Law: No Rights For Teachers At Private Schools

[lightbulb]

Yes... I am still gobsmacked by the outcome of a meeting we had with a renowned labour lawyer today. We are a number of teachers who have been unfairly dismissed by our private school. Within an hour the meeting went from YES they cannot avoid severance pay, they HAVE to pay it, it is LAW, YES, you CAN claim that they did not notify you in the time limit of 60 days (stipulated in the Labour Protection Act- two months salary for this unlawful), YES, this is unfair dismissal (one months' pay for each year you have worked) to " I'm sorry, you have no claim whatsoever, because from January 2009, Private schools are excluded from the Labour Law/Labour Protection Act and therefore you have no rights / no claim.

Lawyer : "This school is lousy and this is unfair to you... but this is how it is.."

The implications for us as teachers working at private schools (Thais and Foreigners alike) are immense - they can make you jump through any hoop they want - if it is in the contract and you have signed it you are bound by it - even if it is unlawful according to fair labour practice.

Now it suddenly makes sense to me why the school we have been working for has felt so "justified" in treating their staff the unfair ways they have - because they CAN..., and insult to injury, if the school has hired an illegal Burmese sweeper cleaning the classroom, that illegal worker would have more rights under the Thai Labour Law, than you have as a professional teacher at the same school.

How this glaring unfairness slipped through and became law is anyones guess (TIT), but it has left a bleak landscape for Private School Teachers (Thai or Foreign) who are deprived the right and protection even the lowest minimum paid worker in Thailand enjoys.

I would love to know what your thoughts are about this and would like to hear from any PRIVATE school teacher who has been to a labour court since January 2009 - I am hoping, maybe, the lawyer had it wrong, but unless proven otherwise, this is something which is simply ......... (what is the word...??!!) I don't have words...(anyone?)

Edited March 16, 2010 by lightbulb

[manarak]

if the school has hired an illegal Burmese sweeper cleaning the classroom, that illegal worker would have more rights under the Thai Labour Law, than you have as a professional teacher at the same school.

explain that one to me?

It's rather strange to exclude private schools from labor laws.

This also means injustice for many Thais.

Do you have references of this amendment to the Law?

[lightbulb]

if the school has hired an illegal Burmese sweeper cleaning the classroom, that illegal worker would have more rights under the Thai Labour Law, than you have as a professional teacher at the same school.

explain that one to me?

It's rather strange to exclude private schools from labor laws.

This also means injustice for many Thais.

Do you have references of this amendment to the Law?

I am afraid I don't have this amendment with me right now- it was presented to us at our meeting as a document in Thai, which our very respectable and surprised lawyer translated. - I am wondering whether a translation is even available in English (anyone?)

I will ask for the document the lawyer handed us and I will get back to you on exactly where he quoted from.

As for the Illegal worker - ok admittedly, dunno exactly how the laws work for these workers and I would rule out "discrimination", BUT - if you are a foreigner employed illegally (no work permit / contract), you can still claim within your rights according to the LPA - but as a Private school teacher you cannot. Now, in such a case of illegal work, I would imagine that this would not exclude certain nationalities as that would be "discrimination" and also be "unconstitutional.." therefore one can argue that A burmese cleaner, under Thai Labour law - legal or illegal, has more rights than you do as a teacher working in a private school (this is only my opinion and I would be surprise if the law would show otherwise)

There is a case referenced here where a foreigner, teaching illegally, took his employers to court and still won. The guy even made a post (he got 8 months' severance) - Its referenced/posted somewhere here on Thaivisa Forums - maybe someone has that link...?

Edited March 16, 2010 by lightbulb

[LazySlipper]

A school can fire you, more or less, 1 day after your scheduled pay day with a one month notice. Anything after this time is illegal. This is where you may possibly win your case. However, if they respected the deadline in telling you about contract renewal (usually 3 months... but the 1 month law can still apply) there is not much you can do.

If the school told you within a prescribed time (1 month) that your contract would not be renewed, or that you were fired-- they can actually do it and there is not much you can do about it.

Got fired myself 'cos I stood up to the boss. I got compensation though... cos the boss did not know about the law.

Good luck!

[elkangorito]

You state "unfair dismissal" yet give no details about such dismissals.

You state that a "a renowned labour lawyer" reneged on what he initially said.

You then compare this to an illegal Burmese worker.

There are simply too many "unknowns" & embellishments in this story to make an appropriate comment.

Hopefully, when you do get a translation of this "new" amendment, we will be able to truly see what is happening.

[TerryLH]

At the same time they did this they also took all private school employees, not just teachers, out of the social security system. There was supposed to be a review of that late last year, but I don't know if anything came of it, or not.

[puyaidon]

At Assumption University, It includes all teachers over 60 also who have the option to stay on at the university's wim but with no step raises, no yearly bonus, and the same duties as the younger teachers who get the benefits. It is on a yearly contract base and the university can give special consideration and change the rules as they see fit. It essentially makes anyone over 60 also as either a beggar to stay on or a slave to the system. The committee that dismissed 11 teachers including me did not have one teacher on the committee. Just a bunch of staff weenies who did things their way. Just another way to cut out the older more experienced teachers and hiring younger teachers at a cheaper salary. My lawyer said that this was an agreement within the private system. In our case, when it started, we were given less than one hour to read the contract. I wanted to take a copy to my lawyer and was refused. I finally got it. It also said that the Thai language in the contract had precedence over the English. You are not alone. I did get all my Social Security input back from the government office as well as severance pay but it really feels like we got screwed as professionals. Everyone had a work permit also.

Edited March 16, 2010 by puyaidon

[TongueThaied]

I don't know what to tell you about the present situation. But I can say this, as a recovering lawyer from the US, the law is intricate. Those that study and KNOW the law on their particular subject matter are often in a position to abuse those that do not know it. As foreigners, we are all pretty much screwed on this front. I cannot even find traffic laws in English.

Ususally teachers at private schools are paid more than teachers at public schools. For the higher pay, you apparently give up a protection. Many private school teachers GRAB a contract because the pay offered is so attrative. If you want to protect yourself, negotiate the terms you need to protect yourself, demand that the contract be presented and signed in English, with a clause that states "In the case of any dispute, the English version shall control." If they won't play ball, go wherewhere. If you they won't play ball but you go with them anyway, because the offer is so attractive, don't complain. Even in the US, a private contract will often control over labor law, especially with workers deemed "professionals."

[TongueThaied]

. . .

In our case, when it started, we were given less than one hour to read the contract. I wanted to take a copy to my lawyer and was refused. . . . It also said that the Thai language in the contract had precedence over the English. You are not alone. . . .

Time to walk. If you experienced this and did not smell a rat, I don't know what to say. The Thai schools need foreign teachers to have a credible English program. If enough of you (that actually have good credentials) simply refused to do business this way, many schools would b e forced to play ball with you. There is a teachers forum (ajarn, or something) in this country. Some enterprising teacher ought use it to form a professional association to fight these battles. If you had enough contributing members, you could keep a reputable labor lawyer on staff. But if they bargain hard and you take the money and run, well, you get what you get. You cannot claim that you were screwed if you get what the contract says you get. Because the contract IS the deal.

[mailmonkey]

At the same time they did this they also took all private school employees, not just teachers, out of the social security system. There was supposed to be a review of that late last year, but I don't know if anything came of it, or not.

The amendment to the - Labour Protection Act (1998) came into effect in January 2009. It explicitly and specifically excludes Private Schools from the Labour Protection Act.

Now, to backtrack a little. Under the LPA, every person receiving a wage becomes an employee (even if you are illegally employed) and therefor has protection under the law. This includes Renumeration, Working Hours, Working Conditions, unfair dismissal, severance and so on. The LPA is in line with international Labour Standards, and is very liberal. Everyone therefor be protected by this law. So basic employees rights being taken away, it follows hat that new Private School Act would give employees rights - at least as much as in the LPA. Unfortunately it does the opposite.

To save you lots of time reading through this act, here is what teachers' rights boils down to (Thai and foreign alike):

________________________________________

Definition

“Formal School” means a School providing education with definite objectives, educational methods, curricula, period of study, measurement and evaluation which are conditions for finishing education.

“Non-formal School” means a school providing education with flexibility in determining objectives, form, methods of provision of education, period of study, measurement and evaluation which are important conditions for finishing education.

Part 6 Working Protection

Section 86. Business of a Formal School is not subject to labor protection law, labor relations law, social security law and compensation law. However, the persons performing duties for the Formal Schools shall receive remuneration of not less than those prescribed in the labor protection law.

Working protection, the adoption of Working Protection Committee and the minimum remuneration of the persons performing works for the Formal Schools shall be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Commission.

Labour

________________________________________

That is it - two paragraphs... the first line under Section 86 explicitly takes all the basic rights away.

The bottom line being : No Protection for any teachers or principals - thai or foreign, under the Act, not even the most basic.

So in effect, or at least in theory, the illegal paid Burmese worker at a Private school, cleaning the classroom, is an employee (because they receive a wage), and therefor has protection and therefore basic rights, whereas the Thai teacher or Farang teacher who teaches the class, has none.

This is completely outrageous, and I wonder how on earth an act like this got passed without - employees of Private Schools, not making some sort of objection. It is also clear that whoever is in charge of this Private School mess, (think the compulsory cultural course scam) seem to have an immense amount of power.

private_school_act.pdf

[lightbulb]

From :

The Private School Act B. E. 2550 (2007)

Part 6 Working Protection

Section 86. Business of a Formal School is not subject to labor protection law, labor relations law, social security law and compensation law. However, the persons performing duties for the Formal Schools shall receive remuneration of not less than those prescribed in the labor protection law.

Working protection, the adoption of Working Protection Committee and the minimum remuneration of the persons performing works for the Formal Schools shall be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Commission.

ctlo.com/data/Private%20School%20Act-En%20(190308).pdf ( add www to make appropriate link, please)

[Scott]

Thanks for posting this very valuable information. It is helpful to all of us to know exactly where we stand on these issues.

I know of a few schools who generally had fairly good labor practices that made a rather sudden change sometime ago, including dismissing of a fair number of employees (both Thai and Foreign staff). This act may explain it partially.

[lightbulb]

You state "unfair dismissal" yet give no details about such dismissals.

You state that a "a renowned labour lawyer" reneged on what he initially said.

You then compare this to an illegal Burmese worker.

There are simply too many "unknowns" & embellishments in this story to make an appropriate comment.

Hopefully, when you do get a translation of this "new" amendment, we will be able to truly see what is happening.

Trust that some of these posts and quotes are rendering a clearer picture as reality dawns... I would not have believed this a week ago myself-

As for the unfair dismissal - here is the picture - several teachers, no written warnings - no contract - (some even got more than a 90% evaluation (haha!!) - go figure! It was clear - and I am not hanging my head in shame on this - that these teachers were "troublemakers" and an unwanted element for the head of the department, who is notorious for doing exactly as she pleases and gets her way on whatever unreasonable demands she enforces upon staff

Granted - it may all well depend on the school you are at and the indignities you may or may not suffer, but it boils down to an example of schools abusing their unchecked power and creating, unashamedly, nodding slaves to an unfair system...

I think mailmonkey has a point referring to the mess created by the Private teacher's council and the power they wield - I would take a WILD guess and bet my buck that these measures were taken at the same time as the Culture course /teacher's license fiasco and it would pin it on- again WILD guess : S*mchai - he happened to also hold the post of Minister of Education before he became prime minister. It kinda all makes sense suddenly, but we have to ask ourselves, if the Private School act and the founding of the Private School Council is connected (and of course they ARE) then what exactly is the agenda here ?

[Scott]

Thanks for the clarification. Let's try to stay on-topic. In this thread, we are talking about legal rights. Whether we agree about a dismissal is not the question; it's a matter of how it is done.

I know plenty of teachers who I personally think should be dismissed but couldn't/wouldn't because their performance is within the lower limits of acceptable.

The Thai Administration at some schools will go on a sort of 'witch hunt'. They begin watching everything. This is usually the beginning of the end for a lot of teachers. But now it's much easier, since it appears they can get rid of anyone anytime they want.

This topic is important. If we thought employers had free wheeling before, just think of what they can do now.

[lightbulb]

Thanks for the clarification. Let's try to stay on-topic. In this thread, we are talking about legal rights. Whether we agree about a dismissal is not the question; it's a matter of how it is done.

I know plenty of teachers who I personally think should be dismissed but couldn't/wouldn't because their performance is within the lower limits of acceptable.

The Thai Administration at some schools will go on a sort of 'witch hunt'. They begin watching everything. This is usually the beginning of the end for a lot of teachers. But now it's much easier, since it appears they can get rid of anyone anytime they want.

This topic is important. If we thought employers had free wheeling before, just think of what they can do now.

Yes Scot, as I have mentioned, this has immense implications for us all - and one day later and a good nights sleep, I am actually feeling a bit depressed about this discovery and development. For me personally, and I would imagine for anyone who values the concept of integrity, it forecasts darker times, for, you will be brought to a point in time, maybe even on a daily basis, when you are presented with a situation where you either compromise your integrity and become the nodding idiot, for fear of losing your job, or you stand by your integrity (for me it was conveniently aided and guided by a labour law) in line with what you think and what you say and how you act all in accordance (also a Buddhist principle, by the way) BUT run the risk of losing your job/ being a trouble maker...

Therefore, should you believe, for instance, the classic dilemma that students should not just pass by default, you either endorse this ridiculous notion and get a pat on the back or you don't and have a tick for not playing ball.

and so on and so forth

So then - nodding idiot it is....and this is how it is...

[culicine]

Well a teacher at my private school was recently awarded 9 months salary by the labour court for unfair dismissal. I can't give details here, though it seems to depend on the nature of the dismissal and whether the school followed the law strictly by the book when they terminate teachers.

Its also my understanding that the labour court will still deal with these cases as the education department (and their privat school act) can't adequately deal with these issues.

Edited March 17, 2010 by culicine

[elkangorito]

Thanks lightbulb (& others) for providing the additional info, even though it was somewhat depressing.

With regard to the Private School Act, I find "Part 6 - Working Protection, Section 86, a complete contradiction in itself.

Business of a Formal School is not subject to labor protection law, labor relations law, social security law and compensation law. However, the persons performing duties for the Formal Schools shall receive remuneration of not less than those prescribed in the labor protection law.

Then...

Working protection, the adoption of Working Protection Committee and the minimum remuneration of the persons performing works for the Formal Schools shall be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Commission.

Which ruling overrides which? It seems to be almost purposely confusing.

I think it's about time "we" became more unified...legally, if possible. The elitist mentality of being able to treat people like crap is not tolerable. Is there something in the constitution about "equality"?

As per history, the only way that "rights" were ever obtained by the working folk, was by suffering hardship & protesting.

Alternatively, "we" can boycott such educational institutions. If necessary, boycott the whole bloody country as far as teaching is concerned.

[lightbulb]

One would really need to study this Act and I am yet to tackle it - there is also mention of provident funds and the management of this - which - I think - the private schools are obliged to have/follow - but I am speaking off the cuff here.

I agree - we DO need to stand together here, but it would need the leadership of Thai teachers to start such a movement so we as foreigners can get on board.

I agree further with the thinking of avoiding such schools - I have been thinking on the same lines - I went to an interview yesterday and got that "you're gonna be a mute slave here" feeling.

The important thing here is to SPREAD THE WORD, so that teachers are aware of the situation and also know that they actually only have their contracts to stand by and therefore it is so important to not just sign anything and hope for the best..

I would like to invite as much discussion and input on this topic as possible - this affects LOTS of us (there are more than 80 private schools here in Bangkok alone - plus the addition of businesses going as schools and being private)

[backsoon]

The situation desribed for private schools vs govt schools can be easily addressed to.

You have no rights. Beaut! No responsibility! In any civilised society, teachers would immediately demand a written contract, with all your rights stipulated. Individually, or jointly. Do not wait to be sacked at the moment convenient to the school. Quit! Now, teachers are supposed to be educated intelligent lot. It shouldn't be difficult to make private schools to face closure.

In future, any teacher seeking employment with a private school must demand a contract protecting his/her rights at the same level OR BETTER as the govnt's schools. Those already employed, must go and ask for one such contract drawn up and signed. Or resign.

Bingo! You have won!

However, if you don't do this, - you are losers. Deservedly so.

Or you are not as educated and intelligent as you are supposed to be.

Oh, PLEASE, don't say you have families to feed! Err, and PLEASE do not mention the teachers moral obligations to society/kids either! Just look above...

[Scott]

I would suggest you read the following post from a legal adviser. You do have rights. The law does exempt certain conditions, but to relieve private schools of labor responsibilities would probably violate the most basic tenants of the constitution. Please read:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Labor-Rights...23#entry3423723

[mopenyang]

I would suggest you read the following post from a legal adviser. You do have rights. The law does exempt certain conditions, but to relieve private schools of labor responsibilities would probably violate the most basic tenants of the constitution. Please read:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Labor-Rights...23#entry3423723

Please explain then why was the OP's case rendered moot if private school teachers still have the rights previously guaranteed them prior to enactment of the law under discussion on this thread?

[Scott]

I am not in a position to explain anything. It seems that we have one attorney saying one thing and another saying something different. I assume this is the reason that there are courts to settle these differing opinions. From the other thread, I think this is the operative phrase: But the employee of the education institute is entitled to no less than what is specified by the Labor Protection Act.

Exempting certain businesses or groups of people from a particular part of a law is nothing new, however, to totally disregard a law is quite unusual. It's also not unusual for there to be a conflict in different laws.

I think the OP and his group need to double check with the attorney or possibly get a 2nd opinion.

[bapak]

This pdf file cannot be printed. Is this protected for some reason? Attached File private_school_act.pdf ( 505.59K )

[mopenyang]

I am not in a position to explain anything. It seems that we have one attorney saying one thing and another saying something different. I assume this is the reason that there are courts to settle these differing opinions. From the other thread, I think this is the operative phrase: But the employee of the education institute is entitled to no less than what is specified by the Labor Protection Act.

Exempting certain businesses or groups of people from a particular part of a law is nothing new, however, to totally disregard a law is quite unusual. It's also not unusual for there to be a conflict in different laws.

I think the OP and his group need to double check with the attorney or possibly get a 2nd opinion.

Yes, it's still an open question with no definitive answers at this point.

[lightbulb]

This is what Sunbelt says:

In line with this assumption, we can then classify the business as falling under the Private Education Institute Act B.E.2550. Chapter 6, Section 86 of said Act states that the business process of the school (institute) will not be governed or under the jurisdiction of the Labor Protection, Labor Relation, Social Security and Compensation. But the employee of the education institute is entitled to no less than what is specified by the Labor Protection Act.

Thats absolutely right - Employees are protected (read : the cleaner/ admin etc etc...)

Unfortunately the Act specifically excludes teachers and principals from this...

I have mailed this person for feedback and await response

[lightbulb]

Correct, it cannot be printed - you could select the text, copy and paste in into word - Im not sure whether the formatting will be maintaned, and you may need to make some adjustments to make it readable.

This pdf file cannot be printed. Is this protected for some reason? Attached File private_school_act.pdf ( 505.59K )

[paully]

Employees are protected (read : the cleaner/ admin etc etc...)

Unfortunately the Act specifically excludes teachers and principals from this...

"Part 6 Working Protection

Section 86. Business of a Formal School is not subject to labor protection law, labor relations law, social security law and compensation law. However, the persons performing duties for the Formal Schools shall receive remuneration of not less than those prescribed in the labor protection law."

Sigh.

Read Section 86 again, carefully, lightbulb. Now please explain to us exactly where it states that teachers are specifically excluded from the category of "persons performing duties for the Formal Schools" but cleaners and admin staff are within this category.

[Scott]

I think he is referring to what the attorney told them. Hopefully, we will find out. The law is long and it will take someone a while to go through it carefully!

[lightbulb]

Paullie -I am not only referring to the lawyer that mentioned this, but I also read it somewhere while researching this. I also remember reading it in a book that my friend lent me - it was highlighted.

I will deff look for it.

Meanwhile I am in touch with another set of lawyers who are making work of helping us.

Lets hope all is not lost here and if anyone can shed more light on this it would be great to hear from you..!

tnks

LB

Edited March 19, 2010 by lightbulb

[Ijustwannateach]

I would suggest getting a second opinion from the Ministry of Labour itself.