Contents Chapter 1. Employment Insecurity…………………………………………………………………………….2 1. Employment Protection: Middle-level in the OECD…………………………………………………2 2. Extremely Short Service Years…………………………………………………………………………………..4 3. Annual Turnover of 5.62 million………………………………………………………………………………..5 4. Four in Ten workers in Non-regular Employment…………………………………………………….7 5. Four in Ten workers in Non-regular Employment even in Large Enterprises…………10 Chapter 2. Income Inequality………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Disconnect between Wage and Productive Growth Rates……………………………………..15 2. Labor Income Share Rebounds in 2018, after Staying below Pre-Asian Financial Crisis Levels……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 3. Wage Inequality and Low-paid Workers………………………………………………………………...20 4. Double Discrimination from Size of Establishment and Type of Employment……….22 5. Rapid Increase in Income Inequality after the Asian Financial Crisis………………………25 Chapter 3. Fragmented Industrial Relations……………………………………………………………...28 1. Unionization Rate and Collective Agreement Coverage………………………………………...28 2. A Decrease in Strikes, and a Surge in Unfair Labor Practices and Unfair Dismissal..30 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………34 1 A Diagnosis of Labor in South Korea Yoo Sun Kim Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Labor Studies, Korea University South Korea’s labor market is characterized by employment insecurity, income inequality, and fragmented labor-management relations. Figure 1. Main characteristics of South Korea’s labor market Chapter 1. Employment Insecurity 1. Employment Protection: Middle-level in the OECD 2 Korea’s government and corporations argue that the nation has a high-level of employment protection and a rigid labor market. According to the OECD’s 2019 Indicators of Employment Protection, however, Korea stands exactly in the middle in terms of restrictions on individual dismissal of regular (permanent) workers, ranking 18th of 37 member states with a score of 1.69, while in terms of restrictions on collective dismissal, it falls in the lower group, ranking 23rd with a score of 0.661.1 When it comes to overall restrictions on dismissal of regular workers (individual and collective dismissal combined), Korea ranks 18th with a score of 2.35. Therefore, it is fair to say that Korea has a mid-level of employment protection (See Figure 2). Figure 2. OECD Indicators of Employment Protection for permanent workers, by country *Source: OECD (2020), Employment Outlook 2020, Ch. 3. Meanwhile, the OECD Indicators of Employment Protection may not accurately portray reality as they allocate points for legal provisions related to dismissal for comparison. First, the 1 The OECD announces indicators of employment protection for member states every 5 years based on scores attributed to legal provisions related to dismissal. 3 gender wage gap in Korea is the largest in the OECD even with the “equal pay for work of equal value” provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. This illustrates the discrepancy that often exists between laws and reality. Second, caution is required before simply comparing legal provisions related to dismissal, because the Labor Standards Act serves as the highest standard in Korea, while the European labor market is regulated by collective agreements. For example, the average yearly working hours in Korea amount to 1,908 hours as of 2020, even with a legally-mandated 40-hour work week, while Germany works an average of only 1,332 hours per year when it legally allows a 48-hour work week. 2. Extremely Short Service Years The ILO, the OECD and other international organizations also look at service years as an indicator of employment security. In the OECD, the share of workers with less than one service year (“short service years") is the largest in Turkey (34.7%), followed by Korea (31.7%) and Chile (31.3%). This means that about one in three workers move to another employer or get new jobs every year in these countries. In contrast, the OECD average stands at 18.7%, with Italy having the smallest share at 11.1% (See Figure 3). Figure 3. Share of workers with short service years in 2015, by country (%) *Source: OECD.Stat, accessed on May 12, 2019. 4 (2014 data for the US, and no data reported from Japan, Israel and New Zealand) The share of workers with 10 or more service years (“long service years”) in Korea is 20.6%, larger than Chile (19.0%) only. The OECD average stands at 34.1%, with Italy having the largest share of 49.8%. Overall, Korea has extremely short service years with the lowest level of employment security, as demonstrated by the OECD statistics. Meanwhile, Germany, often cited as an example of a flexible labor market with the Hartz reforms, has incomparably higher employment security with 14.2% of workers having one or fewer service years and 41.2% having longer service years (See Figure 4). Figure 4. Share of workers with long service years in 2015, by country (%) *Source: OECD.Stat, accessed on May 12, 2019. (2014 data for the US, and no data reported from Japan, Israel, New Zealand and Turkey) 3. Annual Turnover of 5.62 million According to Korea’s Ministry of Employment and Labor Employment Insurance Statistics 2018, 6.71 million workers, or 49.9% of the 13.43 million insured changed employers during that year. Voluntary turnover accounted for 31.7% (4.26 million), and non-voluntary turnover 18.2% (2.45 million). Of non-voluntary turnover, 7.8% (1.04 million) left their employer for managerial 5 reasons, 9.7% (1.31 million) for expiration of labor contract, and only 0.3% (40,000) for retirement at normal retirement age. Turnover was higher for women (56.4%) than for men (45.1%). By age group, a U-curve forms, with the lowest turnover rate for those in their 40s (38.5%), and higher rates for those younger or older. Turnover was generally lower for larger establishments, with small establishments with fewer than 5 employees having a 60.3% turnover rate and those with 1,000 or more employees at 32.9%. Still, this means one in three workers in large establishments with 1,000 or more employees left their employers. Non-voluntary turnover was higher for women (21.5%) than for men (15.8%). By age group, it was generally higher for older workers, with the lowest for those in their 30s at 13.0%, and the highest for those 60 years or above (37.0%). Establishments with 1,000 or more employees had a lower non-voluntary turnover rate of 12.0%, while those with fewer than 1,000 employees had similar rates regardless of their size—ranging from 18% to 21%. It is also observed that, larger establishments that hire fewer than 1,000 employees tend to hire more workers on a fixed-term basis (See Table 1). 6 Table 1. Employment Insurance Loss and Non-voluntary Turnover in 2018 (thousands, %) Number (thousands) Share (%) Turnover Turn- Insured Turn- (Loss of Insurance) over over Manager Insure Manage Insured (Loss of Contrac (Loss of Contract Sub- ial d Sub- rial Insuranc t expiry Insuranc expiry total reasons total reasons e) e) Total 13,432 6,709 2,448 1,042 1,305 49.9 31.7 18.2 7.8 9.7 Male 7,715 3,482 1,218 521 637 45.1 29.3 15.8 6.8 8.3 Female 5,718 3,227 1,230 521 668 56.4 34.9 21.5 9.1 11.7 <30 2,394 1,929 478 176 291 80.6 60.6 20.0 7.4 12.1 30-39 3,422 1,385 445 241 191 40.5 27.5 13.0 7.1 5.6 40-49 3,426 1,320 492 259 218 38.5 24.2 14.4 7.6 6.4 50-59 2,727 1,139 491 239 237 41.8 23.7 18.0 8.8 8.7 60+ 1,464 937 542 127 368 64.0 27.0 37.0 8.7 25.1 <5 2,173 1,311 453 312 122 60.3 39.5 20.9 14.4 5.6 5-9 1,451 857 277 174 89 59.0 39.9 19.1 12.0 6.1 10-29 2,289 1,246 407 191 196 54.4 36.7 17.8 8.4 8.6 30-99 2,124 1,081 374 146 213 50.9 33.3 17.6 6.9 10.0 100-299 1,715 807 348 81 256 47.0 26.7 20.3 4.7 14.9 300-999 1,351 641 309 59 243 47.4 24.5 22.9 4.4 17.9 1,000+ 2,329 767 280 80 186 32.9 20.9 12.0 3.4 8.0 *Source: Calculated from raw data in Yearly Statistics of Employment Insurance 2018, Ministry of Employment and Labor & Korea Labor Information Service. *Notes: 1) Turnover rate (Loss of employment insurance rate) = No. of turnovers (No. of employment insurance losses) ÷ No. of insured × 100. 2) Non-voluntary turnover rate = No. of non-voluntary turnovers ÷ No. of insured ×100. 4. Four in Ten workers in Non-regular Employment Statistics Korea releases the Supplementary Results of the Economically Active Population Survey in August every year, where those who describe themselves as being in one of the 7 following 8 types of employment are categorized as non-regular workers: limited-term work, fixed-term work, part-time work, on-call work, special types of employment, temporary agency work, service work, or home-based work. As of August 2020, there were 7.43 million non- regular workers (36.3%) and 13.02 million regular workers (63.7%). The problem with this statistical practice is that 1.18 million temporary daily workers unjustifiably fall under the category of regular workers. Temporary daily work is a widespread, informal type of employment in the Korean labor market. The term “temporary daily work” was used back in the 1930s and 1940s under Japanese colonial rule, and Statistics Korea has distinguished between permanent work, temporary work, and daily work in its publications since 1963. Even in the 1970s and 1980s, when the terms “non-regular work,” “part-time work,” or “temporary agency work” were yet to be coined, many collective agreements had provisions on temporary work. This illustrates that “temporary daily work” has meant an informal type of employment in workplaces for a long time. Therefore, trade unions categorize temporary daily work as non-regular work, in addition to the 8 types of employment mentioned above. According to this adjusted definition, there were 8.5 million non-regular workers (41.6%) and 11.94 million regular workers (58.4%) in Korea as of August 2020. Still, migrant workers are often excluded from labor surveys, in-house subcontracting is not given as an option and mis-categorized as regular work, and those in special types of employment are often mis-categorized as self-employed. Therefore, the actual share of non- regular work may well exceed 50%. In addition, employment security is further aggravated by the fact that most non-regular workers are under temporary contract in Korea (See Table 2). 8 Table 2. Scale of Non-regular Work (As of August 2020) Number (thousands) Share (%) Permanent Temporary Daily Total Permanent Temporary Daily Total Wage worker (1) 14,570 4,539 1,337 20,446 71.3 22.2 6.5 100.0 Regular worker (2=1-3) 11,942 11,942 58.4 58.4 Non-regular worker 2,628 4,539 1,337 8,504 12.9 22.2 6.5 41.6 (3=①+--+⑧, overlaps excluded) Temporary work 2,147 4,539 1,337 8,023 10.5 22.2 6.5 39.2 Long-term Employment 2,254 1,132 3,386 11.0 5.5 16.6 temporary work ① contract Limited-term work 2,147 2,285 205 4,637 10.5 11.2 1.0 22.7 ② (Fixed-term work) 2,124 1,768 3 ,933 10.4 8.6 0.2 19.2 Working Part-time work ③ 598 2,128 526 3,252 2.9 10.4 2.6 15.9 hours On-call work ④ 896 896 - 4.4 4.4 Special types of 19 445 34 498 0.1 2.2 0.2 2.4 employment ⑤ Mode of Temporary agency / 451 196 69 716 2.2 1.0 0.3 3.5 offering service work labor (Temporary 107 42 15 164 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.8 agency) ⑥ (Service) ⑦ 344 154 54 552 1.7 0.8 0.3 2.7 Home-based work 8 25 16 49 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 ⑧ *Source: Statistics Korea, Supplementary Survey of the Economically Active Population Survey, August 2020, cited in Kim Yoo Sun, “Scale and Status of Non-regular Work”, 2020. Looking at the trends in non-regular work over the last 20 years, the number of non-regular workers continued to increase between 2001 and 2016, hitting 7.37 million in 2001, 8.61 million in 2007, and remaining somewhat similar between 2008 (8.4 million) and 2016 (8.74 million). With the transition from non-regular to regular employment contracts in the public sector, the number decreased by 310,000 in 2017, and by 220,000 in 2018. In 2019, however, the number rose again by 350,000, and in 2020, fell by 50,000 with the Covid-19 pandemic. 9