The members of the ruling Uri and main opposition Grand National (GNP) parties on the National Assembly's Labor and Environment Committee went ahead and approved new legislation on irregular workers yesterday. Committee members voting to approve had Democratic Labor Party (DLP) members who physically tried to block the vote removed by force. The DLP says that is going to block approval by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the full Assembly, and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU, Minju Nochong) has announced it is going on a general strike. Even business groups are expressing dissatisfaction with the legislation. On the surface it may look like no one wants this bill, but in truth that is not the case. Business groups' don't like it because it does not do everything they wanted in the way of relaxing regulations, while labor sees it as a matter of life and death.
The key parts of this bill relate to "period" (contract) and "dispatched" workers. You can now hire people on short-term contracts for up to two years instead of one, after which point you cannot dismiss a person without reason. "Dispatched" or subcontracted workers may be employed for up to two years as has always been the case, but you can hire them for a wider range of jobs.
The issue of irregular workers is one on which all the interested parties have significantly different views, but there are principles that everyone should be able to agree on. One: that irregular workers should never account for more than half of the workforce. Two: that there has to be less discrimination against irregular workers, discrimination that causes further socioeconomic disparity. Three: that there needs to be a certain degree of flexibility in the labor market. The government once agreed to the tone of these principles. The bill just passed in committee, however, is inconsistent with all of them.
The biggest problem it creates is the possibility jobs will be indiscriminately filled with irregulars. Most of Korea's irregular workers are temporary, daily, or contract ("period") workers. The reason many are on contracts is because there is no limit to how long they can have that status, which is why labor groups and the National Human Rights Commission have long called for limits on legitimate reasons they can be employed. Those calls were not accommodated, and now employers can use irregulars for two years instead of one, without regard to reason.
The new clause prohibiting firing someone after two years is protection that was actually in place anyway. According to a view published towards the end of last year by Lawyers for a Democratic Society, courts interpret there to be no time limit when a one-year contract has been renewed repeatedly. Furthermore, courts say there is no validity to refusing renewal without good reason. Therefore, considering a worker to be the same as formally hired after he has been subcontracted for a certain period is not a new protection.
Business leaders worry that there will be a serious loss of flexibility in the labor market it there are limits to the reasons you can hire irregular workers. Those who are calling for limits are not suggesting you should only be able to bring in irregulars to make up for temporary vacancies created by maternity and sick leave. They are asking for it to be limited to "cases where the need to hire temporary workers is objectively recognized," which opens up a rather wide range of legitimate instances, and that should be plenty enough to guarantee a flexible market.
The situation with "dispatched" workers is also serious. It has long been limited to "work demanding special knowledge, skill, or experience," but now it includes "cases where it is determined the nature of the work makes it appropriate." That is reason for real concern given how illegal use of subcontracted "dispatched" workers is so rampant.
The new bill is of course not without a few steps in the right direction, such as the prohibition on discrimination against irregular workers. That is just not enough, however, to resolve the serious issues relating at hand. The National Assembly needs to reconsider the bill from the start. Otherwise it risks making labor-business relations a disaster, bad as they are already. Forget about having "determination to protect irregular workers." If the government and National Assembly were at least determined to avoid a disaster they would not be forging ahead with this bill in its current state.
The Hankyoreh, 29 February 2006.
[Translations by Seoul Selection]
[Editorial] 'Irregular Worker Bill' Recipe for Disaster |
