It was a casual yet noteworthy event. Michael Sandel, the Harvard political theorist famous here for his book “Justice,” visited a scene symbolizing the cruel injustice of modern capitalism: a group memorial altar for 22 former Ssangyong Motor employees and their family members who have died in the past three years.
Some killed themselves amid extreme post-traumatic distress syndrome following the brutal police crackdown of a 77-day strike in 2009 and the financial strain from a long period of unemployment. Most of the other deaths were also due to stress-related diseases such as severe depression. Landing jobs at other companies were all but impossible, as their past records branded them “militant unionists.”
One can understand why the surviving unionists call the layoff “social murder.” “Firing (us) was firing (guns to us),” they say. The automaker’s case shows society can hardly leave mass layoffs in the name of restructuring to employers and employees.
Above all, the management of the nation’s fifth-largest carmaker should be held accountable for breaking the promise made upon the settlement of the walkout. Three years ago, the company vowed to rehire about 450 employees on unpaid leave within a year. Yet it has postponed the deadline to 2014, citing the automaker’s bottom lines have yet to recover to pre-strike levels. No third parties, including the government, have taken issue with the change of words.
This is a brazen breach of labor-management accord, especially considering Ssangyong Motor’s output and sales have more than doubled during the period if the company’s own advertisements are any guide.
We urge the government to step in if for no other reason than it was one party in the trilateral agreement representing the public sector.
No less responsible are the political parties. In this election year, both the ruling and opposition parties are competing to put forth policies for workers, vowing to reduce non-regular workers and make layoffs more difficult for employers. They did so four or five years ago, too, but workers’ lives have not improved much but rather become aggravated, as politicians painted rosy pictures for the future. The key words for them should be “here” and “now.” Few can say for sure the Democratic United Party’s special committee on Ssangyong Motor will be activated.
It’s been decades since economic globalization, aided by breakneck technological advance and industrial sophistication, tilted the balance between capital and labor toward the former one-sidedly.
Unlike Anglo-American capitalist models based on near-tyrannical market forces and unlimited competition, however, most European countries have dealt with this industrial restructuring with equal emphasis on workers. So they have maintained work councils in which the employers discuss and explain corporate situations and reasons for trimming the work force if necessary as well as how to minimize difficulties for fired workers.
It should be obvious which model Korea should benchmark.
Both competition and competitiveness are important but Ssangyong Motor’s tragedy shows a society should have a modicum of courtesy to workers, or people. And this decides whether it is savage or civilized.
Working-class voters have only to watch how rivaling parties deal with this urgent issue in making their decision this December.
6월 5일 (화) The Korea Times 사설
|
|
This is The Korea Times editorial for Tuesday, June 5, 2012.
Tragedy of layoffs
Dropouts from job market need better social care
해고의 비극
사회가 노동 시장에서 탈락한 사람들을 더 잘 살펴줘야 한다
Dropouts from job market need better social care 사회가 노동 시장에서 탈락한 사람들을 더 잘 살펴줘야 한다
It was a casual yet noteworthy event. Michael Sandel, the Harvard political theorist famous here for his book “Justice,” visited a scene symbolizing the cruel injustice of modern capitalism: a group memorial altar for 22 former Ssangyong Motor employees and their family members who have died in the past three years.
우연이었겠지만 눈 여겨 볼만한 행사였다. 국내에서 ‘정의란 무엇인가’란 책으로 유명해진 하버드 대학의 정치학 교수 마이클 샌델이 현대 자본주의의 잔인한 불의를 상징하는 현장을 방문했는데 지난 3년 동안 사망한 22명의 예전 쌍용자동차 직원과 그 가족들을 위한 합동 분향소가 그것이었다.
Some killed themselves amid extreme post-traumatic distress syndrome following the brutal police crackdown of a 77-day strike in 2009 and the financial strain from a long period of unemployment. Most of the other deaths were also due to stress-related diseases such as severe depression. Landing jobs at other companies were all but impossible, as their past records branded them “militant unionists.”
2009년에 77일 동안의 파업에 대한 무자비한 진압으로 인한 극심한 외상 후 스트레스 장애와 오랜 실업에서 오는 경제적 압박 속에 일부는 자살을 했다. 대부분의 다른 사망도 중증 우울증을 포함한 스트레스 관련 질병에 기인했다. 다른 회사에의 취업은 거의 불가능했는데 그들의 경력이 ‘전투적 노조원’이라는 딱지를 붙였기 때문이다.
One can understand why the surviving unionists call the layoff “social murder.” “Firing (us) was firing (guns to us),” they say. The automaker’s case shows society can hardly leave mass layoffs in the name of restructuring to employers and employees.
남은 노조원들이 어째서 해고를 ‘사회적 살인’이라고 하는지 이해가 된다. “해고는 총살이나 마찬가지였다”라고 그들은 말한다. 이 자동차 회사의 문제는 사회가 구조조정이라는 명목의 대량 해고를 그저 고용주와 피고용자에게만 맡겨 놓을 수 없다는 사실을 보여준다.
Above all, the management of the nation’s fifth-largest carmaker should be held accountable for breaking the promise made upon the settlement of the walkout. Three years ago, the company vowed to rehire about 450 employees on unpaid leave within a year. Yet it has postponed the deadline to 2014, citing the automaker’s bottom lines have yet to recover to pre-strike levels. No third parties, including the government, have taken issue with the change of words.
우선 우리나라 5위의 자동차 회사의 경영진은 파업의 타결 시에 했던 약속을 위반한 데 대해 책임을 져야 한다. 3년 전 회사는 무급 휴가 중이었던 약 450명의 직원들을 재고용 하겠다고 다짐했었다. 그러나 회사는 자사의 경영이 파업 전 수준을 회복하지 못했다는 이유로 이 시한을 2014년으로 늦추었다. 정부를 포함한 어떤 제 3자도 이러한 말 바꾸기를 문제삼지 않고 있다.
This is a brazen breach of labor-management accord, especially considering Ssangyong Motor’s output and sales have more than doubled during the period if the company’s own advertisements are any guide.
이는 노사 합의를 뻔뻔하게 위반한 것이며 특히 자신들의 광고를 기준으로 볼 때 쌍용자동차의 생산과 판매가 이 기간 중 2배 이상 늘었다는 점을 고려할 때 더욱 그렇다.
We urge the government to step in if for no other reason than it was one party in the trilateral agreement representing the public sector.
우리는 공공 부문을 대표한 3자간 합의의 한 당사자라는 점 만으로도 정부가 개입할 것을 촉구한다.
No less responsible are the political parties. In this election year, both the ruling and opposition parties are competing to put forth policies for workers, vowing to reduce non-regular workers and make layoffs more difficult for employers. They did so four or five years ago, too, but workers’ lives have not improved much but rather become aggravated, as politicians painted rosy pictures for the future. The key words for them should be “here” and “now.” Few can say for sure the Democratic United Party’s special committee on Ssangyong Motor will be activated.
이에 못지 않게 책임이 무거운 것이 정당들이다. 선거의 해인 금년에 여야 모두 비정규직을 줄이고 해고요건을 까다롭게 만드는 등 노동자들을 위한 정책을 경쟁적으로 내놓고 있다. 이들은 5년 전에도 같은 짓을 했지만 정치인들이 미래의 장미 빛 사진만 그리는 동안 노동자들의 삶은 조금도 나아진 것이 없고 오히려 악화되었다. 정치인들의 키워드는 ‘여기’ 그리고 ‘지금’이 되어야 한다. 민주통합당의 쌍용자동차 특위가 언제 가동될지 자신 있게 말할 사람은 별로 없다.
It’s been decades since economic globalization, aided by breakneck technological advance and industrial sophistication, tilted the balance between capital and labor toward the former one-sidedly.
무섭도록 빠른 기술의 진보와 산업의 고도화에 힘입은 경제의 세계화가 자본과 노동간의 균형을 일방적으로 전자 쪽으로 기울게 한지도 수십 년이 지났다.
Unlike Anglo-American capitalist models based on near-tyrannical market forces and unlimited competition, however, most European countries have dealt with this industrial restructuring with equal emphasis on workers. So they have maintained work councils in which the employers discuss and explain corporate situations and reasons for trimming the work force if necessary as well as how to minimize difficulties for fired workers.
그러나 거의 폭군적인 시장의 힘과 무한 경쟁에 바탕을 둔 영-미식 자본주의 모델과 달리 대부분의 유럽 국가들은 노동자들에게도 대등한 중요성을 부여하면서 산업 구조의 조정에 대처해왔다. 그래서 그들은 노동위원회를 유지해 오면서 그 곳에서 고용주들은 기업 상황과 필요하다면 노동력을 줄여야 하는 이유 또 해고 노동자들의 어려움을 어떻게 최소화하는가 하는 문제를 논의하고 설명해 왔다.
It should be obvious which model Korea should benchmark.
한국이 어떤 모델을 본받아야 할지는 명백할 수 밖에 없다.
It should be obvious which model Korea should benchmark. 한국이 어떤 모델을 본받아야 할지는 명백할 수 밖에 없다.
Both competition and competitiveness are important but Ssangyong Motor’s tragedy shows a society should have a modicum of courtesy to workers, or people. And this decides whether it is savage or civilized.
경쟁과 경쟁력 모두 중요하지만 쌍용자동차의 비극은 한 사회가 노동자들 즉 사람들에 대해 최소한의 예의를 보여주어야 한다는 점을 보여준다. 그리고 이 점이 그 사회가 야만인지 문명화되었는지를 결정한다.
Working-class voters have only to watch how rivaling parties deal with this urgent issue in making their decision this December.
서민 계층의 유권자들은 12월 결정을 내릴 때 각 정당이 이 시급한 문제에 어떻게 대처하느냐 하는 것만 지켜보면 된다.
|
|
