Foreigners on welfare face pension burden

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121017a1.html

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012

Planned end to premium waiver sparks cries of discrimination

Kyodo

The Japan Pension Service wants to drop the pension premium waiver for foreigners who are on welfare, effectively ending a long-held practice of treating them the same as Japanese, sources said Tuesday.

The government-linked body that runs the public pension systems has drawn up a guideline to end the uniform premium waiver for foreigners on welfare, drawing immediate fire from human rights activists who liken the end of the exemption to discrimination based on nationality.

In fiscal 2010, roughly 1.41 million households were on public assistance, including around 42,000 headed by foreign residents.

In a reply dated Aug. 10 to an inquiry from a local-level pension service office, the Japan Pension Service said that “public assistance benefits are provided to foreigners living in poverty just like those provided to Japanese nationals, but foreigners are not actually covered by the law on public assistance.

“Under the national pension law, the (premium) waiver is accorded only to those subject to the law on public assistance,” the service said. “It is thus not applicable to foreigners.”

The Kokumin Nenkin basic pension system is designed mainly for people not employed by corporations, including self-employed workers, students and part-time workers.

The national pension law stipulates that the premium waiver applies to people who are on welfare benefits paid under the public assistance law or via a welfare ministry ordinance.

Presumably because the public assistance law stipulates that only Japanese nationals are eligible for welfare, the Japan Pension Service drew up the new guideline that drops the foreigner exemption.

But in practice, certain qualified foreign residents, including those with permanent residency and with Japanese spouses, are receiving public assistance benefits thanks to a humanitarian decision by the welfare ministry in 1954 that municipal governments must accept applications from foreign nationals in dire need of support.

In 1982, when the nationality clause in the national pension law was abolished, foreign residents became legally eligible to join the public pension system.

The requirements for foreigners to receive public assistance and the amount of benefits they can receive are the same as what applies for Japanese, because the system is geared to ensure the minimum standard of living.

The Japan Pension Service believes that while all Japanese on welfare should qualify for the full waiver of premiums for the state-run pension plan, foreign residents who have jobs but are on welfare due to low income should not. They may have to pay some of the legally required premiums based on their income level.

For example, a foreigner living alone who earned ¥570,000 or more the previous year may now be required to pay some of the around ¥180,000 in annual premiums, if the current waiver is revoked.

“JPS and the welfare ministry must have been aware that foreign residents on welfare nationwide have been waived from the national pension premiums,” said Shinichiro Nakashima, head of Kumustaka, a group based in the city of Kumamoto that supports foreign residents.

“Foreign residents who won’t be able to pay the premium could end up with no pension benefits in the future. (The government) should abolish the nationality clause in the public assistance law, and treat foreign residents the same as Japanese.”

An official at the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, which oversees the pension service, said that “it’s not that we’ve changed the policy. We are just restoring what should have been the case. While it depends on income levels, I would think many will still see payments entirely waived in reality” even under the new guideline.

The British Council: friend or foe?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/oct/08/british-council-education-training
Educators working overseas complain that the venerable quango’s business interests have turned it into a rival
The Guardian

A few years ago, when the CfBT Education Trust, a non-profit organisation that runs schools and education services, was looking to expand its operations in Malaysia, its chief executive, Neil McIntosh, arranged a meeting with the local high commissioner. When he got there, though, he was disappointed to see that the commissioner had brought along a representative of one of CfBT’s main competitors. “He was a bit put out that I should see the British Council in that light,” says McIntosh.

The British Council, it’s widely thought, is a thoroughly good thing. It is the epitome of soft power, a long-established arm of the Foreign Office that promotes British interests not with bombs and guns, but through culture and education. A big part of its job is to promote UK education: by marketing domestic universities to international students, or providing local intelligence to any education provider that wants to work overseas. Officials often suggest the council’s local office should be first port of call for any company looking to enter a new market.

Consequently, McIntosh admits, criticising it feels a little bit like “crying foul on someone’s much-loved grandmother”. But the British Council isn’t just a charity. It is also an increasingly ambitious player in the global market for English languageteaching, exam provision and other education services. It holds a one-third share in the International English Language Testing System, for example, and takes on contracts to train teachers for overseas governments.

Now questions are being asked about whether such activities conflict with the council’s role in supporting other providers, like CfBT. Says McIntosh: “It makes it more difficult for us to compete with America and Australia, whose diplomatic missions represent their education systems more comprehensively.”

McIntosh is not alone in his views. “Every company I know has concerns about the British Council,” says Patrick Watson, managing director of Montrose Public Affairs, which works with a number of firms. “It uses its monopoly position aggressively: if you don’t play ball, it can simply ignore you or decide to collaborate with someone else.”

One business leader even says: “The British Council doesn’t really enable British education exports: it inhibits them.”

The council itself rejects such criticism robustly. Dr Jo Beall, its director of education, points to all the work it does to promote British education: enabling academic partnerships with India and Brazil; telling the world that UK universities are open for business. “It’s because the British Council has been flying the UK flag for nearly 80 years that there’s such a strong market in the first place,” she says.

The root of the row lies in the council’s unusual funding model. It is a quango, sponsored by the Foreign Office, that exists to promote British education and culture. That, in ministers’ minds, includes supporting private education firms seeking export opportunities.

But as its grant has been cut, the organisation has had to shore up its finances by selling its own education services: English language teaching, teacher training, and providing exams. Overseas governments seeking a bit of British educational expertise often appeal to the British Council for help. In some cases, it steps in to provide that help itself, and rivals complain there are no clear criteria explaining which contracts it will pass to the industry and which it will hang on to. “Human nature being what it is,” says Andrew Fitzmaurice, chief executive of international schools firm Nord Anglia, “I suspect they’re always going to keep the best ones.”

The upshot of all this is that the British Council sometimes promotes others and sometimes promotes itself. Many companies are wary of asking for its support, either because they are reluctant to share information with a competitor, or because they think the council would be unwilling to help. “I never gave the British Council a moment’s consideration as a source of information and support,” says Kevin McNeany, chair of Orbital Education, who has worked in the sector for more than 40 years. “Even if they had information of commercial value, it would first be filtered through its own internal networks to see if it could be monetised for in-house benefit.”

The critics have other complaints, too. The British Council’s not-for-profit status means it is exempt from corporation tax in many countries, so in some cases can undercut competitors. And in some regions it also works closely with the British embassy. “I am never going to get a meeting with the ambassador at short notice,” says one angry executive. “For the British Council, it’s just a short walk along the corridor.”

Actually, British Council spokespeople point out, it co-locates with the Foreign Office in fewer than a quarter of the countries where it works, and it does so only for reasons of security or cost. And they say there are protocols in place to stop the council’s commercial and charitable arms from sharing information. Its tax advantages, they point out, merely reflect the fact that it doesn’t make a profit, but uses all income to support its work promoting Britain abroad. Its chief executive, Martin Davidson, is very proud of all this, describing the set-up as “a model of entrepreneurial public service”.

Another complaint, though, is that the council’s commercial goals could affect its advice. Its Education UK website is intended to be the front first port of call for international students looking to study in the UK. But the most visible listings are those schools and colleges that have paid for the privilege: potential students are less likely to discover the course best for them, more likely to see the one with the biggest marketing budget. “Institutions are welcome to pay for extra promotional services,” Beall admits. But she rejects any suggestion that this means the site is biased towards certain institutions, and points out that the council makes no money from the website.

“The problem is not created by the British Council itself,” says McIntosh. “It’s created by the government, which requires the council to fund itself by competing with the organisations that it’s supposed to represent. That is not a sustainable position.”

Beall, though, rejects this entirely. “I really resent that idea that we should move out of this [commercial] space,” she says. “It’s tantamount to a private university saying that all public universities should vacate the market.”

The government does not seem convinced of the case for reform. In 2010, a group of education bosses led by McIntosh wrote to Francis Maude, cabinet secretary, about the British Council’s operations (as well as other quangos), requesting he take action. Maude promised no remedy. A delegation that met the trade minister Lord Green over the summer report a distinct lack of concern. Whatever the gripes of education businesses, the British Council is here to stay.

40% of part-timers want regular work

Saturday, Aug. 25, 2012
Jiji
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20120825a1.html

More than 40 percent of part-time workers aged between 20 and 34 want full employment, according to the results of a government survey conducted in 2011.

The proportion of respondents looking for full-time work increased from some 30 percent in the previous survey, conducted in 2006, the Health, Welfare and Labor Ministry said Thursday.

The ratio stood at 57.3 percent for the 20-24 age bracket, up from 44.7 percent in the previous survey, followed by 41.8 percent for people 25 to 29, up from 30.6 percent, and 42.7 percent for the 30-34 bracket, up from 23.4 percent.

But overall, only 22.0 percent wanted to be full-time employees, because older workers enjoy the flexibility of part-time work, the ministry said.

The proportion of male part-timers longing for full-time positions came to 29.4 percent, far exceeding the 18.8 percent for female workers.

Asked why they wanted to become regular employees, 76.9 percent of all respondents said they want to earn more, while 66.3 percent said they want job security and 27.6 percent said they want more experience.

Multiple answers were allowed.

The ministry said many part-time workers in their 20s and 30s aspire to become regular employees, possibly because many of them were not able to get full-time work in the fallout from the bursting of the bubble economy in the early 1990s and the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.

The survey is conducted roughly every five years. The most recent poll covered 14,835 part-timers across the country excluding the three disaster-hit prefectures of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima.

The valid response rate was 69.0 percent.

Welfare pays better

The minimum hourly wage is expected to remain lower than per-hour welfare benefits in six prefectures even after planned increases later this year.

The six prefectures are Hokkaido, Miyagi, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka and Hiroshima. Wage panels in 11 prefectures, including these six, where minimum hourly wage is currently less than welfare benefits have proposed wage hikes ranging from ¥7 to ¥14.

In the five other prefectures — Aomori, Saitama, Chiba, Kyoto and Hyogo — the minimum wage will be raised to the same level as welfare or higher.

During discussions by the prefectural panels, employers expressed concern about increased personnel costs.

The revised minimum wage will be applied in October or later after being OK’d by the heads of local bureaus of the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry. The new base will be ¥719 in Hokkaido, ¥685 in Miyagi and ¥850 in Tokyo.

Courts back workers’ rock-solid right to strike

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120717lp.html

By HIFUMI OKUNUKI

“Sensei, Japan is such a safe country because there are no strikes. Right?” A student at the university where I teach blindsided me with this remark the other day.

Striking is the main dispute tool for labor unions to realize worker demands. Article 28 of Japan’s Constitution guarantees the right to “workers’ collective action.” This means strikes. Although dispute action can cause enormous damage to employers and third parties, the Constitution protects such action as a fundamental human right.

The drafters’ thinking was that most workers find themselves in a vulnerable and submissive position vis-a-vis management and only by guaranteeing the right to strike do they have any say in setting working conditions or any chance to improve their economic position.

All attempts to restrict the right to strike have been struck down, so to speak, as unconstitutional. The Trade Union Law states clearly that legitimate strikes are “exempt from all civil and criminal liability.” So what is a “legitimate strike?”

Few courts have even taken up the matter because the right is so well protected that, barring violence or malicious threat, management has little hope of winning damages. So let me first introduce a rare “illegal strike” verdict: the Shosen Case of May 6, 2002, in Tokyo District Court.

This bookstore sued its labor union, claiming its strike was illegal. The union struck and picketed over shuntō (spring labor offensive) demands, but to no avail. They plastered the entrance doors, show windows and exterior of the shop with stickers and posters announcing the strike, blocked all entrances with picketers, occupied and blocked the sales floor and used a megaphone to harass any potential customer daring to enter, screaming insults such as “bakayaro!” (“idiot!”). Some union members played mah-jongg at the entrance while others surrounded and dragged picket-line-crossing customers out of the store.

The retailer had enough nonunion staff to sell books but couldn’t because the union was creating an atmosphere less than conducive to business.

Read more

Union Victory Over JALSS

Tokyo District Court orders Jal Haken (Max Ali. owner of JALSS) to pay unpaid wages totaling nearly 2 million yen to three defendants, all members of Tozen Union.
東ゼン労組3名の、(JALSSの代表者であるマックス・アリー氏が経営している)ジャル派遣を相手にした賃金未払いの訴訟において、完全勝利!

 

Demands submitted to Interac/Maxceed concerning Drug Testing

2012年4月29日
株式会社インタラック 御中
株式会社マクシード 御中全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン
執行委員長ルイス・カーレット
全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン
東ゼンALT支部
執行委員長アムジッド・アラム

緊急団交申し入れ Emergency Request for CB

全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン(略称:東ゼン)ならびに全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン東ゼンALT支部は、貴社に対して、緊急団体交渉を申し入れます。貴社は先日、当組合員らを含む従業員らに対して、薬物検査を受けるよう指示したと伺いました。薬物検査は、通常の雇用関係においてはこれを行う必要性が認められず、よほどの事情がない限り、従業員に広く行われるものではないはずです。昨今の個人情報保護の重要性に鑑みても、安易にこのような検査を実施することに対して、大きな疑問を抱きます。
つきましては、下記の議題にて団交を実施したく存じます。
Zenkoku Ippan Tokyo General Union (“Tozen”) and Zenkoku Ippan Tokyo General Union Tozen ALTs request emergency collective bargaining.  We have heard that you instructed your employees, including union members, to undergo drug testing.  The need for drug testing is not accepted for an ordinary employment relationship and drug testing of employees in general is accepted only in extreme circumstances.  We strongly oppose your casual testing of employees also in light of recent requirements to protect individual privacy, including the passage of Individual Information Law,   We therefore ask for cb with the agenda stated below.

Read more

Welfare ministry to bring charges against businesses dodging employee pension plan

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry has decided to bring charges against business owners who refuse to join the employee pension program and pay insurance premiums — a violation of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act.
Starting from the current fiscal year, the ministry will file a complaint with police against businesses dodging the mandatory pension program and release their names, ministry officials say.
The ministry will set specific standards, such as the number of times business proprietors reject requests for on-the-spot inspections to confirm pertinent data about joining the pension program, before moving to bring charges against violators.

Read more

No legal cure-all for fixed-term job insecurity

By HIFUMI OKUNUKI
We like to think that work is about more than just making money, but the reality is that most of us have to work to earn our daily bread. A steady job is crucial for our long-term well-being.

In Japan, employment contracts may be either open-ended or fixed-term. Temporary contracts are unregulated except for the length of the term, which can run to a maximum of three years (Article 14 of the Labor Standards Law). The legal principle of “abuse of the right to dismiss” covered in our Feb. 28 column (“Oversleeping radio anchor set tough precedent for firing staff”) applies to open-ended but not fixed-term contracts.

In the case of fixed-term contracts, employers can claim employment naturally finishes with the end of the contract term. They need neither comply with rules for dismissal nor even give notice. In principle, there is no room for debate over the legitimacy of a non-renewal.

Read more

Bill passed to lift temp workers’ lot but no manufacturer dispatch ban

The Diet passed a bill Wednesday to amend the Workers Dispatch Law, aiming to improve the working conditions of temporary employees.

The revision forbids dispatch agencies from contracting temporary workers for 30 days or less. Also, employers will be urged to give temp workers the same pay as regular employees if they’re doing the same work.

But the revision will not fully protect nonregular workers. The Democratic Party of Japan’s plan to ban temporary workers from being dispatched to the manufacturing sector was scrapped under pressure from the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito.

The DPJ submitted a bill in April 2010 that included a ban on sending nonregular workers to factories after thousands of temps were laid off and left homeless when the slump hit in 2008.

The ban was featured in the party’s platform for the 2009 election.

The dispatch law, which regulates the treatment of temporary workers, was loosened to employers’ advantage when the LDP was still in power.

In 1999, it was revised to allow temporary workers to work in almost all industries except for manufacturing and health care. In 2003, it was amended to let temps work in the manufacturing industry.

These changes allowed manufacturers to lay off temp workers easily when the global financial crunch hit in 2008, and many became jobless and homeless, especially those who had been provided with company housing.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20120329a2.html

47 foreign trainees pass nursing exam

A total of 47 Indonesian and Filipino nurses passed this year’s national licensing examination for nurses under a project to accept foreign trainees, the health ministry announced Monday.

Under the project based on economic partnership agreements starting in fiscal 2008, a total of 572 trainees have taken part in the program. Of them, only 19 passed the exam through last year. This year, 415 trainees took the exam, and 11.3 percent of them passed.

The pass rate for the exam has gone up 7.3 percentage points from the previous year and reached double-digits for the first time. But, it is still far lower than the 90 percent average pass rate of all examinees.

As the low pass rate for foreign trainees has been seen as a problem, Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Yoko Komiyama said Friday the government plans to take special measures for them, such as including hiragana for each kanji character in the test and giving extra test time, starting next year.

The foreign trainees were originally scheduled to pass the exam within three years, working at medical institutions as assistant nurses. If they cannot pass the test in that period, they would lose their eligibility to stay in Japan.

As a special measure, however, the trainees, who failed the exam and whose eligibility for stay is about to expire, have been allowed to stay an extra year from last year if they attained a certain score on past exams.

Eight of 27 trainees who were allowed the extension of their stay last year passed the exam.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120327004980.htm