Work rules for teachers, marriage APRC

[quote=“TaiLaw in another thread”]…
each their kindergarten classes[/u] and in lieu of a demo they have you work there for a few days, with full pay, as a test.

…[/quote]

Hardly legal, isn’t it … if the school is raided, you’re screwed …

Regarding the kindy, I could be wrong, but I believe it is illegal for foreigners to teach English to children under six years old. Taiwanese citizens are permitted to do so on a limited basis. If you can cite authority to the contrary, I will gladly concede the point. The person I was referring to was legally NOT a foreigner. Besides, I do not teach children that young. I was obviously referring to someone else. If you happen to be correct, then he is, as you so eloquently put it, “screwed”, not I.

Regarding the temporary work, as far as I am aware, hiring someone as a temp to see if you want to make them a permanent employee is not illegal either. Again, if you can cite authority to the contrary, I will gladly concede the point.

[quote=“TaiLaw”]Regarding the temporary work, as far as I am aware, hiring someone as a temp to see if you want to make them a permanent employee is not illegal either. Again, if you can cite authority to the contrary, I will gladly concede the point.[/quote]The reason the authorities clarified the rules on demos is not really because they objected to demos as such. It’s because some schools were using teachers without work permits and claiming when caught that “it was just a demo”.

It’s against the rules for a foreigner to teach for any length of time at any school without an appropriate work permit. The consequences for him or her if caught depend on visa status, though. Someone with a regular work-based ARC or no ARC will likely be kicked out of Taiwan. That seems far less likely for someone with an APRC or a marriage-based ARC. I’m guessing a fine or a verbal ticking-off is most common in that case, though I really don’t know.

[quote]a marriage-based ARC[/quote].

That’s me bud! According to the Employment Services Act, Article 48, revised 2005, I am exempt from the Work Permit requirement and can work at will (prior to the 2005 revision, one had to apply for the exemption, which was generally summarily approved). It’s not “far less likely.” It would be illegal for the government to do so (which admittedly, in Taiwan, is not impossible). As you said, you’re guessing and you don’t really know.

[quote=“TaiLaw”][quote]a marriage-based ARC[/quote].

That’s me bud! According to the Employment Services Act, Article 48, revised 2005, I am exempt from the Work Permit requirement and can work at will (prior to the 2005 revision, one had to apply for the exemption, which was generally summarily approved). It’s not “far less likely.” It would be illegal for the government to do so (which admittedly, in Taiwan, is not impossible). As you said, you’re guessing and you don’t really know.[/quote]
I was guessing about the consequences. Not guessing about the rule. Yes, you can work in 7-Eleven or an office or whatever. But the MOE says that you’re supposed to have a work permit from them to teach in a buxiban. Phone them and check if you like. But it’s not really the point, anyway.

Are you absolutely sure? Let’s hope so.

EDIT: replying to Tailaw

[quote]Yes, you can work in 7-Eleven or an office or whatever. But the MOE says that you’re supposed to have a work permit from them to teach in a buxiban.] Phone them and check if you like. But it’s not really the point, anyway[/quote].

MOE “rules” do not supersede the Employment Services Act laws and you would possibly be right if the MOE was able to override the Employment Services Act, but they can’t, they can only create a lot of noise and blow smoke. Anyway, you’ve obviously been here long enough to know that one government official, in this case from the MOE, can give you an entirely different response than the other ten you just talked to who all gave you different responses too.

BTW, the 7-11 bit was a cheap and easy shot. Hardly worthy of someone of your experience.

I am trained in legal research. The above has been the result I have found. If you can CITE opposing LAW, not MOE rules, please do and I will gladly concede the point.

From what i understand, the situation can be summarized:

The law is clear that marriage APRC people can do any job Taiwanese people can normally do.
The MOE holds the opinion that their rules for buxiban teachers still apply.
The police never question the validity of working rights under a marriage APRC.
I have (as of now) never heard of negative consequences befalling a school or teacher because of the MOE opinion.

Has anyone ever heard anything to the contrary?

Tailaw, I don’t think “7-11” was a shot of any kind. I’ve heard it quite a few times simply as an example showing that literally any work can be done by such foreigners.

On the kindergarten thing, the law is that English all-the-time kindergartens are illegal, no matter who the teacher is. The reason TW citizens can teach English and get away with it is that a)they can’t be deported, and b)it’s easier for them to pretend they’re a helper, parent etc if need be.

They’re are still not legally allowed to teach English all day to under 6’s.

For foreigners on JFRV/APRC, technically you are supposed to have a work permit although I don’t think anyone would ever check. More so for APRC holders - according to a friend who’s a manager in one of the chains, APRC holders are included on the hiring limits the schools have whereas JFRV are not.

[quote=“TaiLaw”][quote]Yes, you can work in 7-Eleven or an office or whatever. But the MOE says that you’re supposed to have a work permit from them to teach in a buxiban.] Phone them and check if you like. But it’s not really the point, anyway[/quote].

MOE “rules” do not supersede the Employment Services Act laws and you would possibly be right if the MOE was able to override the Employment Services Act, but they can’t, they can only create a lot of noise and blow smoke. Anyway, you’ve obviously been here long enough to know that one government official, in this case from the MOE, can give you an entirely different response than the other ten you just talked to who all gave you different responses too.[/quote]This one’s actually fairly consistent. And there is apparently some legal ground for it- something about certain kinds of jobs needing appropriate certification regardless of immigration status. You have to remember that the MOE gives licenses to the buxibans, and can fine them for doing stuff they’re not supposed to do. Having said that, I haven’t heard of any buxiban getting in trouble for that kind of stuff before.

[quote=“TaiLaw”]BTW, the 7-11 bit was a cheap and easy shot. Hardly worthy of someone of your experience.[/quote]It wasn’t intended to be an insult, or any kind of personal comment at all. I said “7-Eleven or an office”. What I meant was that people with marriage-based ARCs can work in most kinds of jobs without needing any additional certification.

I’m still interested as to what you meant by “To their credit, they run the most legal school I have seen … in lieu of a demo they have you work there for a few days, with full pay, as a test.” I had assumed that demos were only illegal because in the eyes of the MOE they constituted working without an MOE-issued permit. Are they illegal in some way over and above that?

Ooops, got my terms wrong there, to amend:

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]From what i understand, the situation can be summarized:

The law is clear that marriage ARC people can do any job Taiwanese people can normally do.
The MOE holds the opinion that their rules for buxiban teachers still apply.
The police never question the validity of working rights under a marriage ARC.
I have (as of now) never heard of negative consequences befalling a school or teacher because of the MOE opinion.

Has anyone ever heard anything to the contrary?
[/quote]

The problem with this is that Taiwanese people don’t need any special certification to work in a buxiban. JFRV people are supposed to be able to hold such jobs. I believe this is the view held by the labor ministry.

[quote]1. …the law is that English all-the-time kindergartens are illegal, no matter who the teacher is.

  1. For foreigners on JFRV/[strike]APRC[/strike], technically you are supposed to have a work permit…[/quote]

  2. Regarding the kindy, I could be wrong, but I believe it is illegal for foreigners to teach English to children under six years old. Taiwanese citizens are permitted to do so on a limited basis. (My 16 Oct., 21:37 post.)

  3. That’s old news. The Employment Services Act, Article 48, was revised in 2005. I am exempt from the Work Permit requirement and can work at will. (My 17 Oct., 23:21 post)

(The above underlining and strike-through in the above quote have been done by TaiLaw for emphasis.)

The problem with this is that Taiwanese people don’t need any special certification to work in a buxiban. JFRV people are supposed to be able to hold such jobs. I believe this is the view held by the labor ministry.[/quote]
By “consistent”, I meant that whoever you ask in the MOE about this regulation (not law as such but regulation I believe), their stance is likely to be the same.

It does seem strange that they’re not applying the same rules across the board. Maybe they figure they’ve got more leverage over what foreigners do. It’s understandable that they’d want to have some say as to who teaches in the establishments they license.

What interested me more was TaiLaw’s mention of demos. Anyone know whether there’s actually a separate rule against them, or is it just part of the no work without a permit thing?

You can call it a demo if you want. I believe referring to it as such is an, albeit unintentional, misrepresentation of my agreement with the school. In California temp-to-possible-perm jobs are common, so the arrangement did not strike me as unusual.

Is it so inconceivable that a buxiban may actually operate legally, rare as that may be?

You can call it a demo if you want. I believe referring to it as such is an, albeit unintentional, misrepresentation of my agreement with the school. In California temp-to-possible-perm jobs are common, so the arrangement did not strike me as unusual.

Is it so inconceivable that a buxiban may actually operate legally, rare as that may be?[/quote]
I didn’t call it anything. You’re the one who mentioned demos in connection with legality, and I just wondered what you meant.

And no, of course it’s not inconceivable that a buxiban may operate legally.

Sorry, Joesax, by the way you phrased it, it seemed to like you were referring to the temp position as a demo. Kindly accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

From everything I’ve read and heard, this is exactly right. I’ve read the relevant laws, discussed this people and even had the CLA tell a kindergarten boss explicitly that foreigners with JFRV ARC can teach kindergarten.

The confusion arises because the MOE don’t want foreigners teaching English in kindergartens. In fact they don’t want English taught in kindergartens at all. They tried to stop it but had to backtrack. But the MOE is not the law, and the law is clear.

JFRV foreigners can teach in kindergartens to exactly the same extent that locals can. The only restrictions are according to what kind of licence the kindergarten has and what that means as far as what qualifications a teacher needs. But these restrictions (and I’ve never been able to find out exactly what they are) apply to Taiwanese just a much as they do to JFRV-holders.

The difference is that the MOE might be stricter on foreigners. Anyone who’s worked in a kindergarten knows how it is. They a;ways have twice as many students as they’re supposed to and when an inspection has they ‘hide’ upstairs and do whatever else is necessary to allow the inspectors to turn a blind eye to what they know very well is going on. But they don’t like foreigners teaching English, so they might not want to turn a blind eye in that case. The police aren’t going to do anything. I’ve had them come into kindergarten taking photos of me. As soon as they saw my marriage ARC “Oh, that’s OK”.

It’s a bit of a grey area, but the frequent claims you see that “it’s illegal for foreigners to teach English in kindergartens” simply aren’t true.

Thanks, TaiLaw. I probably could have worded my post more clearly.