Topic

education

7 petitions

Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to 酒井正三郎 , 福原紀彦 , 大村雅彦 , 篠原正博 , 中央大学, 中央大学 経済学部

中央大学 休学費用減額 〜大学を一年間「休学」するのに「施設設備費」を約19万円も払う必要はありますか?〜 I propose an absence fee reduction.

(English version will begins from the middle part on this page.)(英訳版は後半部にあります。) 私がこの署名活動により実現したいことは ・休学を希望する学生に対する高額な「施設設備費」の請求の廃止に伴う、安価な「在籍料」の新設 ・休学費用の減額  の2点です。    中央大学経済学部に所属する私は、2018年4月より台湾の高雄にてワーキングホリデーおよびボランティア活動を行うため、一年間休学をする予定です。しかし休学をするためには、約19万円(188,900円)もの大金を「施設設備費」として大学に払わなければなりません。  休学中の学生は、授業や実験・実習を受けることはなく、施設設備を使うことはほとんどありません。しかしながら一年間休学する経済学部の学生は、約19万円もの大金を「施設設備費」のために払わなければなりません。施設を使わないのに、「施設設備費」を払う必要はどこにあるのでしょうか。 ところで、都内の有名私立大学「MARCH」と称される明治・青山学院・立教・中央・法政大学は、一年間休学する際にいくら必要だと思いますか?そして、その中で費用が一番高い大学はどこの大学だと思いますか? 以下、まとめましたのでご確認ください。 ・明治大学 「休学在籍料」16万円 ・青山学院大学 「在籍基本料」6万円 ・立教大学 「在籍料」12万円 ・中央大学(学部によって異なります) 文、商、法、経済学部:「施設設備費」188,900円 総合政策学部:「施設設備費」237,100円 理工学部:「施設設備費」267,700円 ・法政大学 「休学在籍料」10万円 (以下のサイトに各有名私立大学の「休学費用」が掲載されています。併せてご確認ください。) https://conpath.net/columns/comparison-university-absent-cost/ そう、中央大学です。その額、青山学院大学の3倍以上です。  それでは、この費用は休学する学生に対して正当な金額なのでしょうか。そして、中央大学以外の大学が「在籍料」を要求する中、中央大学だけが「施設設備費」を要求しています。休学するのですから「在籍料」だけで良いはずなのに、中央大学は「施設設備費」を払えと命じます。   現在の中央大学の休学費用の制度は、学生の選択肢や可能性を、経済的な理由で剥奪しています。意欲ある学生が、この高額な「施設設備費」のために休学を断念してしまう状況は学生・大学にとってもマイナスでしかありません。  そこで私は 中央大学、 中央大学経済学部、 中央大学 学長 福原紀彦氏、 総長 酒井正三郎氏、 理事長 大村雅彦氏、 および中央大学 経済学部長 篠原正博氏 に対して ・休学を希望する学生に対する高額な「施設設備費」の請求の廃止に伴う、安価な「在籍料」の新設 ・休学費用の減額 を求めます。 残念ながら、私は約19万円という高額かつ理不尽な「施設設備費」を払って台湾へ行くこととなるでしょう。しかし、今回の署名を通じて休学の際に必要となる費用が「施設設備費」としてではなく「在籍料」へと変わり、休学費用が減額され、休学しやすい環境が整備されることを望みます。 この署名活動は私のために行うのではありません。次の「休学希望者」のために、よりよい環境を整備するために行われます。署名なんて無駄だと思う人もいるかもしれません。しかし、行動しなければ何も変わりません。声を上げることで、何かが変わるかもしれません。私は、そこにわずかな希望を持ち、署名活動を始めようと決意いたしました。  私の思いに賛同してくださる方は、ご署名のほどよろしくお願いいたします。 須郷利貴   English version:英訳版 “Signature-collecting campaign”   “I propose an absence fee reduction to Chuo University.” ~Should I pay about 1900,000 yen ($1,744) to Chuo University as a "facility cost"? I would like this to be renamed to “absence expenses”.~   What I‘d like to achieve with this Signature-collecting campaign is: •To abolish "facility cost" fee for the students who want to be absent, and instead introduce the "absence expenses" fee. •To reduce the "absence expenses" as much as possible. I belong to the Faculty of Economics at Chuo University and I’m planning to be absent from University until March next year in order to go to a working holiday and volunteer activities in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. However, in order to be absent, I have to pay as much as about 190,000 yen (188,900 yen, $1,730) as a "facility cost" to Chuo University. Absent students don't attend classes, experiments and practical training. And they don’t use the facilities like the other students. However, absent students majoring in Economics at Chuo University must pay about 190,000 yen (188,900 yen, $1,730) for the "facility costs". I think there is no need to pay any "facility costs" as they don’t use the said fascilities. By the way, can you guess how much is the “absence fee” among famous private universities (Meiji, Aoyama, Rikkyo, Chuo, Hosei) in Tokyo? Can you guess which University is “worst” (as in most expensive) University? I made a list of prices below, please check it. · Meiji University "Registration for leave of absence" 160,000 yen ($1,465) · Aoyama Gakuin University "basic enrollement fee " 60,000 yen ($549) · Rikkyo University "Registration fee" 120,000 yen($1,099) · Chuo University (it depends on facility) Literature, Commerce, Law, Economics: "facility costs" 188,900 yen ($1,730) Faculty of Policy Management: "facility cost" 237,100 yen ($2,171) Department of Science and engineering: "facility cost" 267,700 yen ($2,452) · Hosei University "Registration for leave of absence" 100,000 yen ($916) (The "absence expenses" of each well-known private university are posted on the following site. (Sorry! Japanese version only.) https://conpath.net/columns/comparison-university-absent-cost/ Yes, the answer is Chuo University. That amount is more than three times that of Aoyama Gakuin University. So then, is this fee legitimate for the students who are going to be absent? And while Universities, other than Chuo University, do request "enrollment fee", only Chuo University requests "facility costs" fee. Do you think that absent students shouldn't pay for "fasclity costs"? Well, Chuo University doesn't think so, as their view is that “You must pay facility costs even if you are absent!”. At present Chuo University's leave of absence fee system deprives students of opportunities and possibilities for economic reasons. This situation regarding the expensive "facility cost" discourages the students from participating in other useful activities. It is not good for students, not for the University. So, I’d like Chuo University, Chuo University Economics Department, President Dr. Tadahiko Fukuhara,  President Dr. Shozaburo Sakai, Chief Executive Regent Dr. Masahiko Omura, Dean Faculty of Economics Dr. Masahiro Shinohara   •To abolish "facility costs" for the students who want to be absent, and instead set an "enrollment fee" for the said students •To reduce “absence expenses”. Unfortunately, I will go to Taiwan only after paying about 190,000 yen (188,900 yen, $1,730) for a very expensive "facility cost". However, I am hoping that this Signature-collecting campaign will help make a new system. I DO hope this campaign will help introduce the "enrollment fee" instead of "facility expenses". I DO hope the absence fee will also be reduced with this campaign. I DO hope to create a nice environment (a low absence fee) for the other absent students with this campaign. This petition is not for me but for the students who will be absent from Chuo University in the future. Some people think that this campaign is useless. However, if we do not act, nothing will change. Something may change by raising our voices. That is why I decided to take action while and hope for this change. Those who agree with mr, please sign the petition and share this post. Thank you. Toshiki Sugo (Lee)

須郷 利貴
1,315 supporters
Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to 東京都教育委員会 Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education, 東京地方裁判所 Tokyo District Court

都立高校教員の不当な再任用拒否の撤回を!

今回、こちらで提起したいのは、高校教員の再任用制度(60歳で定年退職となる職員等が再任用を希望する場合、退職日の翌日から公的年金の報酬比例部分の支給開始年齢に達するまでの間、再任用することにより雇用と年金の接続を図るもの{http://www.jinji.go.jp/shougai-so-go-joho/work/qa.html})についてです。経緯をご説明します。私たち(署名発起人)が大変お世話になった高校教員が、再任用の更新を希望したところ拒否されました。過去にすでに再任用教員として働いていた、にもかかわらずです。現在当該教員は、職を失い、この再任用拒否は不当として裁判を起こしています。今回の再任用拒否根拠が、当該教員が以前再任用教員として働いていた高校の校長から「再任用には値しない」という主旨の書類が提出されたことにあります。その書類の内容は「平成26年4月~5月にかけて、頭髪指導徹底の指導方針が決まった際、当該教員は職員会議の中でこれをやめさせる趣旨で、校長を詰問するような口調で発言を行った。同時に頭髪指導徹底を推進していた生活指導部や学年主任にも食って掛かり、学校運営に重大な支障を生じさせた。」「教員としての業務に消極的であり、生徒のためにやろうとした取り組みをこどごとく否定した。」となっています。その問題となった職員会議が行われた当時は、生徒の間でも頭髪指導に関して意見が二分していた問題でした。それに対して反対意見を述べることが拒否根拠になるということが到底理解できません。会議で反対意見を述べることが「学校運営に重大な支障を生じさせる」のでしょうか?むしろ、賛成、反対意見を通して「生徒にとって本当に良いこと」が導き出されるのではないのでしょうか。また、「詰問するような口調で」「生活指導部や学年主任にも食って掛かり」、これも校長から出された書類のみで判断されており、客観的な根拠に欠けます。さらに、「教員としての業務に消極的であり、生徒のためにやろうとした取り組みをこどごとく否定した。」に関しては、まったくの見当外れであります。私たちを含め、多くの文系学生は当該教員に大変お世話になりました。具体的には「冬休みなどの長期休みに、ほぼ毎日受験に向けて個人的な指導」「論述問題などの添削、および指導」「不安ごとや、将来に関する相談」などです。これらは、授業時間以外に行われていたことであります。このような教員が「教員としての業務に消極的」かつ「生徒のためにやろうとした取り組みをことごとく否定する」教員であると言えるでしょうか?私は「違う」と思います。この問題を通して、変えたいことを書きます。1.当該教員の再任用拒否を撤回2.会議で意見を述べることにより、不利が生じるという「物言えぬ学校」を作ることの阻止です。ご賛同いただける方は、署名にご協力ください。宜しくお願い致します。お問い合わせは、ueno.high.graduates.official@gmail.comまでお願いします。 

東京都立上野高等学校卒業生有志
826 supporters
Started 11 months ago

Petition to Educational Foundation of OSAKA MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL Univ. Board Chairman Ueki Minoru, Osaka District Court

Please correct the inequalities between "full-time arbaito staff" and regular staff

JAPANESE version is as follows : https://goo.gl/a6Ht4A Osaka Medical college :Please correct the inequalities between "full-time part-time/arbaito staff" and regular staff doing jobs with the same content and responsibility. The Labor Contract Law Article 20 trial: We are fighting for the elimination of inequalities of non-regular workers. Please don't wait for the ruling, but rather engage in a discussion with us to find ways to put an end to inequality.  In August 2015, I filed a legal complaint against Osaka Medical University (now Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University) in Osaka District Court based on Article 20 of the Labor Contract Law demanding "elimination of non-regular employee inequality". The lawsuit has entered its third year, and the final trial hearing was held on September 14.  The verdict will be announced on January 24. Along with the lawsuit demands, we have also been demanding retraction of my "yatoidome" (non-renewal of employee contract, tantamount to being fired), and calling on the University to conduct collective bargaining with my union.  Despite our formal demands, there University has not replied. Simply stated, Labor Contract Law Article 20 states that there should be no non-rational differentials between regular workers and time-limited contract workers performing the same jobs.  Since the law was only recently enacted, taking effect in April 2013, there are not yet many court rulings.  However, several other lawsuits are also ongoing, including two filed by Yusei union members against Japan Post (the national post office, privatized several years ago) in Tokyo and Osaka.   Other lawsuits have been filed against Nagasawa Transport, Hamakyorex, and Tokyo Metro Commerce.   Even though I worked full-time, I was called an arbaito (part-timer) From January 2013 until March 2015, I worked at a professor's research office at Osaka Medical University (now Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University), and classified as an arbaito (part-timer) even though I was working full-time.  Although I worked alone, my job had exactly the same content and responsibilities as those of a professor's secretary and a research office secretary combined. I was responsible for performing tasks for faculty members, from instructors through full professors.  These included arranging schedules; doing paperwork for research budgets amounting to several tens of millions of yen yearly; purchasing mice, reagents, and other items for scientific research projects; printing materials for faculty members' classes; editing test questions and aggregating student grades; and sometimes even counseling students. Moreover, I handled these responsibilities by myself, since there were no other staff members in the office. The job was full-time from Monday through Friday, and half-days on some Saturdays. So I worked exactly the same times as regular staff.      I handled jobs for 30 persons by myself Other research offices had two secretaries to handle all of the tasks.  The neighboring research office had one secretary, who was a regular employee and who handled tasks for just six faculty members. However, I handled jobs for 15 faculty members from the beginning of my job.  Moreover, the number increased to 30 faculty members by March 2015. Since there were just six faculty in the neighboring research office, the amount of work involved was completely different. In contrast to the regular employees, however, I received absolutely no bonus and no allowances (though these make up one-third or more of compensation in Japan for regular workers). (My summer and winter holidays were much shorter also.)  My yearly compensation was one-third that of regular secretaries. Even newly hired regular employees earned twice I did.   I doubt that I would have sued the University if I had simply been doing the same work as the regular employees in neighboring offices. But even though I was handling two or three times the workload, I was only earning one-third the compensation of the regular employees on the same floor, and only half of even what a newly hired regular employee would earn. While extremely busy with work, I often asked myself, "Why I am doing all this even though I am just an arbaito?"  Still, I had the full trust of the professors and was steadily entrusted with new tasks.  Despite the problems, I was also enthused about the job. Both inside and outside the department, I heard from other professors while talking about my problems. Sometimes, we were able to resolve problems in other professors' offices on the same floor.  I also became a regular confidant of various instructors and people working in research offices, and so I was able to mediate and resolve some of their problems with the professors...  The work was very difficult but also very fulfilling, so I enjoyed it.  For this reason, at the same time that I am pursuing my lawsuit, I am also calling on Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University to retract my yatoidome -- that is, to renew my contract -- and to engage in collective bargaining with my union.  However, we have been unable to get the University to engage us in discussion.      I had never dreamed that such an "incident" would come into my life.  Still, more than 20 million persons, 40 percent of the work force, are employed as non-regular workers.  That means that there is not one person in Japan who does not know someone or have a relative working as a non-regular employee.  Inequalities are no longer just someone else's problem, and to start making even a little progress in reducing them, we need for everyone to join us in calling for reform. If you agree, I ask you to spread the word on social media.   We thank you for your support.   Contact us at: ●TEL: 072-685-8640 FAX: 072-685-864  Zenkoku Ippan-Osaka Fuhonbu 【Labor Union】 ➡ http://z-fuhon.sakura.ne.jp/index.html〒530-0041 Green Bld. 3rd Floor, 1-13-15, Tenjinbashi, North-Ward, Osaka, JAPAN E-mail :info@20jyosaiban-osakaikadai.com ●At the other session of my Labor Contract Law Article 20 trial, I issued the following opinion statement ➡ https://omc-20jyo-trial.jimdo.com/english-home/

Zenkoku Ippan Osaka (Labor Union), The Labor Contract Law Article 20 trial in JAPAN
1,739 supporters