earticle

영어

According to the Labor Standards Act, workers at small businesses are in the greatest need for social protection, but small businesses with less than five employees are actually partially excluded from the application. The reason for this institutional design is clear. It is due to the small size of the employers who are the subjects of the obligation. Finding a solution to the relationship between small business owners and the socially disadvantaged is therefore more difficult. What is important is the active role of the state. The dilemma that workers at small businesses with less than five employees – despite having the greatest social need – receive a lower level of protection under the Labor Standards Act than workers at large businesses – should be resolved through the active role of the state. On the other hand, when discussing the future of the collective labor-management relations law system, we cannot help but mention the fragmentation of workers. (i) Even in cases where providing labor is one’s ‘job’, there is a great need for social protection, but it is also said that “it is easy to see people who have the status of workers but exercise employer-like authority within a certain scope” In fact, (ii) in cases where labor providers are in a competitive relationship or their economic conditions are excessively different, making ‘solidarity’ for unity virtually meaningless, the state needs to support their solidarity more actively. By having workers who are fragmented under labor law form a single organization and speak with a unified social voice, they should be able to resolve their grievances and have the autonomous regulatory capacity to prevent wasteful, infinite low-price competition through mutual communication. The current labor law overlooks the protection of platform workers and delivery workers who are outside the labor law system. The reason is that they are simply labor providers with the characteristics of freelancers. Even if they have the characteristics of freelancers, if they make a living by providing labor in poor environments, they should be included in the scope of labor law protection. If the labor market reality changes due to changes in industrial structure, and the need for social protection arises or disappears, it is important to seek changes in the labor law system to correspond to it. This is a clear legislative defect and cannot be anything other than a ‘system failure’ in light of the legal system status and ideological characteristics that labor law should originally have. Just as the labor law system supplemented market failure, the failure of the labor law system should be overcome as the responsibility of the state. Only then can labor law increase its effectiveness and guarantee its sustainability.

한국어

노동법은 ‘시장실패’의 산물이다. 계약자유원칙을 토대로 한 시장질서 체계는 노동법제도 구축을 통해 비로소 시장실패의 부작용을 최소화하 면서도 지속가능한 사회를 구현할 수 있었다. 제도로서 노동법의 작동원 리는 간단하다. 노동시장에서의 사회적 약자를 ‘근로자’로 규정하고, 그 들을 보호하기 위해 ‘사용자’를 특정하고 그에게 의무를 법적으로 부과 한다. 사용자는 법상 정해 진 의무를 이행함으로써 근로자는 보호받게 된다. 문제는 흔히 ‘을과 병의 다툼’으로 비유되는 노동시장영역에서 노 동법제도체계가 정체성을 잃고 만다는데 있다. 가장 사회적 보호필요성 이 강한 5인 미만 소규모사업장 소속 근로자에 대해 근로기준법이 스스 로 전면적용을 하지 않도록 설계된 것도 그렇고, 최저임금결정을 둘러 싼 분쟁도 노동법의 작동원리에 내재한 <제도실패>를 방증하는 것이다. 오늘날 노동시장에서는 사회적 보호가 가장 절실한데도 노동법 밖에 ‘방치’된 노동약자가 존재한다. 이러한 노동약자에 대한 보호는 국가의 적극적이면서도 포용적인 역할을 통해 구현되도록 해야 한다. 시장실패 를 노동법으로 극복하였듯이, 노동법의 제도실패 역시 국가의 적극적 역 할을 염두에 둔 새로운 법체계를 구축으로 극복해야 한다.