters to some firms whose competitors may wish to cause problems for and there has been a person who has had to leave Taiwan and come back again because of this very problem.
You have so far posted some urls of English translation of some laws on buxiban.com, and rather haughtily suggested I read them before posting further. Not sure whether you did that to help the discussion or to create the impression you know more than me about the law.
Anyway. Good luck to you sir. Just remember, when you go around acting like a patronising know-it-all wanker, occaisionally people will tell you to fuck off. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.
We have finally been making some progress with all the letters everyone has been writing to the newspapers and all the phone calls everyone has been making. Good work!!
If you have been deported, the Taipei Times is interested in interviewing you. Please email AppealinTaiwan@yahoo.com and we will call you first to be sure you want to talk with them and then pass your information on. It’s important that we get as many individual stories into the paper as possible.
In particular, Toufuren, SpunkeyMonkey, Phillipe and Canadian Girl and friends, we would like you to be involved. We also know from various people that there are AT LEAST another 10 people who have been deported. If anyone knows these people, please have them contact us.
Again, please email AppealinTaiwan@yahoo.com
If we all work together, it can make a difference!!
Keep writing letters to the editor and calling the numbers we have been posting. It’s a slow process, but we can make a difference!
I encourage everyone to write letters to the Taipei Times and China Post at opinion@mail.chinapost.com.tw, respectively.
Additionally, you can call the Ministry of Education at 02-2356-6051. The Ministry of the Interior can be reached at 02-2356-5000.
The International Community Support Hotline at 08-0002-4111 is run by the government and another good place to lodge complaints.
My suggestion is that everyone who reads this, please take 5 minutes out of your day to write a letter to these newspapers. Then take 1 minute to call the three numbers above and let them know that you feel this treatment of foreigners is unacceptable. Finally, print this email out and have 5 of your friends do the same thing
I will ignore most of your post as it is childish, distasteful, and doesn’t add credibility to your argument.
There are however a few things that I will address.
My posts on this matter have been very clear on the fact that you would only be legal if your work permit application had been submitted to the CLA. This takes up to 10 days to process. I certainly do not see why you feel the need to clarify this by muddying the waters! It is a simple concept and one that you have attempted to make more confusing.
This is a fair question and not one that I am trying to shirk. I am a big believer in that if you are going to say something you should back it up and I will when I get the chance. As I stated in my original post on this subject as well as my more recent post, I have posted this before so feel free to look for it yourself if you are desperate for this straight away. Otherwise if you hold on for a bit I will post it.
Yeah right! :loco:
Has anyone ever been deported for something that was not contained within the relevant legislation? Of course not. Therefore the legislation is the backbone to anyones case should they wish to appeal a deportation order.
Sure I conceed that things are not always done by the letter of the law and provided that no one appeals the matter then that’s fine. The fact remains however that the letter of the law will be what a judge will consider when hearing an appeal so your suggestion that the legislation is not important is somewhat misleading.
Assuming that you are not just blowing hot air and this is in fact true, then I am surprised that your posts to date have not been more helpful in this arena.
I get no reward for sharing my information with others but I do it as I have personally been through some of these things and have developed an understanding of some matters. I share these when I think that they are relevant.
Judging by your comment above I shouldn’t need to. You no doubt know the legislation like the back of your hand.
For the record though I generally do cite the relevant clauses and this can be seen in my numerous past posts. I just haven’t had as much time recently. I certainly don’t feel the need to apologize for that as I have provided the links for people to do their own research which is possibly more helpful that your one sided opinions.
Not having seen those considered opinions and not knowing whether the people who prepared them really know I can only work off what I know. I know from reading the legislation and from my own personal experience that this is not correct. If you prefer to rely upon the word of others then that is your right but I always prefer first hand knowledge.
Checking through the entire English and Chinese version of the Employment Services Act, I cannot find support for the first part of the wording in Answer 34 re: illegal working. Specifically, I have a problem with “who work without applying for a work permit through employers…”
It sounds like the fact that so long as your employer has submitted one’s work permit papers to the Council of Labor Affairs, you are legal to work. Some of us have operated with this understanding. I’ve been skeptical personally. My skepticism is now further reinforced by the recent deportation cases in which I was able to discuss and interview the individuals. Work permit papers were submitted and CLA proof of such registration was presented. It did not affect the FAP finding of illegal working. It seems to be that according to the FAP, upon approval and issuance of the work permit, then and only then, are you deemed legal to work. Mere fact of applying for work permit by the employer is not sufficient to show legally working status.
Furthermore, according to Employment Services Act Article 57, Section 1 (EN):
[quote]As for employment of Foreign Worker(s), Employer shall not engage in any of the following:
Employing a Foreign Worker [b]without Permit…[/b][/quote]
[color=red]EDIT 2: Additionally, according to Employment Services Act Article 42 (CH): the wording is that the foreigner’s work permit must have been applied for and approved by law.
第四十二條
外國人未經雇主申請許可， 得在中華民國境內工作。[/color]
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 “work” 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.
I can also state as truth the following:
As an employer, if you ever requested your teacher to show up to school without receiving such work permit in question, then you violated the Employment Services Act and put that person in jeopardy.
[color=indigo]EDIT 1: According to the Chinese version of Employment Services Act, the word used is 申請 (apply for) which does not imply approval/receipt of said application. And we know that Chinese version prevails so, this creates some problems. I believe the Chinese law was written poorly, poor wording. It may be infact that mere approval is sufficient, but that would create major issues for those facing deportation based on incorrect application of the law by the FAP!
NOTE: See Edit 2 above reference to Article 42 invalidating EDIT 1. I left Edit 1 in for analytical history so others can double check my interpretation.[/color]
The investigation continues. We shall update this thread as soon as we obtain more concrete information.
Thanks ML Mclean. It’s invaluable having your legal perspective in these forums. Just more proof that no one really knows what is going on.
More and more, it seems the only comfortable solution to all this is to encourage the government to make the laws clearer, or at least enforce them consistently.
Writing letters to the newspapers and calling the appropriate authorities is a good start and we are making an impact. Does anyone have any other ideas as to where we go from here?