William Kapoun, 26, loved teaching kids. But the young, confident American will not be able to continue what he loves ― at least for a long while. About 10 days ago, a fire broke out at his apartment at dawn and left him with third-degree burns over 70 percent of his body.

The part-time teacher at Bulam Elementary School in northern Seoul is now in intensive care. He will have to endure reconstructive surgery on numerous occasions and a lengthy recovery. Despite the will to live, however, he lacks the means to fight the brutal battle.

The blaze not only altered his body and dreams but also laid bare working conditions that are void of shelters or insurance schemes against such terrible accidents. His full treatment is estimated to cost roughly $130,000.

His parents flew over immediately. They are also shocked by the staggering costs as he has no health insurance under his contract . ``He lived in an unsafe apartment. There was no sprinkler system or fire alarm and he had only one exit, which was blocked by the fire,’’ Dan Kapoun, 53, father of William, told The Korea Times at the hospital in Seoul.

The father lamented the absence of any clear insurance policy. ``I think whoever hires someone should take responsibility for making sure there is insurance,’’ he said.

He said his son was very happy when he decided to go to Korea. ``My son was very adventurous. He thought it would be a very good thing to teach English here, not only for him but also his students.’’

The law draws remarkably little distinction between expatriate and migrant. All foreigners are neatly divided into those who need visas to live and work in their host country and those who do not. Expatriates and migrants invariably fall under the first category. Legally, there’s no difference. Socially, there’s all the difference in the world.

This brings us to this funny old place, South Korea, which has rather a lot of foreigners living and working long term. Some are married to Koreans, still more are guest workers on fixed-term one-year renewable contracts, filling gaps in the labor market or at the behest of foreign corporations investing directly in the Korean economy.

The English field as a whole employs about 30,000, who are engaged in ELT and related fields. In fact, we could probably better describe your average EFL instructor as a white-collar migrant worker. Certainly, their experiences here more closely resemble other migrant groups than they do those of the well-heeled corporate expat: they are subjected to dodgy recruiters and unscrupulous employers; counterproductive government officials and a biased or uncaring media; they experience abuse, non- or late-payment of wages and unreasonable dismissals.

The difference between white-collar migrants and blue-collar migrants is mostly seen in terms of wages. White-collar migrants feel—possibly by virtue of the fact that they hail from developed countries and therefore have much less to lose if their foray in Korea doesn’t work out—more comfortable about complaining openly or seeking redress.

Perhaps some of the exasperation felt by corporate expats towards the ubiquitous “moaning English teacher” is down to a failure to understand that migrant workers get a different deal when working in foreign countries. Unfortunately, Korea probably has one of the worst records for the treatment of migrant workers in the developed world.

Why is the experience of legal migrant workers so negative in Korea? A number of solutions to the problems of white-collar migrants have been touted recently in the Korean English-language press implying that it is the foreigner’s lack of cross-cultural management skills that lead them into trouble with Korean employers. One person, thinking of the teaching profession only, called for compulsory cultural training of incoming English teachers.

He was thinking like an expat, not a migrant worker. Had he considered himself lumped in with the plant workers from Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, perhaps he would have arrived at a different set of suggestions. While undoubtedly important, qualified instructors teach in nearly every country in the world, yet only in Korea is so much made of their “poor” culture skills.

Cultural awareness is without doubt important. Far more important though, are having effective administrative and legal frameworks for managing guest workers, a strong enforcement of civil law, clear contracts, and most importantly, the employer should never have too much power over the individual.

Employers are interested primarily in profit margins, not in the human rights of those they employ. One function of employment law in most Anglophone countries is to keep industry standards high by making it financially viable for employers to treat their employees well (or financially suicidal if they don’t). This concept remains underdeveloped in Korea.

In 2006 Amnesty International reported many of the abuses that migrants complain about here, squared or cubed in severity for those foreign workers who, employed legally, experience appalling treatment at the hands of employers and recruiters in Korea.

Unable to return home, and unable to leave her abusive employer, and abandoned by the Korean justice system, she committed suicide

They mention one case where three months of non-payment of wages was deemed insufficient to allow a Chinese migrant worker to leave her job and seek employment elsewhere on the peninsula. Unable to return home, and unable to leave her abusive employer, and abandoned by the Korean justice system, she committed suicide by throwing herself under a train.

The experience of being unable to leave your abusive, unethical employer and having to fight for your wages is a nigh-universal one here. The difference between migrants from rich countries and migrants from poor ones is that the latter have everything to lose if their sojourn here doesn’t work out.

Korean immigration law binds the migrant worker—regardless of nationality—to a single employer, and in doing so gives that employer enormous power over the individual.

the migrant worker, who must often deal with employers who do not have strong ethics, poorly drafted, unconscionable contracts, and poor working conditions

For the well-heeled corporate expat in Korea there is no problem. Her contract is robust, signed in her home jurisdiction, is drafted to global industry standards and subject to more rigorous employment laws of her country of origin—and her superiors are foreign. She works with—rather than for—indigenous companies. Where disputes arise, they are dealt with in the country of origin. (I cannot imagine, even for a second, a foreign corporate manager seeking redress for non-payment of wages at the local labor board). Not so for the migrant worker, who must often deal with employers who do not have strong ethics, poorly drafted, unconscionable contracts, and poor working conditions.

Korean civil law is notoriously weak, leaving little room for redress through the courts for contractual breaches.

International Treaties do exist to promote good labor practices, especially as the global workforce becomes ever more mobile. Korea is signatory to several International Labor Organization Treaties, and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments which could, in theory, protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone on the peninsula, Korean and foreign.

One could question, however, whether Korea is truly taking its responsibilities under international law seriously, even as a Korean has ascended to the lofty position of U.N. secretary-general, or intended for foreigners to enjoy the same protection of their fundamental rights as Korean citizens do.

The fundamental rights of freedom of movement (if foreigners leave their jobs, they lose their visa status, and are thus illegal workers) and association seem to be reserved for Korean nationals, and there was no intention of extending these rights to guest workers.

Migrant workers—pointedly—cannot form trade unions to negotiate collectively. Even after a Seoul court did rule that they do have the legal right to form a union, the Labor Ministry refused to recognize the ruling, which is pending appeal. In fact, the entire executive of the Migrant Trade Union was arrested and deported late last year.

Fundamental rights, though, are recognized under international law to apply to everyone. Though not commonly acknowledged, making visas dependent on the employer is arguably a form of indentured, bonded labor, widely recognized as a human rights abuse and certainly something which Korean nationals are not subjected to when they seek employment in the U.K., United States, or other developed nations.

Without knowing, when a Korean enterprise employs a foreigner they are engaging in an international business activity, and that foreigner will judge Korea on the basis of their experiences with Korean companies. Every unethical act committed by a Korean employer against a foreign worker influences the international image of the country, and for this reason alone, the state should seriously reconsider the visa issuance practices.

Make visa’s countrywide rather than employer specific

Making a migrant’s visa countrywide, as it is in neighboring Japan, and permitting foreigners mobility is a relatively cheep and simple move which will effect sweeping, positive changes over the long term, as it means that migrant workers can leave bad employers and invest their skills with good ones. Among other things, it will have the effect of encouraging employers to clean up their acts, and reward ethical business practices.

Aside from serving business interests in the long run, freedom of movement and association are fundamental rights which are upheld in most liberal democracies can only reflect well on Korea as it moves towards a service-driven, globally focused economy, and increases its stake in the international arena.

Until then, we are all indentured. The difference is the length of the chain that binds us.

Lucy Johnson is not a lawyer in Korea and nothing in this article should be interpreted as legal advice. The opinions expressed here are her own.—Ed.

2008.01.23