September 12, 2002
ASIJ Faculty and Staff,
The
September 16, 2002 3:45 PM meeting in rooms
213-215 is very important! I urge you to be present at this
meeting and to express your written and oral reactions to the proposed changes in our Personnel Policies. We are being asked to provide feedback directly to both the Administrative Council and Board or through
a selected representative.
If you looked through the ASIJ policy revision manual submitted to the Faculty
and Staff by Peter Cooper dated September 9, 2002, you soon were aware of the sweeping changes that are about to occur in
the rules of your employment at ASIJ. The Administrative Council and the Board
are seeking our approval of these changes. Obviously the Administrative Council
has been hard at work since last spring redesigning policies that by Japanese law were to be approved by our Faculty and Staff,
translated into Japanese and filed with the Mitaka City Labor Board years ago! These are NOT cosmetic clarifications. Beware - Faculty and Staff feedback (as
Peter states in his cover letter will be solicited) gathered by the Administration in recent months has been interpreted by
the Board as faculty approval of policy (i.e. Retirement Policy #4146). Approval
by the workers of the policies governing employment is a fundamental requirement of Japanese law. Refer to Laws of Japan (in English) on the ASIJ Teachers Union web site: http://asijtu.tripod.com
Note
the second sentence in the very first policy of the manual
#4000 NON-DISCRIMINATION: The school, therefore, commits itself
to non-discrimination in all its educational and employment policies. How can
this sentence be presented as policy when the word AGE has repeatedly not been included?
Why is the school presently facing five potential litigations concerning discrimination by current employees if it
is committed to non-discrimination in all employment practices?
There
is much to share among us - the Faculty and Staff. There is much to be done in
a relatively short time. Peters deadline of
September 20 is fast approaching. Write to him and the Board, express your
thoughts and concerns to the FSCC, speak to friends and colleagues, and/or talk with those of us who have been forced to join
a labor union to protect our families and employment rights.
I
regretfully submit this note but realize I must take a stand and fight for my employment rights as a professional educator,
husband and father. In the past, ASIJ has been a family for students, parents,
and employees all of who openly worked together enhancing the well-being of all. We
can, and we will attempt, to restore that treasured atmosphere. I hope your conscience
and professional ethics will be stirred and moved to take an active part in the battles that are just ahead of us all.
Bill Jacobsson
Teacher/Coach
The American School In Japan
PS. For Union information go to our web site: http://asijtu.tripod.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 15
Colleagues,
Although I am President of the ASIJ Teachers Union, what follows is strictly my personal comments.
Why are many of us so concerned about the Monday Personnel Policies meeting? Because it is another example of the autocratic and unilateral nature of actions by the administration
in recent years. Those of you who have been at ASIJ for a half-dozen years or
more know that there have been drastic changes in the past few years in the way the Board and Administration view and adopt
Personnel Policies.
1. Three years ago, the Reduction in Forces
policy was used in terminating a faculty member. Although the policy explicitly
states, years of experience need not be consecutive, the Administration interpreted that as irrelevant and has now changed
that policy. The intent of that policy was to show that the Board valued those
who had made past contributions to ASIJ the same way former faculty used to get ASIJ credit if they returned. But the current administration felt they had the right to reinterpret that policy.
2. On the retirement issue, 3 years
ago suddenly one needed special talents that the school needed to stay beyond 60. This
was an interpretation that was NOT in the policy nor its intent nor previous application.
When we asked for age to be included in the Discrimination Policy, the Headmaster told us to be careful or we might
end up with less than what we have. So the next year they unilaterally put a
special needs in the policy--of course they say it was in consultation with the FSCC.
The following year, they ignored that policy and said everyone must leave at 60. Again that is NOT what the policy
said. In the non-regular teacher contract a teacher was supposed to go to Step
5. Only after school had concluded in June did we find out that one masters (Step
5D) was the maximum allowed. The Director of Business Affairs was 100% certain
that this had been communicated to the faculty--however it wasn't. So, in a letter
to the Union, they promised that in August it would be made known to the faculty. When
asked in September, why they had not yet communicated this, their reply was essentially, "Oh, we did communicate that -- we
changed the policy on the web site. "
3. At the beginning of this school year we
were told that we now need to pay substitute pay for attending conferences. That
is NOT in the policy.
4. Now we find that there will be no sabbaticals
granted this year. The sabbatical policy states NOTHING about being withdrawn
at the discretion of the Administration. We old-timers do not recall any situation
in the 1990s when this was done. There may have been a year when no sabbaticals
were granted or even submitted, but we were never told of a suspension of the policy for financial reasons.
5. When we had increasing enrollment
and many years of record enrollment, did we get bonuses, did we get extra sabbaticals, and/or did we get extra professional
days? Of course not. Now when we
drop a little in enrollment (approx 3%) suddenly panic sets in and we need to cut, cut, cut.
During the recent record enrollments we had a cost-containment reduction in salary and the new travel allowance policy
is essentially a loss in income as the residual travel funds after one home trip are now being subjected to Japanese tax with
no compensation offered for the loss by the school. I believe we have had one
meaningful raise in the Base in the past 11 years.
6. Regarding the Mitaka Labor Board,
the Director of Business Affairs told FSCC members last Spring that the school did not need to file. Now we see that they acknowledge they were told in 1994 that they needed to file. They say a representative faculty member does not need to sign these policies. That is not true. There is a set procedure how this person
is selected. And, in fact, the Japanese staff is involved in such a selection
at this timebecause it was not done properly 7 years ago. The Administration
is trying to walk a very thin line of being legal, like this Monday's (9/16/02) meeting of consulting with the faculty, forgetting
the bigger issues of ethics, morality and just common business sense. The relevant
fine for not filing is 300,000 yen.
7. In the R.T. meeting in January, both the
President of the Board and the Headmaster stated that finances played an important role in formulating the new retirement
policy. In our first Danko meeting of the Union and the Administration, the Director
of Business Affairs repeatedly contradicted both of these men by insisting that finances had nothing to do with it. The decisions
being made in regard to retirement are managerial. Of course, this is another
legal maneuver since the Union has the right to examine the books if it is financial.
But the President and Headmaster already admitted that. At this meeting
the Director of Business Affairs also stated that there has never been any discussion of reprisals against union members nor
people speaking out on these issues. Yet, we continue to hear of these (but,
naturally can't name names to protect the faculty and staff involved.) A repetitive
reaction to our pointing out what we feel are illegal acts is, "You have the right to take us to court if you want to do that."
8. In this same R.T. meeting the Headmaster
referred to a case in 1992 that should have been a signal to us about retirement at 60.
This was, in fact, Don Berger. No mention was made that he had been in
a serious motorcycle accident, was on crutches and then a cane nor that he submitted his application weeks after the deadline. No mention was made that the very next year two teachers, 62 years old, were HIRED
and a number of others, 60 and older, had been retained. Mention was made that
U.S. universities have limits. They no longer do, but even when they did it was
at age 70. This was also the meeting where we were compared to Nishimachi a K-9 school that stresses bilingualism. We were also compared to Canadian Academy, but that is probably because the Director of Business Affairs
recently came from there. I have never before heard us compared to these schools. We have always been compared to S.E. Asian schools like TAS, HKIS, Seoul Foreign,
SAS, JIS, etc. and comparable U.S. private schools. Of course many of these
schools have no age policy or have a higher limit than 60. After the R.T. meeting
a couple surveys were conducted. One explicitly stated that this was not a vote,
however, the Board interpreted this as approval. The FSCC contested the wording
of some of the statements in the survey. The surveys were mainly written, conducted
and solely tabulated by the Business Office.
9. As we celebrate the Centennial this
year, is it not ironic that they lavished well-deserved praise for Vicky and Ki (and used them to raise money) while old-timers
are now seen as something to get rid of? Who or what do the alumni come to see? Probably not the buildings nor the many excellent new teachers. Many of us are now seeing the next generation of our students coming through ASIJ--David Essoyan's, Stan
Aoyama's, Brian Nelson's, Mark Korver's, Ken Nimori's, Tomi Takahashi's, Todd Stevenson's, Erica Wada Tanide's and others.
This is what the family of ASIJ is about. With all the talk of collaboration,
communication, community, and family, why is there so much unilateralism displayed by the Administration?
10. I celebrate my 60th birthday
this weekend (Respect for the Aged Day is appropriate). My apologies if I have your child in my classes since evidently I will be only 2/3 as good a teacher next
week as I was in the past.
You have a chance to express your opinion and let your voice be heard to
STOP these bulldozer tactics that have been taking place or you can just ignore what is going on at ASIJ and not be bothered
by it. You have a chance to protect and win back hard-fought gains over many
decadesnot only for current faculty, but for future years as well. The fact that
it is an optional 3:45 meeting gives some indication of how important the Administration feels about this meeting. Hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Ron
http://asijtu.tripod.com
Some relevant legal items:
A fundamental basis of Japanese law regarding
changes in Personnel Policies is that no changes can be made, and especially those detrimental to the employee, without agreement
from the employees. Stated by: Mr. Yonekawa, lawyer, Shimbashi; Mr. Marui, lawyer, Kokubunji;
Labor Assistance Board, Tachikawa;
Mitaka City Office; Labor Administration Office, Mitaka; Shikyoren Labor Union
What are an employer's obligations concerning work regulations? What force do such regulations have?
Work regulations are a type of regulations pertaining to working conditions and workplace rules set by
an employer so that business can be conducted efficiently by a company. Some companies refer to such regulations by other
names, such as "plant regulations" or "employee regulations." Regardless of what they are called, however, these regulations
are subject to the Labor Standards Law. An employer whose workforce ordinarily consists of ten or more workers must prepare
written work regulations pertaining to specific items and then submit the regulations to the head of the Labor Standards Inspection
Office that has jurisdiction. There are eleven items to be covered: three mandatory items, which are called "absolutely required
matters," and eight that are referred to as "conditionally required matters" (Article 89).
The principle of Japan's Civil Code is
"defacto custom" (Article 92 of the Civil Code). Explained simply, this refers to a situation whereby, in the course of
repeatedly doing the same thing over a long period, there emerges a mutual sense of being bound that is similar to a pledge
made through a tacit understanding, even though no mutual pledge has been made in particular. The following interpretation
has taken shape based on decisions handed down over the years by courts in Japan. To wit, this thinking holds that, when a
state whereby treatment in accordance with the work regulations continues ever since the time of starting to work for a company,
that becomes a rule in the minds of both labor and management.
