Contract issues

[jessen100]

I called my coordinator at my dispatch company last week asking her to bring us (the employees in the entire prefecture) our contracts, to wich she responded that they were doing a demo lesson for a BoE that day and couldnt get there. despite not having over half the positions filled in this city i work in, they are trying to get more BoEs. thats a different issue though.

So after calling up a woman from my BoE and informing her to her great surprise last week, that none of us are contracted, she called the dispatch company, and sent someone out with our contracts that evening. They got most of them taken care of i believe, but after getting a call at 7pm that they could bring my contract around to me at around MIDNIGHT, I told them to come back at a reasonable time when we would be able to properly discuss it. So personally i am still uncontracted, but working anyways since i have nothing better to do. The dispatch company hasnt contacted me since last week, and as you might guess i have no idea if they intend to. but i have a question that i hope someone could answer for me.

I have been here for 2 and a half years at the same school, and im confident that my company will be bringing me a 12 month contract, which would obviously go over the three year mark in which the BoE should be hiring me directly. can my company legally sign a year long contract at this point?

[Paul]

It depends upon the contract itself I believe. You need to see if your contract is actually for 12 months consecutively, some teachers contracts are for less than that and some as well are for 4 months, then 7 months, meaning that the contract period stops at the end of July and restarts in September and runs through the end of March.

You, I take it are contracted through your DC, however the DC is contracting with the BOE. Are you aware, or know of, the conditions of the contract your DC has with the BOE?

While BOE's are supposed to hire directly after 3 years according to a technicality you may have not reached that 3 year limit contractually as of yet.

Also you might want to check if your BOE even hires any ALT directly in the first place. If they do, then ask them about it, but you run the risk of it getting back to your DC as well. Plus if you choose to bring the issue up with them telling them what they are supposed to be doing you could find yourself without a job with your current BOE. Double edged sword.

[moolooman]

I am as happy as a pig in shit with my new situation. And I have my computer back at work so I can share that with you.

[jessen100]

It depends upon the contract itself I believe. You need to see if your contract is actually for 12 months consecutively, some teachers contracts are for less than that and some as well are for 4 months, then 7 months, meaning that the contract period stops at the end of July and restarts in September and runs through the end of March. .

thats how my current contract is written, but not the previous 3, but even as such, a year contract will run me over that limit.

You, I take it are contracted through your DC, however the DC is contracting with the BOE. Are you aware, or know of, the conditions of the contract your DC has with the BOE?.

not many of them

Also you might want to check if your BOE even hires any ALT directly in the first place. If they do, then ask them about it, but you run the risk of it getting back to your DC as well. Plus if you choose to bring the issue up with them telling them what they are supposed to be doing you could find yourself without a job with your current BOE. Double edged sword.

I know they have at least one direct hire, who may not be around anymore but they do hire some.

I was thinking that i was going to ask the person from the BoE to come visit school while i am negotiating my contract just to make sure they understand the conditions that its indirect employees are working under. then they might figure out why they have such a high turnover rate. you might say they dont care, and perhaps they dont, but considering that they didnt know that they had all uncontracted ALTs, they probably dont know anything about our contract stipulations either. I also want to know if the BoE pays the DC for august while we dont get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion and even hope that's happening.

[Paul]

I also want to know if the BoE pays the DC for august while we dont get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion and even hope that's happening.

This is I am afraid a non-issue seeing as how the BOE is contracting for a set price over the course of the year budgeted through the city, it is not payable afaik monthly but a lump sum payment for services to be performed over the course of the year.

Either that or paid in installments during the year whether or not you are working or not. You are in effect a sub-contractor so how the contractor, your DC is paid, does not affect or matter to the BOE so long as the contracted services are performed per the contract.

I was thinking that i was going to ask the person from the BoE to come visit school while i am negotiating my contract just to make sure they understand the conditions that its indirect employees are working under. then they might figure out why they have such a high turnover rate. you might say they dont care, and perhaps they dont, but considering that they didnt know that they had all uncontracted ALTs, they probably dont know anything about our contract stipulations either.

I would strongly suggest that you do this. Maybe the BOE is aware of your sub-contracted conditions and just turns a blind eye to it and doesnt care how high the turnover rate is because, well they dont care. Or they really do not know and it might be an eye opener for them and maybe learn that they are in actuality paying over-board for services that they could directly hire for much cheaper.

Either way it couldn't hurt. Go for it.

[hokkaido1]

I am so pleased I am not going through a dispatch co

[TheModMan]

Hi Jessen,

Let me just make one point clear, you are hired by a dispatch company either as a haken or itaku worker, as such you have absolutely no "right" to be talking to your company's client (the BoE) directly. Doing so, especially with regards to your contract with your DC leaves you open to being dismissed for any one of a number of reasons, not limited to interfering with DC/client relationships.

You are hired by the DC, not the BoE, you are not privy to the information shared between them and you should certainly not be giving information/making complaints about your employer/their contractor. It was mentioned that you are "subcontracted" this is a misnomer, you are not, you are a dispatch worker.

Now if you absolutely MUST know the details of the contract between your DC and your employer, it is a matter of public record (all contracts with government are) and you can access it under the freedom of information act, via the records office in your city hall. Go there and make enquirers, some will allow you to get a copy (for a nominal fee) others will only let you view it on site.


As for your contract, you are absolutely required by law to be provided one by your employer, if they haven't they are breaking the law, there are very few exceptions to this rule and DCs are not within them(see attached copy from labor law book) Nonetheless, even if you do not have a contract yet, you still receive the full protection of the law (btw do they pay your pension and health?)

Secondly, you are correct about the 3 year clause, if you have work for a culmunative 3 years in the same "general" position, whether the contract OR job title changes, you are eligable to be hired directly.

Finally, please don't just "go for it" because it can and most probably WILL hurt, their are government bodies in place to protect your rights, use them, attempting to do things yourself will just land you in hot water. First and foremost go to the labor standards office in your city （労働基準監督署）and explain your situation, they will contact the employer for you and tell them what the MUST do. Don't do this yourself, you might just regret it.

[TheModMan]

There are laws in place to protect workers, there are basic requirements and nobody is supposed to work without a contract or at the very least a 労働条件通知書, it is not as you claim " an individual forcing a BoE or DC to do what they are supposed to do by law", it is simply bringing the matter to the attention of the relevant body who will ensure that the company is following basic labor law. I attached a copy of the relevant article which explains it clearly.

Edited to add a translation....
労働条件, ろうどうじょうけん, or working conditions

[TheModMan]

"Hey Jessen, some of the advice so far could be dangerous."

then maybe no one would have cared.


As for the danger, I would never personally call the board on my company like that. NEVER!
About the August pay? About any pay? The BOE knows very well what the DC business is, that's why most of us even have a job. It's a cost effective, hassle-free way to get foreigners in the classroom.

[TheModMan]

You are hired by the DC, not the BoE, you are not privy to the information shared between them and you should certainly not be giving information/making complaints about your employer/their contractor. It was mentioned that you are "subcontracted" this is a misnomer, you are not, you are a dispatch worker.

Getting into semantics a bit here; itaku contracts are outsourced, or in the vernacular, sub-contracted. Dispatch workers are haken roudoshya. The terms are similar but different, however they both refer to a non-direct hire worker.

Now then, BOE's as the hiring agency should be aware of the conditions of the contracts that the DC are giving their workers. BOE's are responsible for the contracted workers while in the school's, and SHOULD be made aware of the contract conditions. Let's say for example only here that a DC hired ALT, god-forbid, does something to harm a student, the parents could hold both the BOE and DC responsible. The BOE is liable as well while the DC hired ALT is in the school.

You are hired by the DC, not the BoE, you are not privy to the information shared between them

Jessen is not looking to find out the information that you are saying here, to refresh everyones memory;

I was thinking that i was going to ask the person from the BoE to come visit school while i am negotiating my contract just to make sure they understand the conditions that its indirect employees are working under. then they might figure out why they have such a high turnover rate. you might say they dont care, and perhaps they dont, but considering that they didnt know that they had all uncontracted ALTs, they probably dont know anything about our contract stipulations either.

The only information that would be possibly privileged between the BOE and DC is the highlighted part and I already answered that portion so it would be pretty safe to assume that part wouldnt come into the discussion. He is just looking to have the BOE be made aware of HIS contract with the DC not the other way around.

I have never suggested he try to ask anything regarding what the contract between the BOE and DC. Dont put words into my mouth and make it seem otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also going to state here that I think it is pretty safe to assume that DC's are aware and current with the laws regarding the people they hire and dispatch to the school's. I think ModMan pointed out here and many I think will concur with as well, there are plenty of "laws" here in Japan that may be on the books but are not effectively enforced or cared about. That does not just go for labor laws either.

The point is, being made aware of what the laws are is one thing, doing something while trying to live here and make a living is something totally different. No one is arguing that point. The Labor Relations Board can "tell" them all day long what they should be doing but either the BOE or DC have ways around that as well. Take Interac for example, the leopard changes it's spots.

[Paul]

As for the danger, I would never personally call the board on my company like that. NEVER!
About the August pay? About any pay? The BOE knows very well what the DC business is, that's why most of us even have a job. It's a cost effective, hassle-free way to get foreigners in the classroom.

Do you actually know this to be true? I am referring to the bold-face type section above here. Also I replied about the August pay part so that part is moot.

You may not call the board on the company, but there may be others that are willing to take that step. Don't confuse what Tengu wrote above here with what Jessen was asking about in his OP and following replies.

He isn't looking for information about the contract between the BOE and DC, but making the BOE aware of the contract conditions that he is being hired under.

Asking them to be around when he is contracted OR allowing the BOE access to seeing his contract is purely his choice, the DC can not, unless stated and mutually agreed upon in the contract and if there is nothing illegal hidden within said contract, stop him from sharing the information in HIS contract with the BOE.

He could very well make a copy of the darn thing and send via mail to the BOE if he was so interested as well. It's his choice. Not something I would personally do but I am sure you see the idea.

[TheModMan]

[

Now then, BOE's as the hiring agency should be aware of the conditions of the contracts that the DC are giving their workers. BOE's are responsible for the contracted workers while in the school's, and SHOULD be made aware of the contract conditions. Let's say for example only here that a DC hired ALT, god-forbid, does something to harm a student, the parents could hold both the BOE and DC responsible. The BOE is liable as well while the DC hired ALT is in the school.

There is no requisite for the BoE to know the contents of the contract between the DC and the ALT, they have a contract with the DC to perform a specific task, if that task is being carried out, the responsibility for the legaility of the ALT's position rests solely with the DC, the BoE is not liable.

Jessen is not looking to find out the information that you are saying here, to refresh everyones memory;

"I was thinking that i was going to ask the person from the BoE to come visit school while i am negotiating my contract just to make sure they understand the conditions that its indirect employees are working under. then they might figure out why they have such a high turnover rate. you might say they dont care, and perhaps they dont, but considering that they didnt know that they had all uncontracted ALTs, they probably dont know anything about our contract stipulations either. I also want to know if the BoE pays the DC for august while we dont get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion and even hope that's happening."


The only information that would be possibly privileged between the BOE and DC is the highlighted part and I already answered that portion so it would be pretty safe to assume that part wouldnt come into the discussion. Also that part, highlighted above, I intentionally left out of my original reply/quote. He is just looking to have the BOE be made aware of HIS contract with the DC not the other way around.

It is not his place nor position to make the BoE aware of anything to do with the DC, that is between the DC and the BoE, I made that clear earlier. If one wishes to step out of line and involve themselves in those kind of matters, they run the risk of repurcussions. I merely pointed out what others failed to mention. Similarly, as long as the contract between the BoE and the DC is legal (which it is often not) the BoE holds no responsibility and can, if pressed, receive back all monies paid to the DC for the illegally hired ALT. Oh and yes, this has happened several times, but only those involved in the hiring process are privy to this information.

I have never suggested he try to ask anything regarding what the contract between the BOE and DC. Dont put words into my mouth and make it seem otherwise.

I didn't, I merely pointed out that your advice to,

I would strongly suggest that you do this. Maybe the BOE is aware of your sub-contracted conditions and just turns a blind eye to it and doesnt care how high the turnover rate is because, well they dont care. Or they really do not know and it might be an eye opener for them and maybe learn that they are in actuality paying over-board for services that they could directly hire for much cheaper.

Either way it couldn't hurt. Go for it.

was dangerous in that it circumvents the normal flow of information and could find Jessen being repremanded, if not fired, for interfering directly with an employer's client.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also going to state here that I think it is pretty safe to assume that DC's are aware and current with the laws regarding the people they hire and dispatch to the school's. I think ModMan pointed out here and many I think will concur with as well, there are plenty of "laws" here in Japan that may be on the books but are not effectively enforced or cared about. That does not just go for labor laws either.

You'd be surprised, many contracts are thrown together by people working within the company who do not have a deep knowledge/understanding of the basic tenets of labor law. I have yet to see a haken contract that contains the five absolute requirements of a working condition's notice........

Many of these companies rely on the ALT's lack of knowledge of their rights and their language inability to simply put together contracts that suit them, I'm sorry if you think it is better to sit back and get shafted rather than make a simple 5 minute visit to the labor office to protect your rights. Personally I will stand up for mine. It's not a big deal, quite simple really.

The point is, being made aware of what the laws are is one thing, doing something while trying to live here and make a living is something totally different. No one is arguing that point. The Labor Relations Board can "tell" them all day long what they should be doing but either the BOE or DC have ways around that as well. Take Interac for example, the leopard changes it's spots.

There is no way around a directive from the labor board, if it is on the books and not adhered to, the offender will be fined. A working condition's notice is not negotiable, why are you not satisfied, even with a copy from the actual law book itself...

[TheModMan]

It is not his place nor position to make the BoE aware of anything to do with the DC,

His place? He can do as he wishes, and it is not illegal either for him to do so, IF he so chooses. Does he want to open that kettle of worms? That is his choice.

if that task is being carried out, the responsibility for the legaility of the ALT's position rests solely with the DC, the BoE is not liable.

That is not what I said, the BOE can be very liable in a case where the ALT does something in the school that is either against the school rules or otherwise. IF the ALT does as he or she is contracted to do then of course there is nothing to talk about.

The BOE is liable for everyone hired in a school at any given time directly or indirectly , and I hope that no one thinks for one minute otherwise. Usually it is a moot point as no problems occur.

I'm sorry if you think it is better to sit back and get shafted rather than make a simple 5 minute visit to the labor office to protect your rights. Personally I will stand up for mine. It's not a big deal, quite simple really.

Maybe not today, but the ax will eventually fall. Corporations and City Offices have long memories when it comes to employee's that want to try to screw with them, whether they are in the right or otherwise. One has to carefully balance the merits of such actions.

However, I still stand by his inviting the BOE to view his contract, in the situation he has shared here, I would seriously consider it myself as well.

[TheModMan]

His place? He can do as he wishes, and it is not illegal either for him to do so, IF he so chooses. Does he want to open that kettle of worms? That is his choice.

So from this am I to assume that you are saying that it is the place of employees to directly interact with their employer's clients regarding contracts and working conditions that they are employed under? That is what your statements read as. I didn't say talking to them is illegal, I stated that causing a problem between the employer and their client can be prosecuted under law, that is illegal. Harming a business is very much frowned upon here, you know that.

That is not what I said, the BOE can be very liable in a case where the ALT does something in the school that is either against the school rules or otherwise. IF the ALT does as he or she is contracted to do then of course there is nothing to talk about.

The BOE is liable for everyone hired in a school at any given time directly or indirectly , and I hope that no one thinks for one minute otherwise. Usually it is a moot point as no problems occur.

We are not talking about criminal offenses, i.e. abusing students, as you suggested, we are talking about labor law and working conditions. The BoE is not responsible in any way for the contents of the contract between a DC and their employee. Under a haken contract neither the school nor the BoE has any recourse to admonish an ALT for infractions of school rules, general behavior, all disciplinary action must be carried out through the DC.

Maybe not today, but the ax will eventually fall. Corporations and City Offices have long memories when it comes to employee's that want to try to screw with them, whether they are in the right or otherwise. One has to carefully balance the merits of such actions.

However, I still stand by his inviting the BOE to view his contract, in the situation he has shared here, I would seriously consider it myself as well.

The axe will most certainly fall if the DC finds out their employee is complaining about his/her contract to one of their clients.

[moolooman]

Quiet day at work was it boys?

[TENGU]

So Jessen what are you gonna do?

[Paul]

Food for thought;
Case one;"
In a HS there were a number of, something like 8 or 10, yearly contracted teachers, every year they were contracted from April 1st to March 31st, however their summer bonuses were not for the full amount because according to the school, and even though their contracts technically ended on March 31st with no time in between contracts, never received what they should have been paid. Complaints were made to the Labor Standards Office, and the school "changed" their policies that all contracts now ended on March 30 instead. So long story short, the school administration never had to pay back wages even though their contracts were technically "illegal". No fines, nothing.

Case two;
Same school, same teachers. Nearly all of them were given yearly contracts and had been working for the school between 8 and 12 years respectively. Again, complaints were made to the Labor Standards Office and the school changed it's policies to "make" all contracted teacher's take the full time hire teachers test every year in February. The same teachers were rehired, but because they were technically released every year at the end of their contracts, the school got around having to hire them after 3 years. A number of them were also let go, and were rehired after I think it was a 3 month period. No repercussions, no "forcing" the school to hire the teachers fulltime.

Case three;
Continually ongoing; local prefecture and city boards of education in charge of placing yearly contracted "substitute" or not fully tenured, haven't passed the annual teacher's test, only place individual teachers in one specific school for a maximum of, guess what, three years. After three years the teachers are either not rehired, or are given a position in another school within the area/district that the BOE or Education Office controls. Even though they are "hired" by the same BOE, they are in different schools, so technically they are "new" hires and the BOE's get around the 3 year "rule".

Case four;
Continually ongoing; all city offices have part time employees, generally speaking, depending upon the city rules, are only hired for 1 to 3 possibly a maximum of 5 years consecutively. They, the city offices get around the 3 year hire so called "law" by transferring people between schools or releasing the staff, no matter their abilities, after said amount of time.

My point is that there is no business, city office, BOE, or otherwise here that is going to be "forced" into directly hiring anyone if they don't want to hire them in the first place. They can get rid of anyone quite easily, and technically speaking as well BOE's dont directly contract with a ALT, they hire them as temporary city employee's and can, with cause, release them at any given time, as with any temporary hire employee of the city, Japanese as well, at any given time. Again WITH CAUSE. However at the end of the school year, they release ALT's by saying that their 任期, にんき, ninki, or "term of office" is over.

These are only cases involving school's and one about temporary employees in a city office, I've personally been through other's with Japanese business and know of plenty of others with Japanese businesses as well.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I guess we really have to look at Jessens ultimate goal here.

If he is looking to draw attention to his contract, and discuss the business with the client (against the contract) and still keep his job....

Then I would give the ADVICE that it is dangerous to do so and he will lose his job.

If he is looking for some sort of justice, and risk his job in the process by all means make some waves.

Hope that helps.

[Paul]

I guess we really have to look at Jessens ultimate goal here.

If he is looking to draw attention to his contract, and discuss the business with the client (against the contract) and still keep his job....

Then I would give the ADVICE that it is dangerous to do so and he will lose his job.

If he is looking for some sort of justice, and risk his job in the process by all means make some waves.

Hope that helps.

I would personally change the word dangerous to risky. There is no physical danger in what he may or may not do, but there are obvious risks involved. I know that you are probably just using the word dangerous because it follows along from previous posts.

He might lose his current job, yet I also believe that what he was thinking of doing could be beneficial in the long run as well.

[jessen100]

First of all, thanks for all the imformation.


Thanks for pointing out the dangers of the situation Tengu, that was something i was already taking into consideration. I think that perhaps there are who didnt though. Anyway, what happened here was I called the woman from the BoE, and asked her if she knew that all of the ALTs in her city were currently uncontracted. She replied in shock with a no. The DC came and brought contracts to many of the ALTs later that night. they wanted to come to my house at like midnight, but i told them that is rediculous and to come back at a proper time. which they did a few days later.

edit: apparently i already said this, but forgot about it.

So from this am I to assume that you are saying that it is the place of employees to directly interact with their employer's clients regarding contracts and working conditions that they are employed under? That is what your statements read as. I didn't say talking to them is illegal, I stated that causing a problem between the employer and their client can be prosecuted under law, that is illegal. Harming a business is very much frowned upon here, you know that.

I agree and think causing a problem would be a very inappropriate thing to do. Informing the BoE of an already existant problem i think is a completely different thing. I had no intention of ever making any complaints about my contract, rather than just verifying that the people at the BoE understand the conditions. I too at first assumed that they did, but based upon other things that they hadnt known about, like the fact that we didnt have contracts at all, evidence points to they have no idea. Informing them of my contract conditions hardly constitutes as meddling.



I directly asked the person who brought me my contract if they are paid by the BoE for august work, and he told me that they get paid by the BoE for the entire year, not on a month by month basis. thats all he said about it.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I called my coordinator at my dispatch company last week asking her to bring us (the employees in the entire prefecture) our contracts, to wich she responded that they were doing a demo lesson for a BoE that day and couldnt get there. despite not having over half the positions filled in this city i work in, they are trying to get more BoEs. thats a different issue though.

So after calling up a woman from my BoE and informing her to her great surprise last week, that none of us are contracted, she called the dispatch company, and sent someone out with our contracts that evening. They got most of them taken care of i believe,

In this situation, did you sign the contracts already and were waiting for your copy to be returned?

Or was their actually no signing of any contract on your part?

[jessen100]

none of us had seen or even been told about when we might be able to sign them (i am making an assumption that the other people in my town hadnt heard, but im confident with it) no signing at that point. The DC also had told the BoE at that point in time that all of the employees (who had no contracts at all) would continue to work at their schools.

also, did this start in the grave? this is an important topic and should be visible to people who dont know about it if you ask me.

[TheModMan]

as for the initial question in my OP, a guy at my DC company said to me that because they are 業務委託 that they are able to continue with the same employee and contract at the same place for more than three years.



Edited to add......
One request here, please add the English translation to Japanese when posting, not everyone can or does understand Japanese. Thank you for understanding.

業務委託個別契約書, ぎょうむいたくこべつけいやくしょ, or individual outsourcing agreement

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

as for the initial question in my OP, a guy at my DC company said to me that because they are 業務委託 that they are able to continue with the same employee and contract at the same place for more than three years.

This is soooo dodgy isn't it. Give your services for year after year only to be recognized as a new employee each year. Just another way to avoid paying any more than they need to.

Also thanks for answering my question about signing it. Not even seeing a contract then heading to work? Thats just insane!

Dodginess abound!

[Paul]

as for the initial question in my OP, a guy at my DC company said to me that because they are 業務委託 that they are able to continue with the same employee and contract at the same place for more than three years.

This is soooo dodgy isn't it. Give your services for year after year only to be recognized as a new employee each year. Just another way to avoid paying any more than they need to.

Also thanks for answering my question about signing it. Not even seeing a contract then heading to work? Thats just insane!

Dodginess abound!

Not to take anything away from Jessen and his interesting information and experience here, I would just add that these problems occur within the "Japanese" side as well and is not limited to ALT's.

[Otaku]

Not to take anything away from Jessen and his interesting information and experience here, I would just add that these problems occur within the "Japanese" side as well and is not limited to ALT's.

That's a good point to point out...

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Are Gyomu Itaku used all over Japan too? In non English teaching related jobs?

[jeisensei]

Yep, gyomu itaku jobs are found all over Japan in a variety of fields. Those types of jobs can be found in any company that wants outsource for a specialized job type instead of hiring directly (for what ever reason). It is especially prevalent in the science and technology sector from what I understand.

[jessen100]

Not to take anything away from Jessen and his interesting information and experience here, I would just add that these problems occur within the "Japanese" side as well and is not limited to ALT's.

That's a good point to point out...

Not really, just because other people are getting MEXTed too, doesnt justify it. not that you are necessarily justifying it, but my company has mentioned it to me as if to make it seem ok. not that any of you need convincing, but I would think that as a japanese person dealing with the same situation you would be equipped with:

- a much greater deal of cultural understanding
- knowledge of your basic rights
- better japanese ability
- where to go in the event it happening,
- more/other employment opportunities
- more?

all of which you would be able to use to avoid the situation. its these things that most foreigners lack which which turns this type of business with ALTs into exploitation.

[Paul]

Not to take anything away from Jessen and his interesting information and experience here, I would just add that these problems occur within the "Japanese" side as well and is not limited to ALT's.

That's a good point to point out...

Not really, just because other people are getting MEXTed too, doesnt justify it. not that you are necessarily justifying it, but my company has mentioned it to me as if to make it seem ok. not that any of you need convincing, but I would think that as a japanese person dealing with the same situation you would be equipped with:

- a much greater deal of cultural understanding
- knowledge of your basic rights
- better japanese ability
- where to go in the event it happening,
- more/other employment opportunities
- more?

all of which you would be able to use to avoid the situation. its these things that most foreigners lack which which turns this type of business with ALTs into exploitation.

Well I am not trying to justify it, just made a comment that it happens to others as well. However since you brought it up I would think that what you wrote here would be the norm too but through experience I have found that there are plenty of naive Japanese people that really are not aware of their own rights and follow along with the group.