earticle

영어

In this paper, the German and Korean trade unions are investigated on their history, unionism and strategies. Through an international comparative study between the two countries, the author attempts to draw applicable implications from German-style unionism unique labor relations for Korean unions and their leaders. During the Weimar Republic, the German labor unions were divided along partisan lines, a situation that led to competition among the socialist, communist, Catholic, and liberal trade associations. After World War II, labor leaders wanted to break from the past, and to form a trade union federation independent of political parties. The result was the establishment of the Federation of German Trade Unions (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund—DGB) in 1949. Four principles guided the founders of the DGB. First, the labor movement wanted representation through an organization that was unitary and autonomous, with no ties to particular religions or political parties. Second, labor leaders decided to organize the unions along with industrial lines so that all workers at one firm would belong to the same union irrespective of their individual occupations. This organizing principle provides unions with greater bargaining power when negotiating with employer associations, because one union represents the entire workforce of an industry. Third, a decentralized system of interest representation was created. Individual unions typically emulate the federal structure, with local, district, state, and national offices. Each level has some input into the shape of union policy. Fourth, the unions chose to rely on legislation for the protection of workers' rights, rather than on direct negotiations with business representatives. German Codetermination Act (Mitbestimmungsgesetz). The act implements the rule of parity (that is, equal representation of shareholders and employees on a supervisory board), especially for German stock corporations, German private limited liability companies and German limited liability partnerships with more than 2,000 employees. The German Codetermination Act was originally highly disputed, but has become an accepted part of corporate Germany in past decades due to attempts to balance the interests of shareholders and employees. ‘Social partnership’ has played a major role to integrate German society, and to alleviate labor disputes after the World War II in Germany. German unionism characterized by codetermination and ‘social partnership’ between the labor and management can shed light on Korea’s future industrial relations. Korea’s union participation rate of 10.2 percent is less than half of what it was in 1989. Among OECD countries, Korean workers’ unionization ranks near bottom. That does not mean that unions do not wield considerable power. Critics accuse union leaders of serving their own interests before those of their workers and undue participation in politics, and say the current setup harms Korea’s business competitiveness. To others, the unions are a necessary counterweight to the power of chaebol and to thank for gains in workers’ rights and working conditions―making the idea of curbing their power ridiculous if not sinister. An important development in Korean unionism after 1987 was the emergence and rise of a movement independent of the officially recognized Federation of Korea Trade Unions. There were many attempts to organize a separate national center by union activists who did not follow FKTU policy lines although Korean law allowed only one national center until 1997. Non-recognized unions formed the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions and the KCTU was officially recognized by the government in 1999. According to the report by the World Economic Forum, Korea’s competitiveness index dropped to 24th place out of 142 countries surveyed in 2016. The labor market was ranked 76th. Militant unions and poor labor and management cooperation are blamed for Korea’s weak labor market competitiveness. Foreign capitalists are often reluctant to invest in Korea due to Korea’s militant unions. Unions’ role can be positive for society by representing workers’ interests suffering from employers’ own discretion. However, Korean unions mostly represent interests of regular workers in large enterprises.

한국어

본 논문은 독일과 한국의 노동조합 이념과 전략을 비교 분석함으로써 독일식 노사관계 모델이 한국에 접목될 수 있을지 여부에 대해서 이론적으로 규명하는 데 역점을 두고자 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 독일과 한국의 노동조합의 역사와 이념(노동조합주의)를 비교하고, 둘째, 양국의 노사관계시스템을 비교해서 살펴보며, 셋째, 독일과 한국의 노동조합의 핵심특성과 최근 동향에 대해 조명하고자 한다. 연구의 방법은 문헌연구로서 노동조합주의, 사회적 파트너십, 공동의사결정제도 등에 대한 문헌을 조사하고 비교하는 방법으로 연구를 진행시켰다. 2차 세계대전 후, 사회적 시장경제를 근간으로 하는 조정시장 경제체제를 운영하고 있는 독일은 과거 바이마르 공화국 시절의 폐습인 이데올로기 지향적, 계급투쟁적 노사관계를 청산하고 사회적 동반자적 관계를 지향하는 노사관계를 정립함으로써 괄목할만한 경제발전과 국민통합을 이루었다. 오늘날 독일의 노동조합은 정치적, 사상적 중립을 지향하면서 개별 기업에서의 노동자의 경제적, 사회적 권익 향상을 도모하고 있다. 고용계약의 자율성, 노동자평의회와 공동의사결정제도로 잘 알려진 독일의 독특한 노사관계 제도는 독일의 노동조합주의의 중요한 구성요소가 되고 있다. 우리나라의 노동조합은 일제 강점기에 민족운동의 일환으로 시작한 특징 때문에 정치적 색채가 가미된 독특한 노사관계의 경험에서 출발하였다. 해방 후에도 권위주의적 정권하에서 노동운동이 억압을 받아 왔지만, 5공화국 말기, 1987년 분출된 노동자들의 노동조합 결성의 자유와 민주화 요구는 이후 우리나라의 경제민주화의 기초를 놓게 되었다. 자유시장 경제를 지향하면서도 국가의 개입 비중이 날로 증가되는 조정 경제체제의 요소를 가지고 있는 우리나라의 노사관계는 실무적, 경제적 조합주의를 지니면서도 일부 영향력 있는 노동조합에서는 독일식 공동의사결정제도와 노조의 정치적 참여를 요구하고 있다. 우리나라의 노사관계도 지금 역사적 전환점을 맞이하고 있다고 생각된다. 4차 산업혁명의 여파도 일자리와 고용이 근본적인 위협에 직면하게 되었다. 이러한 전환점에서 법과 제도의 개혁 못지않게 발상의 전환이 중요하다. 과연 우리나라의 노사가 어느 일방이 우월한 지위에서 상대방을 종속시키고 굴복시키는 것이 아니라, 독일에서처럼 노와 사가 대등한 입장에서 상생의식을 가지고 노동문제를 함께 풀어가는 사회적 동반자관계를 정립할 수 있을지가 우리나라의 미래를 위해 매우 중요하다고 생각된다.