As for problems with in-house subcontracting, MOEL is due to conduct a survey to find out the current state, and labor circles are trying to organize in-house subcontracted workers and expand its legal action. All this would worsen instability in industrial relations.
MOEL plans to investigate the current state of in-house subcontracting through its local employment and labor offices this year as it did in 2010. This year’s survey will exclude those workplaces inspected last year, and the automobile industry that could not be investigated because of resistance from principal contractors will not be officially included in the survey, either. (However, it is possible to inspect the industry if the situation improves.) MOEL is going to select and look into 30 workplaces in the electronics and IT sectors during the first round of its investigation. To cope with such investigation, on April 28, KEF held a meeting with department heads of the companies to be investigated and discussed on matters they have to be aware of.
【 Table 1 】Schedule for MOEL’s 2011 survey on in-house subcontracting
| ① Apr.~May: medium and large companies found to has used illegally dispatched workers in 2010 ② Jun.~Jul.: companies selected from among small and medium manufacturing companies (1,800), worker dispatch service agencies (temporary work agencies) and companies using dispatched workers (2,600), and personnel supply and placement service agencies (300) ③ Aug.~Sept.: service and distribution sectors ※ Department stores, large shopping malls, hotels, etc., are expected to become target workplaces |
As well as staging field struggles, labor circles are pushing ahead with lawsuits, urging principal companies to directly employ subcontracted workers, which is expected to impose greater burdens on companies. Labor circles filed a lawsuit against Hyundai Motor (involving 1,941 workers), Kumho Tire (110), STX Offshore & Shipbuilding (7) and Ssangyong Motor (4), seeking confirmation of their status as workers employed by principal companies, and will sooner or later extend the lawsuit to cover subcontracted workers in Kia Motors and GM Korea
【 Table 2 】Positions of ESDC’s tripartite partners on in-house subcontracting guidelines
| FKTU• The guidelines have their limitations because they are not legally binding. They could be used as a means to help companies to use illegally dispatched workers. • The guidelines should (1) encourage direct employment, (2) narrow the gap in wages and working conditions and reduce discrimination, and (3) include the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. |
| KEF• The guidelines, if established, would intensify the rigidity in utilizing manpower, prompt companies to move their production facilities overseas, and reduce jobs. • The guidelines should be able to secure fairness in business trade relationships and create a win-win situation for both principal contractors and subcontractors by promoting fair trade. |
| MOEL• In-house subcontracting is a gray zone to which it is hard to apply existing laws. • The guidelines should enable checks for illegal dispatch and balance employment flexibility with the protection of workers’ rights and interests. |
To solve problems with in-house subcontracting, MOEL is working to come up with in-house subcontracting guidelines through the Economic and Social Development Commission. Related discussion is under way at ESDC’s Committee on Advancement of Labor and Management Culture, but the tripartite parties still hold starkly contrasting positions. Thinking that it may not be easy to narrow their differences, MOEL took the proposal submitted by the public interest members and made it public on May 13. It will set up the guidelines based on this proposal. However, public discourses on the in-house subcontracting guidelines, which are raised before relevant legislative and institutional reforms, such as expanding the scope of occupations permitted for worker dispatch, would only increase burdens on business circles.