Most yoga teachers do not think of themselves as being exposed to legal risk.  When they imagine legal trouble, they picture lawsuits, courtroom cross-examination, or criminal wrongdoing.

While it is true that legal risk for yoga teachers in Singapore is rarely so serious or stark, the reality is that yoga teachers operate in a commercial and business space of providing yoga teaching services.  This means that legal risk is present in certain common domains – for example, contract and employment law.

Let’s consider specifically, work contracts entered into with yoga studios.  These contracts determine how one is paid, how easily one’s classes can be taken away, how quickly the relationship can end, and what happens to one’s work after it does.  The contracts operate according to how the terms were drafted and agreed, regardless of how the working relationship feels in reality.  The contracts thus define outcomes in advance before any disagreement surfaces.

Why teachers sign without looking closely

Many teachers treat contracts as administrative formalities.  Some sign without reading closely, trusting that the relationship will work itself out.  Others read the clauses, but assume that harsh-sounding terms will never actually be enforced – that goodwill and past performance will prevail if problems arise.  A few are told that “everyone signs this”, or that certain clauses exist only for legal completeness, not for actual use.

The wellness industry is built on relationships, trust, and shared values.  Teachers enter the field because they care about students and believe in the transformative power of yoga practice.  Legal documents tend to feel at odds with this ethos.  Many teachers worry that asking too many questions will mark them as difficult, suspicious, or misaligned with the collaborative culture that they value (and which they think everyone else values).

But contracts are not neutral documents.  They are typically drafted to protect the studio’s interests.  They allocate risk, and set default outcomes for when circumstances change or when relationships deteriorate.  The friendly tone of the working relationship does not automatically operate to alter, waive or limit what the contract states.  A studio owner may genuinely care about their teachers, yet the contracts they use may virtually shift all risk onto the teachers themselves.

What your contract actually controls

In Singapore, the yoga and wellness sector is relatively small.  Studios typically control class allocation, schedules, and access to students.  Teachers, especially freelancers, often rely on a (small) number of studios for their income.  This means that what looks like a minor clause on paper – a sentence about scheduling discretion, a provision about intellectual property, a termination notice period – can have real and lasting consequences when circumstances change.

For example, a teacher who has worked at the same studio for 3 years may discover that her contract allowed for termination on one week’s notice, with no compensation beyond that week.  Practically, it means that classes that otherwise provided steady income for her will disappear in a week as long as notice is given.  She may have assumed that length of service created some form of security, but contracts rarely reward loyalty or tenure.  The express terms of the contract define what can happen, not what should happen.

Another example would be a teacher who creates a workshop manual, a signature or special class format, or develops training materials while working for a studio.  When the relationship ends, she may discover that the contract contained a clause that assigned ownership of those materials to the studio.  This means she cannot use the manuals, classes or materials elsewhere.  Even if the manuals, classes or materials that she created during the relationship continue to generate value for the studio, she would not have a claim to ownership or a share of the profits generated.

Phrases that should give you pause

When negotiating provisions in studio contracts or documentation, parties tend to default to certain common and familiar phrases.  However, teachers often do not register that they can be warning signs:

“Everyone signs this.”  However, the fact that a term is standard does not mean it is fair or balanced.  It simply means studios have in the past successfully convinced teachers to accept it.  Standard terms tend to favour studios because studios have gotten the contracts drafted for them – typically in their favour.

“It’s just a formality” or “That clause is never enforced.”  “Never enforced” does not mean unenforceable.  A clause that exists “for legal reasons only” can still be enforced.  It simply means the studio has not yet had reason to use it.  The studio may genuinely not intend to use it – until, for example, circumstances change, ownership changes hands, or financial pressures arise.

“We’ll revisit it later.”  However, the studio has little to no incentive to revisit terms that typically already favour them.  Furthermore, if the teacher has signed the contract, has taken fixed classes in the studio’s schedule, is embedded in the operational workflow of the studio, and will be taking (or has taken) income from the studio from the classes she teaches, she has less leverage in reality to negotiate contractual terms with the studio, compared to the time period before she signed the contract.

So, do you really need a contract?

The issue is not whether you need a contract – because a contract will almost always exist (whether written or implied through conduct).  The real question is whether you understand what your contract says, what it permits and what it does not.

Gaining a greater understanding of your contract is not about becoming unnecessarily combative or approaching your working relationship with suspicion or fear.  It is about seeing very clearly what you are agreeing to before you sign, so that you are not taken by surprise by outcomes that were already built into the structure of the relationship.

It is worth noting that informality in working relationships tends to increase the possibility of misaligned or unclear expectations.  For example, when expectations are left unwritten, when terms are discussed verbally but not documented, those become unclear aspects of the working relationship that may result in disputes when differences arise.  At that stage (when disputes arise), what has been agreed upon in writing (the contract) becomes the only relevant reference point.

The goal is not to eliminate all contractual risk, which would be impossible.  The goal is simply to avoid legal issues by understanding what you are agreeing to before the relationship begins.  When you encounter a contract, consider whether to accept the terms as they were drafted, push back on specific clauses, or walk away from the negotiation or working relationship entirely.  Each response can be valid, as long as you choose deliberately, and have a full awareness or appreciation of what the contractual clauses means or permits, rather than discovering its consequences after it is too late to change them.

 

This post is part of an ongoing series on legal resources for yoga teachers in Singapore.  A comprehensive toolkit covering this topic and more is coming soon!

 

The information in this article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  It should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice.  Laws and regulations may change, and the information provided may not reflect the most current legal developments.  For advice specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified lawyer.  No solicitor-client relationship is created by reading this content.