There won’t be third chance for labor reform

The government is set to announce the results of a public opinion poll this month on the proposed revision of working hours. The revision of working hours has been a central axis of this administration's labor reform agenda, which includes changes to labor hours and wage systems. After last year's truckers' strike, the issue of 'rule of law for labor unions' emerged as agenda, but with the decision of both major labor unions to participate in the disclosure of financial records, the legal issue appears to have end. The government must now address the more complex issues at hand. At this point, it's essential to revisit why labor reform, particularly the revision of working hours, stumbled in the first half of the year, one of President Yoon Seok Yeol's three major reform targets (education, pensions, labor).

On March 6, Employment and Labor Minister Lee Jeong-sik unveiled a revision proposal that would allow for up to 69 hours of work per week. However, just nine days later, on the 15th, President Yoon Suk Yeol reversed this decision, citing that "working over 60 hours is unreasonable" and expressing regret about there being no cap. Subsequently, a "senior" official from the presidential office stated, "There is no reason to insist on a cap," seemingly refuting the president's statement. Then, the following day, President Yoon reversed his position again, saying, "We must set a cap." Watching this back-and-forth between the minister, officials from the presidential office, and the President, one could not help but wonder what exactly was happening within the government. The lack of clarity in messaging within the government led to a policy failure.

The government claimed that revising the working hours system would allow workers to "accumulate and use working hours as needed," much like withdrawing money from a savings account for an extended vacation. However, the response on the ground was as expected: it was suspected the employees would eventually work in bulk while no one believed they could take an extended break. Even the Employment and Labor Ministry, which proposed this idea, couldn't use up all their vacation days. A YouTube video, capturing the struggles of small and medium-sized enterprise workers, went viral. "I worked intensely all summer, so I'll take a month off," "Who will handle your work then?" "The government says it's fine." "That's for big companies; we're small businesses," - this is how the story goes. It's more practical to revise the legislation to increase wages and allowances for overtime work and ensure strict enforcement, rather than an unrealistic "one-month European vacation."

The essence of the drive to revise the working hours system is corporate demands. Industries that experience a sudden surge in orders or exports at certain times can suffer financially and in terms of employment if they cannot accommodate these surges. This is why such demands have been consistently made, especially by manufacturing and small and medium-sized enterprises. However, this clashes with the values and lifestyle of today's MZ generation, the precious work-life balance, and those in their 30s and 40s who have young children to take care of. If the government believed this was a necessary reform despite the conflict, it should have honestly expressed the intention behind it and not flip-flopped even in the face of falling approval ratings. One can't please both sides.

As the Employment and Labor Ministry anticipates the release of the survey results, they are walking on thin ice. The announcement has been delayed several times, and concerns are fueling that a 'slapdash reform proposal' could be introduced as a tactic to gauge public sentiment like the failed pension reform, which has been scrapped ahead of next year's election. Whether to reform and, if so, what plan to present, is ultimately the government's decision and responsibility. One thing is clear: if they miss this opportunity, there won't be a third chance.