Unofficial Viewpoint of the Board--June 2003

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