Earticle

In Korea, as of 2017, the presidential election commitment of 􋺳the Time of 10,000 KRW' by the Government of President Moon Jae-in has been being realized and the minimum wage recorded the rising rate of two-digit for 2 years in row. Recently, there have been arguments for differentiating the unified minimum wage, which is applied equally to the entire industries in Korea, by region and industry, in order to minimize impact of dramatic minimum wage increase, with trying to revise on the discrete contents for deciding minimum wage by classifying types of business in Section 1, Article 4 to mandatory one and initiating laws for partial revision draft of the Minimum Wage Act. In case of Japan, unlike Korea, the minimum wage is already classified by region and industry. First, minimum wage by region, regardless of industry and occupation, is applied to all laborers and users within business places within the region, there are total 47 minimum wage systems, one per provinces and counties. Japanese Central minimum wage council considers prices and income levels by province and county, classifies them into five classes between A and E, and applies them in differentiation, and then the designated increased minimum wage was enforced from October 1st, every year. As mentioned, because of application of minimum wage by region, there are endless concerns for extending gap between regions and each local government should take the burdens. In the current situation of lacking labor force in Japan, the regions with lower income should worry about more serious lack of labor force. Therefore, the argument for unifying minimum wage by region has been made in Japan, and yet the its application is insisted in Korea. Accordingly, these should be discussed and reviewed sufficiently, and the Japanese minimum wage system is figured out.

This paper examines the background and circumstances leading to the adoption of International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 190 and Recommendation No. 206 concerning the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work. Through discussions and an evaluation of the main contents of the ILO Convention and Recommendation, this paper identifies the characteristics of workplace bullying in Korea and areas for improvement of the so-called workplace anti-bullying law that came into effect in Korea on July 16, 2019. On June 21, 2019, the ILO adopted the Violence and Harassment Convention (C190) and its accompanying Recommendation (R206), which establish the right of everyone to a world of work free of violence and harassment. In defining violence and harassment in the world of work as a range of unacceptable behaviors and practices, the Convention focuses on the harm that may be caused by violence and harassment, whether physical, psychological, sexual, or economic. It also recognizes the specificities of gender-based violence and harassment. The Convention is applicable to every sector in the formal and informal economies across rural and urban areas and covers all workers irrespective of their contractual status, including job applicants, job seekers, volunteers, trainees, interns, apprentices, and workers whose employment has been terminated. The C190 expands the concept of the world of work beyond the immediate physical workplace, covering situations linked to or arising out of work. Moreover, it demands that violence and harassment involving third parties whether they are clients, customers, patients, or members of the public be considered and addressed. It further requires action to mitigate the impact of domestic violence in the world of work, providing a lifeline to victims of domestic violence who might otherwise lose their jobs or be forced to choose between income and safety. Compared to the C190 and R206, the workplace anti-bullying law in Korea has room to improve. First, under the current law, only people in a workplace with five or more employees a threshold for the application of the Labor Standard Act can be legally protected from bullying. A further revision of the legal system is thus inevitable so that the scope of legal protection expands to include workers in workplaces with fewer than five employees, self-employed workers, and special types of employees. Second, it needs to define what gender-based harassment is. Even though Korea has a legal definition of sexual harassment, no specific understanding on gender-based harassment exists. Third, to eliminate bullying and harassment at work, it is necessary to protect people from harassment by third parties. Lastly, although the law in Korea makes provision for the establishment of guidelines or support as government’s effort to prevent bullying and harassment in the workplace, the law does not require mandatory education on workplace bullying. To institute preventive measures, it therefore needs to make education on bullying and harassment mandatory in the world of work.

Im vorgelegten Aufsatz handelt es sich um die Einführung des Teilzeitrechts in Korea und die Auswirkungen des deutschen Brückenteilzeitrechts. Im Einklang mit der Überarbeitung des Gesetzes über gleiche Beschäftigung und Unterstützung bei der Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie im Jahr 2018 wurde das System zum Teilzeitrechts eingeführt. Bisher gab es eine „Teilzeitrecht für Schwangerschaft und Kinderbetreuung“, so dass eines Teilzeitrecht nur während Schwangerschaft und Kinderbetreuung beantragt werden kann. Das neue Teilzeitrecht ist ein System, bei dem Arbeitnehmer eine Arbeitszeitverkürzung für die Familienpflege, die Pflege des Selbstes, die Vorbereitung auf den Ruhestand und das Studium beantragen können. In Deutschland bietet das TzBfG (TzBfG) ein allgemeines System zum Teilzeitrecht und spezielle Gesetze sehen Systeme zum Teilzeitrecht für besondere Situationen wie Kinderbetreuung und Familienbetreuung vor. Das Gesetz über die Brückenteilzeit wurde im Jahr 2019 eingeführt, um das bestehende System zum allgemeinen Teilzeitrecht zuergänzen. Ein solches Teilzeitrecht ermöglicht es den Arbeitnehmern, die Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie, unter Wahrung der Beschäftigungssicherheit und eines bestimmten Einkommens miteinander zu vereinbaren. Das System der vorübergehenden Teilzeitrecht stellt sicher, dass die Arbeitnehmer für einen mit dem Arbeitgeber vereinbarten Zeitraum Kurzarbeit und nach Ablauf dieses Zeitraums ohne weitere Erklärung zu den im ursprünglichen Vertrag vereinbarten Arbeitszeiten zurückkehren. Im Januar 2020 wird die koreanische Regierung ein System zur Teilzeitrecht für die Familienpflege usw. einführen. Die Einrichtung eines Teilzeitrecht ist für die Bedürfnisse von Arbeitnehmern von großer Bedeutung, die flexibel auf sich ändernde Arbeitsbedingungen reagieren und die Lebensqualität verbessern möchten. Der Fall Deutschland, in dem bereits verschiedene Teilzeitrechten implementiert sind, kann daher Auswirkungen haben.

Recently, North Korea's labor regulations operate under a duality of both socialist and capitalist system factors that is, the regulation of workers under the ‘Socialist Labor Act’ and the special laws such as the ‘Foreign Investment Law’ or ‘Economic Development Zone Act’ that focus on special economic zones as specified in Article 37 of the country’s Socialist Constitution. The Socialist Labor Law of the DPRK regulates production and distribution as the state's responsibility in accordance with the state-owned and collective ownership principles of the means of production, and regulates its legal responsibilities and duties to workers in enterprises, institutions, and organizations. However, exceptions for foreign-invested enterprises in SEZs accept some private property guarantees and elements of capitalist labor law. While the basic framework under the Socialist Labor Law is strictly maintained, capitalist labor rules are recognized within the special economic zones for the economic development of North Korea. Focusing on the duality in labor regulation in North Korea and what is described in the existent North Korean literature, this study analyzes the principles of the ‘Socialist Labor Law’ and the changes in the ‘income distribution system’ in the special economic zones. By diagnosing the possibility of changes in labor legislation resulting from inter-Korean economic cooperation, groundwork can be laid for exploring follow-up measures.

As a result of this study, the prevention of agricultural work safety accidents starts from the ‘freedom of the body’ of Article 7 of the Constitution. Since this fundamental right also implies an objective order of value, the state should ensure that all citizens, including self-employed farmers, are protected from the constitutional basic rights protection obligation from the danger of violating “freedom of body safety”. As long as self-owned farmers are discriminated against agricultural workers and ordinary workers from the prevention of agricultural work safety accidents, this is an infringement of the right to equality and the state does not guarantee the constitutional basic right to freedom of physical safety. Thus, the state is obliged to take active legislation to prevent agricultural work safety accidents. From the point of view of comparative research, the implications of farmers, especially self-owned farmers, from foreign countries to prevent safety accidents during farming are as follows. First of all, the ILO Recommendation should not prevent safety accidents in terms of agriculture as one industrial sect, but rather preventive systems in terms of human labor in agriculture. Therefore, the safety of agricultural work disasters means that the same measures should be taken regardless of ordinary workers, agricultural workers, and self-owned farmers. Another ILO Recommendation suggests that self-employed farmer does not have any employers who are responsible for safety and health. Through self-owned farmers themselves, safety disaster prevention system and policy should be established and carried out. As a result of examining the position of other major countries, each country has a different situation regarding the prevention of safety disasters of self-farming. Most countries refer to the application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which applies to ordinary workers, mainly for agricultural workers. However, self-employed farmers should enjoy the freedom of physical safety under Article 12 of the Constitution as a general public. As far as discrimination is concerned, there is a risk of equal rights violations. However, making a safety disaster prevention method does not prevent a safety disaster, so various counseling and education programs should be created based on the prevention system. Finally, farmers themselves should come up with ways to participate in the prevention of safety disasters. Above all, as an organization representing their collective interests in relation to the prevention of agricultural worker safety accidents, self-farming should include safety accident prevention in its activities. In addition, as shown in the case of Japan, the law is important in preventing agricultural work safety accidents, but administrative guidance as a non-legal delivery system is very important. In conclusion, comparative studies show that farmers ‘voluntary participation, creation of collective interest structure, and unlawful delivery system are important in preventing farmers’ safety disasters.

Social dialogue instruments serve to ease social conflicts and create economic benefits in the critical situation in the country. Social dialogue is a means to pursue problem solving through dialogue, while achieving goals such as social justice, economic efficiency and democratic participation. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the European Union (EU) actively encourage social dialogue organizations through agreements and recommendations because social dialogue organizations are desirable in solving economic and social crises, and that is why advanced countries in Europe are spreading social dialogue organizations to the third world. In this sense, social dialogue can be evaluated as positive system contributing to social development, given that social partners, in times of crisis in the nation and society, seek and present reasonable solutions through dialogue. But, as in the case of Korea, if representatives of social dialogue are biased in pursuing only certain interests, it may not help overcome social crises. In particular, critics say that the union’s demand that represents the interests of a small number of full-time workers could lead to unfair consequences for non-regular workers and backfire rather than achieving a fair society originally intended. In this sense, social dialogue system is undemocratic and undesirable. That is why there is widespread distrust in labor-management negotiations and no trust in the tripartite consultative body in Korea. The cases of Denmark and the Netherlands, which have a deep history of social dialogue instruments, offer practical help in understanding the function of dialogue instruments and analyzing their success or failure. In Denmark’s case, the state does not intervene in labor-management relations if possible, labor-related laws are minimal and the parties of the social dialogue body set wage and other working conditions autonomously, the mutual respect and trust between the parties is very strong, and there is little act of dispute, and that the parties of the social dialogue are drawn to benefit everyone by exercising the spirit of compromise and concession. The spirit of the Dutch folder model, which has cooperated with each other to prevent the collapse of the banks even if there is social conflict to protect land below sea level, achieved “Dutch miracle” through a grand compromise between labor and management when the nation faced an economic crisis in the early 1980s. Thus the Dutch labor and management somehow do their best to strengthen national interest and national competitiveness by avoiding confrontation and conflict. Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice the fact that social dialogue systems in Denmark and the Netherlands, which were called the epitome of cooperative dialogue instruments, are also facing a crisis due to the rapid development of technology, digitalization and changes in employment forms. It can be said that social dialogue institutions in all European countries, as well as Denmark and the Netherlands, are facing challenges from rapidly changing socioeconomic realities. This is because the fundamental question arises whether the social dialogue body, which based on traditional subordinate labor, can represent the rapidly rising new form of labor, along with the mega trend of the fourth industrial revolution. Many of the problems facing the world can also be said to be the great task that social dialogue organizations must continue to address; in particular, problems stemming from the polarization of income and rapidly changing environment, the rise of low-income workers, fundamental changes in labor and employment relationships(especially changes and automation caused by technological innovation and digitalization), an increase in informal labor (change due to technological development and low birthrates), an increase in migrant workers and refugees, and an insufficient social safety net. In order to overcome these crises, social dialogue agenda must include not only the present but also the future transformation. Labor and management parties must also consider socioeconomic environment, political stability, their own competitiveness and the development of a sustainable society rather than sticking to the interests of their own groups alone. After all, for social dialogue to function properly, they must quickly adapt to changes in society beyond collective selfishness and transform themselves into “living instruments” that contribute to the welfare and national interests of the absolute majority.

2019.9.18. The National Insurance Designer Labor Union submitted the labor union establishment report to the Seoul Employment and Labor Office. To date, however, the Ministry of Employment and Labor has not issued a labor union establishment report. In the meantime, our society has been constantly discussing labor legal issues with special type workers such as insurance planners. Many legislation has been proposed, but visible measures have not been prepared until now. This is the most fundamental issue of whether it corresponds to workers in the Labor Act, the Labor Standards Act, and the Trade Union and labor relations adjustment Act. Judgment of whether a worker is a worker is formed by court precedent. However, many special type workers or the same special type workers are judged differently about the worker's nature. Insurance planners, which account for the largest portion of the total, are not recognized as workers in the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and labor relations adjustment Act. Among them, there is an opinion that workers in the Labor Union and Trade Union and labor relations adjustment Act should be recognized based on the economic dependency based on Article 33 of the Constitution on the freedom of the ILO No. 87. However, recognizing as a worker means applying all the relevant laws and regulations. How far can the scope and scope of collective bargaining be recognized when applying the Trade Union and labor relations adjustment Act to these people who have different non-typical characteristics from typical labor contracts, There are many confusions and problems such as how far the scope of working conditions can be carried out through disputes. In conclusion, the protection of insurance planners is necessary to approach legislative policy tasks rather than following the precedent law, and it is desirable to review them step by step.