Work Permit Required?

[cigar7]

Is a work permit required to change a light bulb in condo common areas, if I am a co-owner in the condo building? Technically, a co-owner does own part of common areas. There would be no payment or consideration for services rendered.

Basically the condo management, hasn't fixed lights in the condo common areas for months, after repeated requests from numerous co-owners. Condo maintenance funds are limited and there are more important issues and items than fixing lights.

[MikeandDow]

Thai labor law, the definition of work is "exerting effort" and "employing knowledge", "whether or not for wages or other benefits

So by this definition WP required

[Evilbaz]

Just do it!

[elviajero]

No it isn't.

[MikeandDow]

No it isn't.

You need to prove that you do not need a WP, simple stating "no it isn't" is not good enough, methinks you need to look at thai law, and the many cases that foreigners have fell foul of the law for doing less than change a light bulb very bad advise given by you.

[Rhys]

Instruct a Thai to do it..

[steve187]

this subject has been done to death, 50% say no need work permit, but half say need work permit.

just change the damn thing, or set up ladders etc and ask a passing Thai to screw for you.

Je**s is the lack of common sense a prerequisite for membership.

[elviajero]

Thai labor law, the definition of work is "exerting effort" and "employing knowledge", "whether or not for wages or other benefits

So by this definition WP required

That definition that you and others wrongly apply to situations like this is from the Alien Working Act that governs foreigners working for Thai employers. It has no connection or relevance to daily life.

[elviajero]

No it isn't.

You need to prove that you do not need a WP, simple stating "no it isn't" is not good enough, methinks you need to look at thai law, and the many cases that foreigners have fell foul of the law for doing less than change a light bulb very bad advise given by you.

Ok here is the long answer.

The OP has been granted permission to stay/live in Thailand under the laws of the Immigration Act and is not allowed to work. The Immigration Act states that permission is required to carry out (work) any occupation or temp work or employment. Meaning work in connection to employment or self employment.

Daily living requires many activities that require physical effort. The definition of work that you are wrongly using is from the Alien Working Act and is ONLY relevant within that act to a job of work being done by a foreigner as an employee of Thai company. The definition within this act is deliberately broad so that employers can't employ a foreigner without permission by claiming they are an unpaid door stop.

The definition of work within this act does not have any relevance to everyday life.

If the OP was being employed, paid or unpaid, as a bulb changer he would require a work permit. However, changing a few light bulbs in building you co-own/live in absolutely does not require a work permit as it is not work. No one has ever been prosecuted under such circumstances and never will.

I know the law very well, clearly you and many others don't and continue to spread misinformation.

[Don Mega]

this subject has been done to death, 50% say no need work permit, but half say need work permit.

just change the damn thing, or set up ladders etc and ask a passing Thai to screw for you.

Je**s is the lack of common sense a prerequisite for membership.

The setting up of ladders sounds like "exerting effort" and that will get you in breach of the WP and will face possible deportation.

[rwdrwdrwd]

No it isn't.

You need to prove that you do not need a WP, simple stating "no it isn't" is not good enough, methinks you need to look at thai law, and the many cases that foreigners have fell foul of the law for doing less than change a light bulb very bad advise given by you.

Ok here is the long answer.

The OP has been granted permission to stay/live in Thailand under the laws of the Immigration Act and is not allowed to work. The Immigration Act states that permission is required to carry out (work) any occupation or temp work or employment. Meaning work in connection to employment or self employment.

Daily living requires many activities that require physical effort. The definition of work that you are wrongly using is from the Alien Working Act and is ONLY relevant within that act to a job of work being done by a foreigner as an employee of Thai company. The definition within this act is deliberately broad so that employers can't employ a foreigner without permission by claiming they are an unpaid door stop.

The definition of work within this act does not have any relevance to everyday life.

If the OP was being employed, paid or unpaid, as a bulb changer he would require a work permit. However, changing a few light bulbs in building you co-own/live in absolutely does not require a work permit as it is not work. No one has ever been prosecuted under such circumstances and never will.

I know the law very well, clearly you and many others don't and continue to spread misinformation.

You certainly sound very sure, but I'm interested in what leads you to state this:

The definition of work that you are wrongly using is from the Alien Working Act and is ONLY relevant within that act to a job of work being done by a foreigner as an employee of Thai company

I don't see that referenced anywhere in the act, in fact since Section 4 expressly excludes certain employees of non Thai entities, it seems odd that the legislators felt it necessary to include the section at all, if what you state is factual.

Edited February 12, 2016 by rwdrwdrwd

[zeichen]

If it required a work permit, so would changing oil in your car, cutting the grass in your yard or making home repairs which none do require a work permit.

I know this is a stupid troll post, but lets use some common sense.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Slightly different technically - all the examples you refer to relate to upkeep of one's own property - common areas of a condo are not in this bracket.

Edited February 12, 2016 by rwdrwdrwd

[elviajero]

You certainly sound very sure, but I'm interested in what leads you to state this:

The definition of work that you are wrongly using is from the Alien Working Act and is ONLY relevant within that act to a job of work being done by a foreigner as an employee of Thai company

I don't see that referenced anywhere in the act, in fact since Section 4 expressly excludes certain employees of non Thai entities, it seems odd that the legislators felt it necessary to include the section at all, if what you state is factual.

I'm not going to get in to another major debate over this.

The Alien Working Act governs Aliens working in Thailand for Thai employers. The definition of work in section 5 is to make it clear to an employer that whatever the job they are employing the foreigner to do requires permission (unless the requirement for permission is exempt).

[rwdrwdrwd]

It's not a major debate, it's a simple question.

Nowhere in the act does it say what you state, that '[this] act governs Aliens working in Thailand for Thai employers', or ' ONLY relevant ... as an employee of Thai company'

You state that you 'know the law very well' so I assumed you must have some secondary legislation that says this.

If there isn't, it simply appears to be your interpretation (or possibly that of a lawyer you have consulted), which is (either way) not something you should be presenting as factual.

Edited February 12, 2016 by rwdrwdrwd

[elviajero]

It's not a major debate, it's a simple question.

Nowhere in the act does it day what you state - 'The Alien Working Act governs Aliens working in Thailand for Thai employers' - so I am simply wondering why you have been stating it as fact across numerous topics, surely you have some legislation that states this.

If it's just opinion, you shouldn't be stating it as fact.

Please explain what the Alien Working Act governs if it isn't Aliens working?

[rwdrwdrwd]

I'm not disputing that it covers 'aliens working', I am asking you to show proof that it covers 'only aliens working for Thai employers' since that doesn't appear to be stated in the act itself.

It seems an especially odd claim since a section of the act specifically exempts certain categories of employees that would intrinsically be working for non Thai organisations.

So the simple question is - what do you base this claim that the act relates solely to alien workers that are 'employed by Thai companies' upon?

I'm open to the idea, but would be useful to see the legalese.

Edited February 12, 2016 by rwdrwdrwd

[melvinmelvin]

Is it absolutely safe to assume that you can do as much work as you like on/with your own property without breaching any legal stipulations?

1)

I have a boat with engine in Chao Praya and I am doing A LOT of work both on the boat and on the engine,

sanding, painting, changing wood here and there, altering some construction details etc etc.

Likewise with the engine, playing a lot with that, technically.

Is this fully on order?

(I can prove its my property, have receipts and have tabian ruua in my name)

2)

I'm living in a rented house canal side. Am I free to do work on the rented house? Painting, fixing a bit here and there etc? (in line with the owners consent of course)

3)

I am building, or rather has built, mooring arrangements for the boat in the canal. Strictly speaking this is not on the houseowners property, but about 1 meter off the property.

OK workpermit wise or?

[elviajero]

I'm not disputing that it covers 'aliens working', I am asking you to show proof that it covers 'only aliens working for Thai employers' since that doesn't appear to be stated in the act itself.

Simple question - what do you base that claim upon?

Who other than a Thai employer can employ an Alien that is governed by the Alien Working Act?

[rwdrwdrwd]

Right - your interpretation then.

From what I can see, only some sections of the act refer to employee / employer relationship.

That some sections refer to employee / employer does not infer that the entire act exclusively relates to an employee / employer relationship, or that an alien is only subject to the act if they are employed by a Thai company.

http://www.mol.go.th/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/WORKING_OF_ALIEN_ACT_2551_DOE.pdf

Section 9 explains (not in an especially clear manner admittedly) that a foreigner can't do specific jobs, and needs a permit. There is no reference to an employer / employee relationship and no dependency in the Section on any other paragraph or section that does either. It is a standalone rule and simply says 'foreigners need a work permit to work, and they can't do certain jobs'.

I believe this legislation absolutely applies to all foreigners, not purely to individuals that are employed by Thai companies.

Edited February 12, 2016 by rwdrwdrwd

[elviajero]

Right - your interpretation then.

Only some sections of the act refer to employee / employer relationship. It cannot be construed from this that the entire act exclusively relates to an employee / employer relationship - it is simply assumption.

http://www.mol.go.th/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/WORKING_OF_ALIEN_ACT_2551_DOE.pdf

Section 9 explains (not in an especially clear manner admittedly) that a foreigner can't do specific jobs, and needs a permit. There is no reference to an employer / employee relationship and no dependency in the Section on any other paragraph or section that does either. It is a standalone rule and simply says 'foreigners need a work permit to work, and they can't do certain jobs'.

I believe this legislation absolutely applies to all foreigners, not purely to individuals that are employed by Thai companies.

My opinion, interpretation and the following comes from advice and conversations with the DOL.

Section 9 says that a foreigner can only work if receiving permission in the form of a work permit. The definition of working in Section 5 is a catchall due to the reason I have explained, which is to stop employers using creative job descriptions or claim the foreigner is unpaid to avoid needing permission. It is used when the person is applying for permission. That, from what I have been told, is the only reason and use for the definition.

Someone changing a lightbulb would not be considered working unless it was considered, what I believe is best described, as their job/occupation. If the OP was going around offering his services as a lightbulb changer it could be considered his job, they would ignore whether or not he was being paid, and he could potentially be prosecuted for working without permission. If someone is suspected of illegally working an investigator is sent to collect evidence to support the case should prosecution become necessary. They cannot prosecute someone for simply "using their physical strength or knowledge".

I do not believe the DOL would consider someone changing a lightbulb in a building they co-own/live in as working. Even if they did, as I have explained, they would have to provide evidence that the person was working at a job/occupation in order to prosecute.

It is entirely ridiculous to believe anything done by a foreigner involving physical strength or knowledge is working. However, used solely within the context of granting a foreigner permission to work, Section 5 makes sense.

[lkv]

Look all I will say is this.

It's already an absolute joke that pensioneers got arrested for playing bridge. I am happy it received international coverage.

If someone will get arrested for changing a light bulb on the pretext he does not have a work permit I will have to make radical decisions about my stay in Thailand.

[MikeandDow]

Right - your interpretation then.

Only some sections of the act refer to employee / employer relationship. It cannot be construed from this that the entire act exclusively relates to an employee / employer relationship - it is simply assumption.

http://www.mol.go.th/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/WORKING_OF_ALIEN_ACT_2551_DOE.pdf

Section 9 explains (not in an especially clear manner admittedly) that a foreigner can't do specific jobs, and needs a permit. There is no reference to an employer / employee relationship and no dependency in the Section on any other paragraph or section that does either. It is a standalone rule and simply says 'foreigners need a work permit to work, and they can't do certain jobs'.

I believe this legislation absolutely applies to all foreigners, not purely to individuals that are employed by Thai companies.

My opinion, interpretation and the following comes from advice and conversations with the DOL.

Section 9 says that a foreigner can only work if receiving permission in the form of a work permit. The definition of working in Section 5 is a catchall due to the reason I have explained, which is to stop employers using creative job descriptions or claim the foreigner is unpaid to avoid needing permission. It is used when the person is applying for permission. That, from what I have been told, is the only reason and use for the definition.

Someone changing a lightbulb would not be considered working unless it was considered, what I believe is best described, as their job/occupation. If the OP was going around offering his services as a lightbulb changer it could be considered his job, they would ignore whether or not he was being paid, and he could potentially be prosecuted for working without permission. If someone is suspected of illegally working an investigator is sent to collect evidence to support the case should prosecution become necessary. They cannot prosecute someone for simply "using their physical strength or knowledge".

I do not believe the DOL would consider someone changing a lightbulb in a building they co-own/live in as working. Even if they did, as I have explained, they would have to provide evidence that the person was working at a job/occupation in order to prosecute.

It is entirely ridiculous to believe anything done by a foreigner involving physical strength or knowledge is working. However, used solely within the context of granting a foreigner permission to work, Section 5 makes sense.

Now this is a bit different from "No it isn't" (which implies a fact ) to 'My opinion" (which is only your idea) if people take your advice they can be in a world of hurt, what you should have said is " In my opinion no WP is required."

"I do not believe the DOL would consider someone changing a lightbulb in a building they co-own/live in as working," And I would not believe OAP get fined for playing bridge, this is Thailand, nothing will surprise me.

[elviajero]

Now this is a bit different from "No it isn't" (which implies a fact ) to 'My opinion" (which is only your idea) if people take your advice they can be in a world of hurt, what you should have said is " In my opinion no WP is required."

"I do not believe the DOL would consider someone changing a lightbulb in a building they co-own/live in as working," And I would not believe OAP get fined for playing bridge, this is Thailand, nothing will surprise me.

This is a forum where members seek the opinions and advice from other members. The OP asked a question and i gave my answer. I do not need to stick IMO or equivalent in front of everything I write. You and the other wannabe lawyers need to give it a rest!

"You need to prove that you do not need a WP, simple stating "no it isn't" is not good enough, methinks you need to look at thai law, and the many cases that foreigners have fell foul of the law for doing less than change a light bulb very bad advise given by you."

​I don't need to prove anything. If the OP wants a definitive answer no one here can give it. He would need to go to the DOL and ask them. But as you ask proof from me, how about you provide proof of the "many cases". Or is that just your opinion!

[sstuff3]

Is a work permit required to change a light bulb in condo common areas, if I am a co-owner in the condo building? Technically, a co-owner does own part of common areas. There would be no payment or consideration for services rendered.

Basically the condo management, hasn't fixed lights in the condo common areas for months, after repeated requests from numerous co-owners. Condo maintenance funds are limited and there are more important issues and items than fixing lights.

Just go ahead and do it. I cut the grass and maintain the common garden in front of my house because the property management doesn't. Been doing this for 4 years and no one has complained, doubt they ever will. If this ever becomes an issue I would have to seriously consider relocating back to the US. I doubt anyone would ever try to make an issue out of it, except some of the TV Forum members. Edited February 13, 2016 by sstuff3

[NoshowJones]

If it required a work permit, so would changing oil in your car, cutting the grass in your yard or making home repairs which none do require a work permit.

I know this is a stupid troll post, but lets use some common sense.

"but lets use some common sense".

The people who run Thailand do not use much common sense, so why should we?

[MikeandDow]

The comment made by CharlieH in another post about WP is spot on

Quote "Like so many things in Thailand, it doesnt really matter what anyone's opinion is, what matters is the opinion and the interpretation of any laws ect by that Thai person of authority on the day.

In short, its gamble no matter which way you want to argue it." this should end this discussion.

[Bruce404]

I think this question needs an empirical approach, rather than a theoretical one to answer it.

In the last 20 years or so, has there been any documented proof or evidence (with specific names, dates, URL-hotlinks to the data, not just rumors) of any foreigner being prosecuted for cooking his own eggs for breakfast in his own kitchen (rented or owned), mowing his own grass within his property (rented or as guest of its Thai owner), or erecting a ladder in his own condominium building (within an apartment or a commonly-owned hallway) and changing a light bulb?

All such actions require an "exertion of effort" and application of "knowledge" how to do them. All might very well be performed by formal employees of a business entity.

So, if there is no history of such prosecution, successful or not, of a foreigner for such actions, then much of this discussion is an academic exercise about how Thai law might be applied, in theory, equivalent to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If there has never been prosecution for violating labor laws with such scenarios, then I think the advice suggested by others makes sense: Just do it (discreetly), and don't worry too much about it.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Bruce404

[Rayk]

"Section 9 explains (not in an especially clear manner admittedly) that a foreigner can't do specific jobs, and needs a permit."

Definition of Job.

1. A paid position of regular employment.

2. A task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.

[Richard W]

I think doing a handyman out of the slim chance of a job would be risky if the OP were renting out a condo in the building without a WP.