[Opinion] Five Day Work System, Government Is Involved Too Much

The battle of `five day work system` continues.

The argument surrounding detail implementation hasn`t quit for more than one and half year since the agreement made by labor, company and government in December 2000.

Government ordered rule of test operation to public organizations and central officials.

It was desperate under the pressure of necessity in order to advance it.

Therefore, subject organizations for the test operation, which is scheduled in July is preparing hurriedly, however, there is still no appropriate scheme.

Management field stresses that there is no way to retreat anymore, and labor field insists that agreement of committee by labor, company and government is `backward illicit union`.

Till when would stalemate persist?

Five days work system is the system in which the user should put up with crucial changes in producing system, and is the system in which the labor can seek paradigm change on `work and leisure`.

To reduce labor time that reduces 2500 hours per annum to 2000 hours is `renovation suggestion` in Korea which relies on productivity of labor.

This is the reason why it took years to accept such system.

Now, nobody denies necessity and timelessness of five day work system.

The problem is to bear its expenditure.

Counting average hour payment of Korean labor as 7,000 won, the whole expenditure per year due to reduced work time reaches 3,500,000 won.

Who would bear such expenditure?

The matter of work time is an `eye of storm` that influences each payment, work style, rule of work as well as causes chain reaction in family relationship and leisure life.

Now, I would like to point out two features shown by Korean Social policy.

It is exhaustion of strength and national leadership.

Firstly, exhaustion means that poor labor is always excluded from the subject of receiving benefits of policy.

Insurance for unemployment was carried out at enterprises which had more than 70 employees and irregular and part time workers didn`t receive any benefits from social insurance so far.

People who need five day work system urgently can be irregular workers, women labors and minor company`s workers.

They can endure attack of poverty by arranging subsidiary work utilizing reduced time of work.

However, `agreement` of labor and company postponed proceeding the system in minor companies and advised non- payment in monthly physiological leave and paid weekly holidays.

Extra charge rate for working in reduced four hours confirmed as 25 percent which is half of labor standard law, rose furiosity of labors which persist impropriety of reducing payment.

Major enterprises and labors in big companies can accept it and abide by such advises but the problem is minor companies

Five days work system is like death sentence to minor companies, as labor time is main source of profit for them.

Secondly, national leadership is a problem.

We give hands to the efforts of CLCG that tries to achieve five day work system at any cost.

Uselessness of CLCG which is rising in some fields is in fact created by `inflation of expectation`.

However, I would like to evaluate that CLCG is involved `too much` unlike criticism of people in this case.

In spite of saying that it is entrusted with freedom of labor and company, CLCG presented conditions in full details and made it more complicated.

Things like suggesting operation time according to company scales and industries, suggestion of unifying monthly holiday and annual holiday as well as flexible work time system, statement of principle regarding payment and other labor system, etc was accepted not like guidelines but like new rules.

Being branded as `ill labor law under the pretext of five day work system` is due to the aforesaid.

There must be reason for providing concrete measures, however, idea of national leadership is revealed here.

It should provide only rough layout and direction and should have entrusted rest of the details to discussion of labor and company which are in industrial field.

But the thing that the nation should conduct is, as its agreement stated, to `seek measures for financial and tax support in order for minor companies to bear company expenditure due to reduction of work time`.

Or it can reduce burden of minor companies by providing fund for work time or incentive wages for promotion so that it can participate together.

The level of national leadership is that, however, the attitude, which is to be approved achievement of progressing policy without spending any expenditure can`t lead to the solution.

Summarily, I believe that, if government looks for minor companies and poor labors, solution would be found out easily.

If government remember that prior receiver of social policy was always owner of big companies and its labors…

Song Ho-Geum (Prof. Seoul National University, Sociology)