第 47 條 聘僱前條外國人之雇主，應具備下列條件之一：
一、學校、公立社會教育文化機構。
二、國際觀光旅館。
三、觀光遊樂業者。
四、演藝活動業者。
五、文教財團法人。
六、演藝團體、學術文化或藝術團體。
七、出版事業者。
八、電影事業者。
九、無線、有線或衛星廣播電視業者。
十、政府機關。
十一、各國駐華領使館、駐華外國機構、駐華國際組織。
前項雇主聘僱外國人從事藝術及演藝工作，其工作場所以下列各款為限：
一、學校、社會教育文化機構、公園、體育場 (館) 、展覽場 (館) 或其他類似場所。
RedRedWinw It's very clear that foreign language schools are covered under this act.
Also, why are they making amendments to The Act that specifically concern foreign language teachers if they are not covered?
By the way, you conveniently forgot to respond to the question about the lawyers who have properly researched the matter and agree that these schools are covered. You can keep ignoring evidence against your position and dodging questions but by now it's obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse and trying to spread misinformation to further your own agenda.
Well I'll be damned. Cram schools ARE considered "cultural institutions". I'm big enough to admit that I was wrong. I apologize. Thanks for clearing this up.
I am a man of my word, so last night I called a teacher meeting after school. I told the teachers that they are entitled to vacation pay and they were all . I then told them that if they wanted paid vacations I would need to lower their wages and they were all . In the end, no one chose to receive paid vacations. And the world keeps spinning as usual...
As a side note, I am getting tired of the jackasses at the CLA for constantly providing incorrect information. I assure you that I have never tried to spread incorrect information here. As an owner, I simply, and probably naively, followed and believed what the government agencies told me. I'm sure that many schools are in the same boat. I don't think the CLA have given me a correct answer yet.
