--------------American School in Japan -----------------ASIJ Teachers' Union---Protecting Our Rights

Unofficial Viewpoint of the Board--June 2003
Home
Previous Home Page
Letter to Board November 29, 2004
Letter to Board (proposal) May 27, 2004
5th Arbitration --May 20, 2004
4th Arbitration -- April 20, 2004
3rd Arbitration--March 8, 2004
Q & A from March 8 Arbitration
Letter to the Board--January 2004
History of Situation to Board--January 2004
Comments from Former Administrators--posted Jan 2004
Unofficial Viewpoint of the Board--June 2003
Concerns to the Board June 2003
4th DANKO -- Feb 27, 2003
Jan 25 Reply to our questions of Dec 15 -- Updated February 2003
3rd DANKO - November 2002
2nd DANKO--September 2002
1st DANKO-- May 2002
Examples of Past Practice -- March 2003
Our Concerns --May 2002
History of the Situation -- Updated April 2005
Letter of Agreement--April 27, 2005
Letter to Board President, April 2, 2005
Retirement Policies at ASIJ
We Get Letters -- Updated February 2003
Letters written by Union Members -- September 2002
Age Discrimination -- May 2002
FSCC Final Statement on This Issue -- May 2002
Union letter to School -- April 2002
Letters to Faculty/Staff -- April 2002
Letter sent to the Board -- March 2002
Some ASIJ Teacher Statistics (Some 2002 hires not included) -- May 2002
ASIJ Policies with adoption and revision dates -- May 2002
Information About the Union -- May 2002
Laws of Japan -- March 2003

These are topics we have "tried" unsuccessfully to have dialogue on with the Board.

Seemingly, these are the major differences in position
 
BOARD                                                            UNION
 
Policy is legal                                         Possibly, BUT is that all ASIJ cares about?
                                                             New, unilateral interpretation process is NOT legal
 
Policy always said 60                            It said retirement is normally at 60
                                                            Policy was adopted in 1964 when retirement age
                                                               in Japan was 55 and was always liberally

                                                               interpreted.  It was NEVER interpreted as

                                                               mandatory retirement.

                                                            Then why have people over 60 even in 

                                                              recent years been HIRED?
                                                            Why can't the Board show us even one person in

                                                              the past who was not extended solely  

                                                              because they turned 60?
 
Policy compares favorably with             Is ASIJ no longer wanting to be a leader?
local schools such as St. Marys,           ASIJ does NOT compare favorably with
Nishimachi, and Seisen.                         either Japanese public schools where
                                                             reduced pay means substantially reduced
                                                             work nor the private schools where the
                                                             majority have 65 as retirement age.
 
Policy is very favorable for                   Policy is age discrimination
teachers and ASIJ
 
Most Board members are                    Most of the affected teachers are old timers at
relatively new to Japan and                    the school who KNOW how this policy had
from the business community.                always been implemented in the past and feel
They look at this as a legal and              we have been very unfairly discriminated
efficient way to run an organization        against based SOLELY on age of 60.
 

                                                            Ask any "old-timer" at the school or one who

                                                             has left and they will agree on the past

                                                             implementation of the retirement policy
 
Wed, 11 Jun 2003
 
Dear ASIJ Teachers Union:

As I am leaving Tokyo later this year, I have resigned from the ASIJ Board of Directors.  My resignation was effective with the last Board meeting. Therefore, I am forwarding your message to Lee Daniels and Karen Thomas, as well as to Peter Cooper and Tim Thornton.

Since I am no longer a Board member, I would like to offer a few personal observations.  Obviously, these are my personal opinions and I am in no way speaking for, or in behalf of, the Board.

I must say that I truly am disappointed that you feel that your questions were not answered during the time Lee Daniels and I spent with you.  [Questions are on side bar]  It may be that some questions were not answered directly during our discussions, but I believe Lee outlined very completely the Board's position on the retirement issue and the reasons for that position and in doing so, answered the questions presented.  He even went beyond the questions asked and offered an opportunity for discussion of the issues.  You were given the opportunity to ask questions (not originally part of the plans for the meeting), which many of you did.

I am leaving Japan because of an arbitrary determination that 4 years is an appropriate period of time for me to be in Japan.  My choice is retirement or return to Washington in an as yet undetermined capacity.  We all face decisions based on arbitrary  policies or standards.  Other expatriates come to Japan on assignments of set duration.  Those established timeframes are all arbitrary, but accepted as conditions of the assignment.

Using 60 as a retirement age is arbitrary.  However, it is an age that has been in the policies of ASIJ for longer than any member of the union has been at ASIJ.  It is not an age that just appeared in the ASIJ policies in the last year or two.  It is an age that, even though arbitrary, has a basis in Japanese law, which provides for retirement at age 60.  Whether it be a policy involving waivers or a policy involving a non-regular contract, the ASIJ retirement age has consistently been 60.

Under any of the formats for granting waivers, the age of 60 was the factor that required a waiver application.  At that point, the determination as to whether or not to grant a waiver was an arbitrary determination made by the Headmaster.  No one knows what basis the Headmaster used in determining whether to grant a waiver, or not - it could have been age or some other factor.  Until recently there had been no established criteria on which to base the waiver determination.

Up to 2001, the numbers of faculty members requesting a waiver had been very small, with maybe one or two each year and, in some years, none.  Peter had a difficult time remembering more than 5 or 6 in the 12 years he was Headmaster.  [See sidebar for examples of Past Practice]  Some of the applicants were granted waivers and some were not, others left because of the expectation that they would not be granted a waiver.  So, it seems a little strange to me that anyone could reasonably believe that waivers were essentially a pro forma matter.  There was not a great deal of experience on which such a conclusion could be drawn.  It just happened that, in 2001, there were a large number of applications made at the same time, all of which were rejected.

During the course of our meeting, Ron Dirkse asked if we had considered 'grandfathering' with respect to the waiver system.  As I said at the time, I don't think that option was seriously considered given that all the individuals affected had already been denied waivers.  Even if the former policy of total discretion on the part of the Headmaster were reinstated, I seriously doubt that waivers would have been granted.  That would then leave most, if not all, of the current union members without employment at ASIJ.

Following the Town Hall meeting in early 2002, the focus was on trying to find a process that would replace the waiver system, which had its flaws. In addition, it was pointed out that, while Japanese law provides for a retirement age of 60, it also expects employers to find ways to employ workers up to the age of 65.  The widespread method through which this latter expectation is accomplished is through the use of a vehicle similar to the ASIJ non-regular contract.  It is common in both Japanese business and in public occupations.

Many faculty members expressed a desire for arriving at a soft landing, as well as some certainty in their retirement planning.  In addition, many indicated that, once they had been at ASIJ for a certain length of time, they found it difficult to consider moving on because of the expense.

The non-regular contract was designed to provide for the soft landing that many people considered important.  It also was designed to bring ASIJ into compliance with the Japanese law which expects employers to find ways to continue to employ workers beyond the age of 60.  Coupled with the Early Retirement Incentive Program, faculty at ASIJ are now able to make their own decisions as to whether to stay or not and for how long.  The decision is no longer dependent on the arbitrary decision of a Headmaster or Administrative Council.

The non-regular contract represents a compromise under which faculty are able to remain at ASIJ until the age of 65 with full benefits, at a reduced salary.  Recognizing that the initial non-regular contract was too draconian, the salary and retirement benefits were recently revised upward, with retroactive impact.

Consideration of the non-regular contract policy must be made in view of the socio-economic conditions of the host country.  ASIJ is a school which is organized under the laws of Japan.  ASIJ Teachers Union members have on many occasions pointed out areas in which it was believed that ASIJ was not in conformance with those laws.  ASIJ has made a concerted effort to ensure that it is in compliance with Japanese laws.  Policies adopted by employers
in Japan differ from those in other countries because of the differing conditions.  Therefore, it is appropriate to benchmark certain employment practices against those practices found in the host country.  Other employment factors, such as salary, are appropriately benchmarked against other competing international schools.

In looking at retirement practices in the Tokyo area, it is my understanding that the following practices are in effect (as mentioned by Lee during the meeting): Nishimachi - retirement at age of 60, with no exceptions; St. Mary's - retirement at age 60 with annual waivers to 65, salary frozen at the final step reached when turning 60 and retirement contributions ended; Seisen - retirement at age 60 with waivers and a revised salary scale; YIS - retirement at age 60 with waivers, but in practice no waivers have been granted to full-time teachers in many years; Tokyo public schools -
retirement age of 60, waiver options from 61 to 65 with base salary reduced by 40%, bonus reduced by 50%, and all other benefits except commutation eliminated.  Considering these practices in effect in other local schools, I believe ASIJ's policy is quite generous.

I am saddened that some faculty members thought it necessary to form a union.  I believe the Board and administration made a significant effort to resolve the retirement issue in a way that is beneficial to both faculty and the well-being of the school.  One could have a long philosophical debate over whether a retirement age set in accordance with local law does in fact constitute age discrimination.  As I indicated, the fact is that 60 has been
the retirement age at ASIJ for many years, it is not just a
recently-established retirement age.

In my experience with ASIJ, I was tremendously impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the administration and staff.  I know that my son could not have had a better educational experience anywhere else. For those of you who had a part in that, I thank you and wish you the best
in your futures.

Sincerely,

Stan Beesley