[Free Speech Forum] Replacement Work Is Not an Infringement on Workers’ Right to Strike

Recent collective labor actions by workers, such as the nationwide strike by parcel delivery workers and the nationwide bank strike, reduce social welfare. In Korea, where replacement work is not allowed, labor disputes cause major inconvenience and harm to consumers and employers. How can the rights of consumers and employers be protected?

The ban on replacement work is a provision found only in Korea among OECD countries. Under the relevant law, during a labor dispute, employers may not hire or substitute persons unrelated to the business in order to perform work that has been suspended due to the dispute. Only essential public-interest workplaces such as water, electricity, and hospitals may use replacement workers, and even then only up to 50 percent; all other workplaces may not hire any replacement personnel at all. As a result of this law, Korean labor unions wield exceptionally strong power compared to unions in other countries.

Once a strike begins, employers are unable to carry out anything on schedule because of the ban on replacement work. Management activities are halted due to workers’ collective actions such as protests, sit-ins, and noise demonstrations. If employers attempt to respond by carrying out a lockout, they may even face imprisonment or fines.

There is effectively no way to respond to workers’ collective action. In practice, employers are placed at a disadvantage compared to labor unions, and unions sometimes use this privilege to make excessive demands on employers. Workers’ right to strike and right to collective action are guaranteed, but employers’ management rights and right to use replacement personnel are not.

Looking at the world’s major advanced countries, Korea is the only one that prohibits replacement work. In the United States, workers can be replaced with outside personnel during a strike. In the case of an economic strike demanding higher wages, if workers’ return is refused, employers may continue using replacements. In France, replacing workers by hiring employees on indefinite-term contracts is recognized. Germany also freely allows new hiring and replacement work during strikes.

What about nearby Japan? Japan also allows replacement work through various methods, including new hiring, subcontracting, and dispatched labor. An analysis of workdays lost due to strikes in Korea and Japan over the past 10 years shows that Korea’s average number of lost workdays is 217 times that of Japan. Because replacement work is not possible in Korea, there is no way to respond even to unfair demands by labor unions, which further intensifies labor-management conflict. According to the World Economic Forum, Korea, which does not recognize replacement work, ranks near the bottom in labor-employer cooperation, while Japan, which does recognize replacement work, ranks in the upper-middle tier.

Replacement work is a minimal checking mechanism for employers; it is not an act that infringes on workers’ right to dispute. Allowing replacement work is merely a passive response that enables employers to resist unfair demands by labor unions. Like other advanced countries, Korea should also allow replacement work so that it can guarantee not only workers’ rights but also the rights of consumers and employers.

Haneul Kim, Intern Researcher, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [자유발언대] 대체근로, 근로자 쟁의권 침해 행위 아냐

Author: Ha-neul Kim

Date: 2022-11-11

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=7&idx=25067