earticle

영어

The first Constitution of the Republic of Korea 1948 stipulated that the standards of working conditions shall be determined by Act and that the special protection shall be accorded to working women as well as working children(Art. 17). The Constitution also guaranteed the workers not only the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to act collectively, but the right of profit -sharing(Art. 18). Based on the Constitutional guarantee the four basic labor laws were enacted in 1953, 60 years ago, during the Korean War. Korea’s labor laws do not appear particularly biased against unions. In fact, the initial Labor Union Act resembled the United States’ pro-labor Wagner Act of 1935. However, the laws must be understood within their proper context. Prosecutorial discretion and selective enforcement have been continuous problems. In addition to these administrative shortcomings, the laws themselves reflect a pattern of labor repression in the process of economic development policy. For more than 30 years until mid 1980s, the Government strengthened its intervention in the labor and employment relations continuously by rewriting the labor laws. In 1979 the police crack down on the sit-in protest against business closure by 170 women workers of YH Trading Company at the main opposition New Democratic Party headquarter resulted in a victim among the striking workers. Although this incident was estimated as one of the causes of the fall of the dictatorial regime under President Park Chung-hee, the following regime under General-turned President Chun Doo-hwan repeated the same policy and made most detrimental revision of labor laws. The depressive policy brought about the Great Uprising in June 1987, when a total of 3,851 students are detained only on June 10. On June 29 Roh Tae-woo, nominee for the Presidential candidate of the ruling Democratic Justice Party, issued the so-called “June 29 Declaration”, which made concession to the demonstrators promising democratic reforms including revision of the Constitution for direct election of the next President and amnesty to the opposition leader Kim Dae-jung. The ninth revision of the Constitution in October 1987 repealed the legal reservation of the workers’ right to strike(Art. 33 (1)) and stipulated the minimum wage system(Art. 32 (1)). The revision of the Labor Standards Act in 1987 and 1989 as well as the Labor Union Act and Labor Dispute Settlement Act in 1987 was deemed as a process to recover the status before 1980. In the 1990s, however. the labor laws began to meet an adverse wind. Because of the tendency of Neo-liberalism, the economic policy was considered before the social policy. Although the Government of Kim Young-sam inaugurated the Labor Relations Reform Commission, five years after Korea joined the International Labour Organisation(ILO) in 1991, the Commission failed to meet the international standards of labor law. The labor law enacted in December 1996 presented another example of employers’ advantage over unions in political matters. The law was passed in a covert pre-dawn legislative session excluding opposition members of the National Assembly. The law gave unions no immediate rights while making it easier for employers to lay off workers. The law also permitted employers to increase the already lengthy work week and to replace striking workers, a previously prohibited practice. In return, union pluralism was permitted outside of enterprise but enforcement of this provision was reserved for three years. Although the law was described as a “slap in the face to both its own workers and international public opinion,” it did give unions the opportunity to demonstrate their indirect political power. After four weeks of strikes by five million workers the President had to repeal the controversial bill. The repeal of the already passed bill was a significant victory for labor movement and civic groups. However, the mere fact of repeal should not lead to the conclusion that the strength of unions was the sole, or even the primary reason that the business friendly law was overturned. After consultation with the opposition parties the ruling party passed the revised bill in March 1997, the framework of which is not so far from that of 1996. As Korea was suffering from the financial crisis in the autumn of 1997, the International Monetary Fund made it obligation of the Government of Korea to elevate the flexibility of labor market by mitigating the requirements of lay-off. Since then the labor market in Korea is divided into regular (formal) and irregular(informal) workers, the gap of which is widening and the social bi- polarization became even graver. According to the revision of January 2010, the corporate payment for full-time union officials was banned from July 2010 and the multiple unions at enterprise level was allowed in July 2011. With the wage payment of full-time union officials banned, a paid time-off system was introduced. Under the system, employers are allowed to pay full-time union officials when their labor activities are considered “relevant to the improvement of labor-management relationship.”Even though union pluralism is allowed, the law stipulates that only exclusive single bargaining channel is allowed at workplace level in principle. Labor unions can decide upon who will be their representative on their own. However, if they cannot decide, the union successfully garnering a majority of the total union members will be given the representative power. If there is no such a union, the minor unions shall come together to make up a joint bargaining team. In addition, labor unions can resort to an act of dispute when more than a majority of members of labor unions which participated in the process of making up the single bargaining channel approves the act of dispute. It is to remind that the Freedom of Association Committee of the ILO urged the Government of Korea in March 2009 to ensure that the payment of wages by employers to full-time union officials is not subject to legislative interference and thus enable workers and employers to conduct free and voluntary negotiations in this regard and to take rapid steps for the legalization of trade union pluralism at the enterprise level, in full consultation with all social partners concerned, so as to ensure that the right of workers to establish and join the organization of their own choosing is recognized at all levels. The amendment of labor law in 2010 does not conform with the recommendation of the ILO, so that further revision of the TULRAA seems to be inevitable. Most of the nation’s post-war history is marked by violent labor repression and subversion of individual workers’ basic rights. However, the simple task from now on is to give the unions greater autonomy to conduct their affairs and diminish the government’s role in all stages of labor relations. Many internal union affairs now under direct administrative control should be placed beyond the scope of governmental authority.