Earticle

Am 1. März 2008 wurde das koreanische Mindestlohngesetz geändert. Der Gesetzgeber hat erwartet, dass der Mindestlohn von Taxi-arbeitnehmer garantiert werden kann. Nach § 6 Abs. 5 das koreanische Mindestlohngesetz werden die Mindestlöhne von Taxi-arbeitnehmer nach in Mindestlohnverordnung festgelegten Löhne, gezählt. Nach der in Mindestlohnverordnung festgelegten Löhne wird das ein Taxi- arbeitnehmer im Umsatz erworbenes Einkommen von seinem Mindestlohn ausgeschlossen. Der nachfolgende Aufsatz ist ein Ergebnis der Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung vom koreanischen Mindestlohngesetz. Die Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung befasst sich mit der Erfassung und Analyse von gewollten Auswirkungen und ungewollten Nebenwirkungen von Rechtsnormen. Damit sollen die Notwendigkeit und Wirkung eines geplanten Gesetzes besser erfasst und mögliche Alternativen gegenübergestellt werden. Der Zweck der Änderung vom koreanischen Mindestlohn ist der Schutz des Mindestlohnes von Taxi-arbeitnehmer und die Verbesserung des Entgeltsystems in Taxi- Transportgewerbe. Nach der Änderung vom Mindestlohngesetz gab es fast keine praktische Wirkung auf der Sicherung der Mindestlöhne für Taxi-arbeitnehmer. Nach dieser Untersuchung ist durch die Änderung vom Mindestlohngesetz fast keine Verbesserung der Entgeltsystem in Taxi-Transportgewerbe, denn die Arbeitgeber hat das bestimmte Mindestlohnniveau von Taxi-arbeitnehmer nicht erhöht, die vereinbarten Arbeitszeiten sondern reduziert. Aber die alltägliche tatsächliche Arbeitszeiten von Taxi-arbeitnehmer wurden gar nicht reduziert. Der Beitrag macht drei praktische Vorschläge. Zuerst müssen die Regierung und der Gesetzgeber versuchen, um die Lücke zwischen tatsächlichen und vereinbarten Arbeitszeiten zu verringen. Dazu sollten die Berechnung der Arbeitszeiten, Lohn und Einrichtung von solchen Bedingungen berücksichtigt werden und die institutionelle und technische Unterstützung ergänzt werden. Danach sollten die Arbeitgeber grundsätlich ihre Unternehmen transparent führen, um die bestimmten Mindestlöhne zu gewährleisten. Zuletzt schlägt der Beitrag den bestimmten Prozentsatz des Monatlichen Bruttoeinkommens von Taxi- arbeitnehmer als das Mindestlohn vor.

When an undertaking is transferred by one party to another in the United Kingdom, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE 2006) operates so as to preserve, to a substantial extent, the employee’s statutory and contractual employment rights which he had before the transfer. TUPE 2006 implements Council Directive 2001/23/EC which is commonly referred to as the ‘Acquired Rights Directive’. They revoke the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations1981 (TUPE 1981). This Paper deals with the contents of those two regulations and Council Directive 2001/23/EC with the various decisions on the norms concerned. They show us that European Court and English Court have made decisions to restrict the employer’s power to dismiss the employees of the transferred Undertakings. Comparing this trend with the Korean Supreme Court’s decisions, Korean Supreme Court has made a ruling of recognizing the employer’s broad discretion on the dismissal in times of transfer. This paper emphasizes the change of Korean Supreme Court’s decisions like the British examples.

A holiday defines for the day when the labor obligation is exempted, and the employee should be allowed for the average of one or more paid holiday per week. (Labor Standard Act Article 55). Also, each work plant can place a separate holiday plan. For example in the case where the 5-day work per week is set, holidays (such as Saturday) in addition to statutory holidays is generally recognized. In this case, the meaning of holiday work stipulated in the Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act should be narrowly interpreted to the workings during the paid holidays guaranteed by the law. In other word, this means to work during the statutory holiday (weekly holiday). There are thoughts that the pre-agreed two days holidays are feasible, from the opinion of providing two days holidays can occur based on the contract, even when the provision of the law states to provide only at least once a week of paid holiday. However the opinion that states that the holiday assured by the statutory law is once a week only and thus all other holidays should be seen as the non-statutory holidays is still persuasive. What the law assures is always the minimum and thus all other advancement should be by each party’s accord. Therefore, the legal fact that the Labor Standard Act provides the statutory obligation to employers to pay 50% premium wage should applied, as a principle, to only the statutory holidays. Whether to fix a premium wage to all other holidays can be agreed as a separate agreementin the employer-employee relation. Since these holidays are specifically guaranteed by the law, unlike to the extended work, the work provided by the employees should be performed only in the exceptional cases based on the consent of the workers when there are specific, inevitable and reasonable needs. Therefore the legal requirement for a practical regulation of the holiday works which separates it from the extended works should be clearly fixed. Nevertheless, even when the holiday work is provided, the daily work hours is limited to 8 hours from the Labor Standards Act, paragraph 2 of Article 50, therefore the overtime rule in the Article 53 shall apply if exceed the general work hours. In addition to the 8 hours of extended work beside the 52 hours of weekly work, 16 hours of extended work become possible in the companies where the two days holidays per week is set, if the weekly holiday terms were fixed by each party’s free accord. In this case the total weekly work hours can reach up to 68 hours.

Corporate Social Responsibility has been internationally at the center of discussion while ISO 26000 was adopted and promulgated in 2010. It is known that the discussion has generated from the traditional corporate moving from maximizing profits and shareholders' centering interests to stakeholders' centering interests. In other words, the modern society requires that many companies do a business with responsibility, fairness, and transparency while there is a conflict between corporate profits and social publicness. ISO 2600 as an international standard of social responsibility, demands that other organizations as well as companies join voluntarily so that they identify seven core subjects and prepare for the strategies in the medium to longer term. In specific, it is necessary to confirm whether or not the companies fulfill social responsibility on the labor field under the law, regulation, and collective agreements at the level of ISO 26000. By extension, with the conflict between employers and employees resolved through social dialogue, the government should play a mediatory role to narrow and solve the different opinion and conflict between both parties. ISO 26000 has officially announced that Corporate Social Responsibility is voluntarily fulfilled and practiced. In this regard, whether or not the social responsibility is fulfilled shall not be forced on the domestic companies. In some possibilities, effectiveness is doubtable and abusing regulations is criticizable. As a result, the government's support and benefit shall simultaneously be performed in order that companies voluntarily join and fulfill social responsibility and the support and benefit shall give the company having the voluntary choice and requirement. That is to say, the administrative and judicial penalty shall be imposed on the case that the companies violate the requirements under the system of the voluntary choice and requirement.

This article focuses on drawing the legally restrictive standard of designating the workers who are to be laid off from the constitution, when the employer decides the dismissal of the workers for the administrative necessity based on the Constitution. Of which the part of consolidating the foundation of the law are to prevent the court from incoherently adjusting the factors to be considered as well as to define the standard drawn from the constitutional norms that legally constricts all the administrative institutions including the court itself. And these would be the most effective methodology for the decision of workers to be laid off though it is originally limited to some extent. In this regard, some points are examined to reach this conclusion, such as following:First, it is primarily regulated on Article 32 of the Constitution that workers should have the subjective rights to be protected from any dismissal including the redundancy. Accordingly, workers may require the legislation against arbitrary dismissal from the employer. It would account for the violation of the dismissal protective principle in either the case that the nation did not legislate the law regarding the prohibition of arbitrary dismissal or it was clear that the regulation was not effective enough. Second, the standards should always be fair and reasonable when to redundant the workers for managerial reasons based on the right to be protected against dismissal of the workers’ which is also drawn from Article 32 of the Constitution. Unless the decision was made through fair and reasonable procedure, the protection would be invalid. Third, fair and reasonable standard to decide the soon to be laid-off workers should be both in the employer’s and the workers’ interests. If the interest is biased with the employer’s, the decision would never be ‘fair and reasonable’Fourth, one of the factors between workers’ livelihood protection and business interests could be considered as higher priority when to decide the dismissal in each practical situation whereas those factors should impartially considered from the first place in principle. Lastly, applying the objective standard to discern such factors is always difficult to manage in the legal field and accordingly this is always untenable. Yet, the essential factors regarding about the principle on the right to be protected against dismissal, as The Constitutional Federal Court as well as The Federal Labour Court in German acknowledges, should be the protective factors considering workers’ livelihood such as their age, period of their successive service or whether there is any dependant living with them.

When a person turns 19 years old, he or she is legally emancipated. An adult is presumed competent to make decisions in all areas of his life. This means that parents are no longer able to make decision on behalf of their children. People with intellectual disabilities have also the right to lead full and satisfying lives as others do. As adults, some people with intellectual disabilities are able to lead independent lives in the community without support. But some people have serious, lifelong limitation in functioning. Although they are considered a competent adult with legal rights to individual self-determination, they may not be able to rationally make the decisions required in life, such as where to live or what to spend money. If a person is unable to make daily decisions and lead a normal life, a parent or other person should help them as a guardian. On 1. July, 2013 Adult Guardianship is introduced in Korean Civil Code in order to care for the personal and property interests of an another person(ward) who is incapable of caring for his or her own interests due to mental illness, mental deficiency or intellectual disability. The individual seeking guardianship must file a petition for guardianship of the alleged person with disabilities(respondent). Guardians are appointed by the family court to represent the interests of disabled persons. Legal Guardianship is a formal, legal process in which a family court requested to assume responsibility for a person as a “ward” and then may appoint an “agent” to act as guardian. If an intellectually disabled person is deemed to be unable to make decisions and lead an independent life, an adult guardian may be appointed to handle the person’s affairs. The court may grant “limited guardianship” allowing the guardian to make only certain decisions. And “special guardianship” is created for the limited purpose of helping the incapacitated person with protective arrangements. There is another form of guardianship which is established by guardianship contract(voluntary guardianship) between the ward and agent for the present or probable future incapacity of the ward. Guardianship is a valuable tool which can be used to protect individuals who has not ability to make appropriate personal or financial decisions for themselves. However, there is much to be solved as follows:The guardianship contract is not appropriate for the people with intellectual disabilities insofar as the contract is only concluded by the person in question. The person with intellectual disabilities cannot decide by himself whether he needs any guardian or not. Further there is no provisions in Civil Code whether a parent can designate a successor guardian through will, or what if there is no one else who can serve as a successor guardian. Because establishing a guardianship may remove considerable rights from an individual, it should only be considered after alternatives to guardianship to have proven ineffective or are unavailable. If an individual has a disability, yet still maintains the capacity to make decisions in all areas of their life, guardianship is not necessary. A guardianship is a legal arrangement because other alternatives are inadequate to meet a person’s health and safety needs. So the best option is the “least restrictive” guardianship to support and promote the person’s decision-making skills and rights.

Social security law essentially requires financial sources. There are various ways of setting up social security law systems from financial point of view. Main sources of these systems are divided into two ways, taxation and insurance. Recently, we became to experience recessions more often, and roles of employment insurance are more important than ever. With this, the financial basis of employment insurance law needs to be considered more clearly, especially whether it is linked with the various purposes of policies that employment insurance law seeks. This article aims at clarifying the financial structure of employment insurance law. For this purpose, Japanese employment insurance law(koyo-hoken-ho) was analyzed. Japanese employment insurance law is also facing changes from the financial point of view, with depressions of economy. The history of Japanese employment insurance shows how they shared the financial basis of employment insurance, which designed diverse models of sharing cost. Also it has flexible clause which makes it possible for the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare(MHLW, kousei-roudo-sho) to determine the premium rate. This is for the efficiency of managing the insurance business. In Japan, there are opinions of expanding part of national coffer, which recognize policies of employment as a matter of national level. At the same time some insist that insurance premium should be expanded by the principle of burden on a beneficiary. These opinions are considered as important factors at the time of changes of law. The way Japanese employment insurance system operates with the financial basis could be a meaningful inspiration to Korean system too.