You wrote: -

"Is exactly what we FT's need like we need a hole in the head!
... But my experience as a FT here in China also tells me that Chinese bosses in the education sector usually show considerable respect to rich FT's working for them, especially to those who happen to be whites from North America."

This post bothers me because it does not seem to take into account all of the other reasoned posts on the subject. To lump all institutions together under the "education sector" is blatantly unfair. Not all Chinese bosses are bad people and if they express a preference for North American white people that's their business and is more likely to relate to the "love affair" that China seems to have with North America. Take for example the health sector. Almost 30 years ago China was in the top ten according to official statistics, now it it near the bottom -Why? - because it copied America's system, resulting in 70% of the population unable or unwilling to afford private medical insurance. I also read somewhere that less than 15% of the American people actually have a passport that would enable them to travel to other countries.

Chinese students, fed a diet of American movies, where every college kid drives to university in an open top car and spends all their time bitching about other students, ignores the "underclass" in American society and gives those Chinese students an inaccurate view. No wonder they experience 'culture shock' when going to the US for postgraduate studies! The same applies to the UK where Chinese students and their teachers see England as being like Jane Austen or Emily Bronte, rather than the copycat of American society where there are guns on the streets and gang warfare in the cities is no different than the Bronx!

It seems to me that some of the FTs who generally experience bad treatment are inexperienced, or lacking qualifications and common sense and lay themselves open to abuse. Quite frankly some issues are minor and can be sorted out by a firm approach. Others are more serious, but then I have never been interested in private language schools, state schools or training centres so I don't put myself in a position where I can be conned.

I have had the pleasure of working with 3 black American teachers who did not experience prejudice - why , because they were bloody good teachers!!

As for probationary periods no teacher should be afraid of these if they are conducted properly. And if they are not then we should do something about it!!

Is it a mark of the lack of common sense among many FT's who take overseas jobs, sign contracts and then complain how unfair they are on boards such as this ?

I'd have to agree with you on that one.As for the standard contract I mentioned,it was composed by the State Bureau for the Administration of Foreign Experts,and is used widely in China.Usually the particular educational institution you will be working for will also ask you to sign an appendix to said contract.The main purpose of the appendix is to detail the actual teaching to be carried out.

The standard contract,amongst other things,specifies that an FT is expected to 'guarantee the quality of his teaching'.And there is also a clause allowing the FT the opportunity to improve his unsatisfactory teaching in the event of complaints so that his teaching can be re-assessed at a later date.If his teaching is still deemed unsatisfactory then,he can be fired on the spot at once.

So I don't see any need for additional clauses re probationary periods,or clauses pertaining to percentages of students liking the lessons of FT's etc.
Personally,I've always been satisfied with the standard contract(and therefore signed it),but not always with the appendix to it,in which case I'd try hard to negotiate the unsatisfactory clauses in the appendix to my satisfaction,or look for a post elsewhere.Only once did I sign an appendix I wasn't totally happy with.That was because I felt it would be too late to find a college vacancy elsewhere.

If a potential employer offered me a contract other than the standard one to sign,I wouldn't sign.You see,the standard contract has a clause allowing arbitration in the event of a dispute beween the employer and the employee that can't be settled.Said dispute could be about unsatisfactory teaching or not,for example.In fact,no employer wishes to involve the commission for arbitration based in Beijing.So the disputes can be settled fast and amicably at the workplace in many cases.I reckon employers not using the standard contract are trying to disassociate themselves from said arbitration procedure,which can be used by the FT to prevent him being victimised.

I'm glad to learn that the employers you have worked for issue the standard contract as a matter of course!It's a good yardstick,as well as a good starting point for negotiations along with its appendix.

The mechanism is already in place to get rid of pretend teachers at any time during the contract as in the standard contract issued by the State Bureau for Foreign Experts.I don't know what sort of outfit you work for that doesn't issue standard contracts to its FT's!

In early February of this year a foreigner accepted a post at a key public high school of a small city. Before arriving there he had been astute enough to insist on a stamped contract via the Internet. That contract specified the teaching load and salary, 20-25 classes a week, no more, no less, for 7000 RMB a month, but only the starting date was mentioned, as opposed to the duration of the teaching, though 10 months had been specified orally.

But upon his arrival he was asked to help them out by teaching 32 classes a week, supposedly only for a few days. He kindly agreed. Soon after he started his teaching, his fourth lesson was assessed by the dean of the English department, who subsequently told him she was satisfied with it. His heavy schedule went on in excess of 3 weeks,but still no contract was offered to him.

He smelt a rat before the start of his 3rd week there. So he stuck his neck out to insist on a contract. But the salary that was offered to him in it was only 6000 RMB a month for 32 lessons a week, later to be reduced to 5000 RMB for 25. So he refused to sign it, explaining why to the clerkess who had offered him it. She said that the salary specified in his e-mail contract was significantly higher than what was offered on the 'real' one because the school was desperate for an FT at that time, as it was two FT's short. The FT thought this was clearly an unacceptable excuse, and still refused to sign. Next the dean tried to bully him to sign, and was visibly angry when he still wouldn't.

The FT threatened to strike, at which point the dean changed her tune. But he was told he'd have to wait for a few days for the 'new' contract to be typed, and not to divulge his salary to his fellow FT.Just then he gave the school an ultimatum for his new contract to appear, after which he said would go on strike. But no contract was offered by the time the deadline had arrived. So he went on strike, missing 3 classes on a Thursday afternoon, followed by 9 on the Friday. And he told them he wouldn't leave for good until he was paid in full according to the terms of the original e-mail contract for the teaching he had already done. He got the money owed to him in full,and an inventory of his apartment was made to check he had not broken or stolen anything.

But what the school was unaware of was that he had already fixed up another position at a college in another province via the Internet through a recruiter.
At about 4 pm on that Friday afternoon he was sitting in his apartment next to his packed luggage ready to leave the following day after a good night's sleep when there was a knock at the door. A school leader and a teacher visited him to offer him a fair contract, and begged him to stay for the sake of the pupils! The FT did them a huge favour. He stayed, but only for the money! He was under no illusions what they really thought of him, so he couldn't be duped easily from then on. He'll say 'see you never' by the end of July. At present he's teaching 16 lessons a week for 4500 RMB a month,7 classes each Friday, which suits him very much. But the school will find it very difficult to get a replacement for him this semester on that basis, and the other two FT's are already burdened with 25 and 23 classes a week, also with heavy teaching loads on Fridays. But 16 wouldn't suit them as they like to be busy, yet not too busy. In fact, he's unintentionally done them a favour.

Scallywag employers like that school certainly do not need another weapon in their armoury such as probationary periods, which they would surely fall back on to pay less or to dispense with an FT they want rid of fast!

Generally speaking, Chinese employers haven't earned the right to be given this stick to beat their FT's with, given their apalling track record in EFL.

In any case, there is already a clause in the standard contact whereby an FT who is seen to be teaching badly will have his shortcomings pointed out to him, and be asked to improve his teaching, to be re-assessed a week or so later, at which time he can be fired on the spot if he is still teaching badly.