theres a guy on this board now thats got a case pending. There are cases that get through the system
if it were me i'd say 'fukkit' and move on but if somebody has a case and is willing to fight it. more power to him.
Well, I have been at the university for 12 years. Actually it has been a great place to work at and we used to have a good team of foreign staff. That all changed a couple of years ago when we had a new Head of Department.
Many of the foreign teachers are looking for other jobs now and I don't know of anyone who has found a new job yet. As for myself, I have the problem that I am 59 this year and that obviously goes against me, even though i hope to work another 5 years or more.
No, we never saw the SS money but we received the SS cards after one year. The university blame to problem on the SS and no one is interested in helping us get the money back. In fact some of the foreign staff have also said "mai pen rai"
What makes you think just because you had a job in the past you are entitled to one for the rest of your life?
Turnover in ESL teaching is quite normal, and it is most likely at least one person will probably leave on his or her own and then there will be 7 jobs for 7 people.
If not, the "bottom" one which the university doesn't want will be SOL.
If you have been at the university for awhile, hopefull you are not thought of as no. 8 out of 8.
You are a "guest worker" on a one year contract, much like a "visiting professor" is in other countries and legally the university has no obligation to offer you a new contract.
Last edited by Albert Ainsteiner; 22nd July 2012 at 13:04.
Albert, your last sentence is 100% wrong. Please do some research before posting complete drivel.
^Don't worry, Albert is a troll. 100% agree with you, the law does not see us as guest workers at all and the university does have an obligation to offer a new contract (if the position is continuing).
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As far as I am aware,and as someone else mentioned, the point here is the fact that the 8th position is no longer required. The job has ceased to exist.
Looking at the Labour rules this means that there are no grounds for severence.
^why no grounds? There is grounds if the job was permanent and then ceased. It matters not that the position ceases - it was still a permanent position. However, if the job was classed as temporary at first (say, it was created last year), then there would be no grounds. This should all be looked at logically. If the employer could just terminate employees by taking the position away without paying severance, then every employer in Thailand would be at it (and some still are, despite the law...).
Basically, the law reads that if the position is permanent, and you lose that position (by whatever means, it could be non-renewal or anything) then you are due severance (unless it is through dismissal for performance or conduct). There may be a doubt in this case, it all depends when the position started.
I worked for the first school district in California history to declare bankruptcy. The bankruptcy voided all employment contracts, and the district laid off 1,500 teachers - the entire teaching population - as part of its 'reorganization.' There were lay-off 'hearings' in a gymnasium where many teachers brought private counsel to try to contest individual teacher's lay-offs, all in vain. In the new school year, most teachers were re-hired - the ones with the least tenure were let go. It was quite a circus, with both the district HR and head of the local teacher's union acting as ringmasters.
I know the issue is severance ... but losing a job builds confidence. If the OP is comfortable with musical chairs, he'll know the result of the game in short order. But this may also be a good time to dust off the cv as his employment as a 'temporary worker' after 15 years should be the first clue to his position on the food chain.
If the job requirement for a post has actually ceased, it would amount to redundancy and thus trigger a redundancy payment.
If the employer is merely saying that the job requirement has ceased, but it has not in fact, this would amount to an unfair dismissal, and trigger a compensatory payment for such dismissal.
If the employee is classed as a permanent one he will thus be entitled to compensation - or a severance payment.
If they have any sense they'll dismiss the person who has only been there for a few months. If it's a one year contract and is not renewed for a second year, there is no severance claim. Anyone whose contract has been renewed is entitled to severance pay. Posters who say you'll never get anything are wide of the mark. You can go directly to your local Labour Protection and Welfare Office (you must speak Thai or be accompanied by someone who can) who can call the employer in on the spot. If they refuse to pay up you can go to the Labour Court and have a hearing with a mediator within a few months. You have to be pretty spineless to just walk away when your rights are trodden all over.
I am back again. I just spent 15 minutes replying to this thread only to be disconnected and lose the entire reply. So here goes again:
There are many replies "move on" "If you don't want to play musical chairs, look for another position" "this job has ceased to exist" and so on. It's easy for you to say that but why haven't we done that? There are many reasons convenience, experience, friendly Thai staff (yes the majority of Thais are shocked and confused) and age. Living just 10 minutes from the university , 12 years experience in teaching the required subjects, I am 59, one guy is over 60 and a couple of others are 50+ (who would employ me now?) and a good friendship with the Thai staff keeps many of us here.
The government (or Ministry of Finance) is our employer and they have not cut down on the number of jobs. One position has been transferred from Western Languages to Eastern Languages and seeing that none of the present Western language teachers are native Korean, Japanese or Vietnamese then one of us has to leave.
We had our "interviews" today and of course after 10 - 15 years employment that is an insult. Anyway we were shown new employment conditions for those that were "chosen" or wish to stay. Of course the number of teaching hours was changed from "minimum 12 per week" to "minimum 15 per week". Normal working hours of "8.30 to 16.30" was changed to "8.30 to 16.30 + extra hours". There were a few other minor points about helping Thai staff more and extending "office hours" where students can come to seek advice.
Anyway the main point was that: They offered a position in the Thai department teaching Academic English to Thai majors. The position required 18 hours of teaching a week plus the usual helping Thai teachers, reading graduate papers and whatever.
It seemed that many of the teachers felt that they were being targeted and needless to say we all felt rather demotivated and decided we needed a discussion over a drink or two.
It seems now that by offering this "new" position then they will avoid any form of severance pay claim so this thread can die a natural death.
Oh and of course it seems that many of us have applied for other positions in Thailand and in other countries.
Thanks for all the good advice and sorry about my long message.