JCFL・JAPAN COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

日本外国語専門学校(JCFL・JAPAN COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES)は、誠実に団体交渉のテーブルにつくべきだ!

「通訳ガイド養成所」の設立から、41年の歳月が経ちました。」と自らのホームページで謳うように、数多くの通訳のプロを輩出してきた日本外国語専門学校(JCFL/JAPAN COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES) 。それなのに、組合との団体交渉になると、組合員らの使用言語(英語)の通訳を一切拒絶し、「交渉は日本語でのみやる。通訳をつけるなら組合でつけろ」の一点張りで、約半年の間、実質的な団体交渉を拒否し続けています。そもそもの発端は、組合加入通告をした一人の組合員が、通告のわずか2週間後に契約更新の拒絶を受けたことによります、当初より日本外国語専門学校は、団体交渉を行う際に、「ここは日本であり、日本語でしか団交に応じない」、「通訳の手配は組合でやれ」との姿勢を押し通しました。英語講師らの職場での労使関係上の使用言語は常に英語であり、必要なときは学校側が必ず通訳者を準備しています。それなのに、なぜ、組合との団交になると、通常の労使関係と一変した扱いをするのでしょうか。それでも、組合は、一人の組合員の職の喪失という重大な問題の解決を何よりも優先するために、母語ではない日本語で、必死に交渉をしてきました。しかし、組合員らの通常の労使関係上の言語ではない言語での交渉はうまくいきません。何度も言葉に詰まっても、学校側は知らんぷりです。さらにひどいのは、学校側は常にプロの通訳者を同席させているにもかかわらず、通訳者は一切の通訳をせず、ただ黙って団交の様子を見守っていることです。いったい、何のために同席させているのでしょうか。嘲笑されているかのような姿勢に、組合は毎回大きな無力感と屈辱感を抱いています。組合は、日本外国語専門学校に対して、実質的な中身のある団交に向けて努力をするよう、強く求めます。

Five-Year Rule Seminar

有期労働契約の新たな“5年ルール”とは

〜5年でGood byeってホント?〜

Five-Year Rule Seminar

Does new Labor Contract Law mean five years and out?  Or five years and in?

新しい労働契約法についてのセミナーを開催します!

日 時:2013年7月7日(日)Sunday, July 7, 2013 2pm to 5pm

    午後2時00分〜午後5時00分(途中10分休憩あり)

    ☆参加無料! No entrance fee!

講  師:Instructors: Attn. Shoichi Ibuski (Akatsuki Law Firm)

           指宿 昭一弁護士(暁法律事務所)

                          Hifumi Okunuki (Executive President of Zenkoku Ippan Tokyo General Union/

           Teaches at Sagami Women’s University)

           奥貫 妃文(全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン執行委員長、相模女子大学専任講師)

     今年から、労働契約法に有期労働契約に関する3つのルールが新たに加わりました。

       This year Labor Contract Law added three new rules for fixed-term employment.

 

 Point1.有期労働契約の期間の定めのない労働契約への転換(いわゆる「5年ルール」の新設)

               Fixed-term contracts switch to permanent employment after 5 years

  Point2.有期労働契約の「雇止め法理」の法定化

             The law codifies rules for refusal to renew fixed-term contracts

  Point3.有期労働契約であることによる不合理な労働条件の差別禁止

               The law prohibits illegitimate discrimination against fixed-term employees

 今回の法改正は、現在、実際に有期で働く人たちにどのようなインパクトを与えるのでしょうか。とくに、大学で有期で働く先生たちは、5年になる前に契約を打ち切られてしまうのではないかという大きな不安を抱いています。また実際に「契約は3年まで」、「更新はしません」といった文言を募集要項に掲載する大学も、ちらほら見られるようになりました。

     What impact will this have on those currently working fixed-term contracts?  Particularly teachers at universities are worried they might be non-renewed before reaching the five-year mark.  Some universities are already putting out want-ads announcing the post is only for three years and will not be renewed.

 しかし、不安ばかりではどうにもなりません。まずは、この法律の趣旨をしっかりと理解したうえで、どのように「安定した雇用」を権利として求めていくべきなのか、そして、具体的にどのような闘い方をすればいいのか、このセミナーでみんなで考え、知恵を出し合っていきましょう。そして、有期労働契約で働く友人、知人のみなさんにも、ぜひ、このセミナーに一緒に参加しようと声をかけてください。

      Anxiety alone will solve nothing.  First let’s find out precisely what the new law says, how we can pursue the right to job security and specifically how to fight.  This seminar will provide a chance to put our heads together and prepare.  Please bring your friends, acquaintances and anyone else who works on fixed-term contracts to this seminar.

 なお、このセミナーでは特に顕著な影響が出ている大学の非常勤講師の問題を多く取り扱う予定ですが、もちろん、有期労働契約はすべての労働者に共通する問題です。すべての業種の人たちにご参加いただければと思っています。

       We will focus in particular on university part-time teachers, who will be particularly impacted by this change, but of course the problem is shared by all workers on such contracts and all are very welcome.

◆ プログラム   Program

  1 有期雇用労働者と労働法〜これまでの法制度と今回の改正について(指宿昭一弁護士)

        Fixed-term employees and labor law.  The law ’till now and the new amendment.  (Attn. Shoichi Ibuski)

  2 質疑応答 Q&A

  3 大学の非常勤講師をめぐるこれまでの労働判決と最近の動向(奥貫妃文)

        Case law and recent trends for part-time instructors at universities. (Tozen President Hifumi Okunuki)

  4 質疑応答 Q&A

                            〜10分休憩〜   10-minute break

   5 会場の実態報告&ディベート 〜今後、法改正に対してどう対処すべきか〜

        Workplace reports from the floor and debate.   What is to be done?

  6 「有期労働契約実態調査」記入のお願い

        Please answer our questionnaire on your fixed-term employment

◆ 場 所 Venue :  Osaka Keizai Hohka Daigaku Tokyo Azabudai Seminar House

                     〒106-0041 Tokyo, Minato-ku, Azabudai 1-11-5, Tokyo Azabudai Seminar House

                               * Take Hibiya Line to Kamiyacho Station, Exit 1.  Then a five-minute walk.

                 (TEL:03-5545-7789 E-mail:capp@keiho-u.ac.jp

 

5年ルールセミナーパンフレット(日本語)

2013-06-16_160457

 

有期労働契約の新たな“5年ルール”とは?

   〜5年でGood byeってホント?〜  

   

新しい労働契約法についてのセミナーを開催します!

 

日時:2013年7月7日(日)

   午後2時00分〜午後5時00分(途中10分休憩あり) ☆参加無料

 

講師: 指宿 昭一弁護士(暁法律事務所)

    奥貫 妃文(全国一般東京ゼネラルユニオン執行委員長、相模女子大学専任講師)

 

 今年から、労働契約法に有期労働契約に関する3つのルールが新たに加わりました。

  

  ☆Point1.有期労働契約の期間の定めのない労働契約への転換

       (いわゆる「5年ルール」の新設)

  ☆Point2.有期労働契約の「雇止め法理」の法定化

  ☆Point3.有期労働契約であることによる不合理な労働条件の禁止

 

 今回の法改正は、現在、実際に有期で働く人たちにどのようなインパクトを与えるのでしょうか。とくに、大学で有期で働く先生たちは、5年になる前に契約を打ち切られてしまうのではないかという大きな不安を抱いています。また実際に「契約は3年まで」、「更新はしません」といった文言を募集要項に掲載する大学も、ちらほら見られるようになりました。

 

 しかし、不安ばかりではどうにもなりません。まずは、この法律の趣旨をしっかりと理解したうえで、どのように「安定した雇用」を権利として求めていくべきなのか、そして、具体的にどのような闘い方をすればいいのか、このセミナーでみんなで考え、知恵を出し合っていきましょう。そして、有期労働契約で働く友人、知人のみなさんにも、ぜひ、このセミナーに一緒に参加しようと声をかけてください。

 

 なお、このセミナーでは特に顕著な影響が出ている大学の非常勤講師の問題を多く取り扱う予定ですが、もちとん、有期労働契約はすべての労働者に共通する問題です。すべての業種の人たちにご参加いただければと思っています

 

◆プログラム

 

 1 有期雇用労働者と労働法〜これまでの法制度と今回の改正について(指宿昭一弁護士) 

 2 質疑応答

 3 大学の非常勤講師をめぐるこれまでの労働判決と最近の動向(奥貫妃文)

   (早稲田大学、大阪大学等)

 4 質疑応答

                〜10分休憩〜 

 5 会場の実態報告&ディベート 〜今後、法改正に対してどう対処すべきか〜

 6 「有期労働契約実態調査」記入のお願い

 7 おわり 

 

 

◆場 所:大阪経済法科大学麻布台セミナーハウス 

     106-0041 東京都港区麻布台1-11-5東京麻布台セミナーハウス

     地下鉄日比谷線神谷町駅出口から徒歩5分 

     地図:http://www.keiho-u.ac.jp/research/asia-pacific/access.html

MAP

Changes to Japan’s employment law effective from 1 April 2013

Changes to Japan’s employment law effective from 1 April 2013
As of 1 April 2013, Japan’s minimum retirement age will increase to 65 years, with further restriction on scope to refuse re-employment after an earlier company retirement age. New amendments to Japan’s Labour Contracts Act (“LCA”) will also come into effect, concerning fixed term employees and employment contracts.

Read more

A World Without Labor Unions; in unions’ defense

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121023hs.html

Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012
A world without labor unions

Re: “The Berlitz labor cartel” (Have Your Say, Sept. 25), a response to “With Berlitz beaten but not bowed, union fights on” by Patrick Budmar (Zeit Gist, Sept. 4):

The writer of this is someone who has withheld their name for good reason. Everything he or she wrote is spot off.

The suggestion that the union “chose to hold the company hostage rather than to leave and find a better offer” displays a misunderstanding of unions’ role in the workplace and in society.

A union is the only way for both parties (employers and employees) to negotiate on equal standing. If there were no unions, what would be the result?

We need not imagine. Let’s take a look at history, before unions fought for us. There was no minimum wage, no pension, no insurance, long hours, and brutal child labor was the norm. Those children were “free to work somewhere else,” as the author says.

It was the union movement that won us a minimum wage, pensions, health care, labor rights (including the right to strike) and abolished child labor. It is the right of the people to form unions and negotiate collectively with their employers. Their fight helps all of us, not just their coworkers.

The author calls it “the Berlitz labor cartel” but missed the fact that firms operate as cartels on many occasions. Consider price-fixing among automakers in Japan. NTN Corp. (www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20120518b2.html) was found guilty of price-fixing. Toshiba recently paid $30 million to settle a price-fixing suit in the U.S. This is cartel behavior, not collectively demanding a pay increase and open-ended employment.

All workers have the right to strike. If midway through a meal, the waiter took my food and asked me to pay more, I would inform him that it’s management that sets prices, not customers. Also, strikers do not get paid during the period they are striking, so the analogy is false.

If my waiter went on strike, I would happily miss my meal in order to join them in asking management to increase prices so the workers are better paid.

AMJID ALAM
Executive President, Tozen (Zenkoku Ippan Tokyo General Union) ALTs Union

Send comments on these issues and story ideas to community@japantimes.co.jp.

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