Non-Regular Workers Law Vexes Firms
By Ryu Jin
Staff Reporter
Some private companies have recently unveiled their plans to convert their non-regular workers into regular ones. But a larger number of enterprises are in a quandary ahead of the July 1 enforcement of the law for the protection of temporary workers.
While it was originally introduced to benefit both labor and management, the law is now turned away from most of the enterprises and laborers, who have different views on it.
Leading the latest move are some banks and discount stores such as Woori Bank and Shinsegae Group, which have a relatively larger number of casual part-timers. In some workplaces, however, the new law is becoming the apple of discord between labor and management.
`Partial' Spread
Last week, Shinsegae Group announced its plan to turn some 5,000 employees, most of whom have worked as part-time cashiers for its department stores and discount stores including E-Mart for more than two years, into full-timers from next month.
Since they are not ``newly'' recruited, but have been re-designated as regular workers, their length of service will be reflected in their annual salaries until they reach the retirement age of 55.
Lotte Mart, which has a total of 4,900 non-regular workers, also said it would change about 500 of them into regular staff. From July, they will enjoy the five-day workweek system and their weekly working hours will be reduced from 39 to 35.
Hyundai Motor decided to make 350 contract office workers regular ones. LG Telecom and Woori Bank also made 150 and 3,076 non-regular workers into regular ones in February and March, respectively, becoming the first in the financial and telecommunication sectors.
Government efforts to protect non-regular workers are also under way. Labor Minister Lee Sang-soo Tuesday announced a plan to make 70,000 public-sector workers permanent employees by the end of the year to encourage private firms to follow suit.
But the prospect is not that bright in all workplaces.
Homever (formerly Carrefour) and New Core Outlet are drawing fierce oppositions from their unionized workers with their latest decision to fire a number of non-regular workers, who have worked for more than two years.
Under the new law which will go into effect on July 1, any company with 300 employees or more is obliged to make its non-regular workers permanent ones if they have been on the payroll for more than two years.
Even from the time of legislation, labor unions argued that the law could be abused by employers as an expedient to dismiss temporary workers just before the two-year period.
``We are witnessing massive layoffs in many workplaces ahead of the July 1 enforcement of the law which was made to `protect' temporary workers,'' said Park Ji-young of the Public Services Union. ``Employers seem to be pressured by the two-year period stipulated in the law.''
Apple of Discord
For management, the new law is a headache. Shinsegae, which took the bold approach, says it has to shoulder about 15 billion won ($16 million) annually by putting non-regular workers onto the regular payroll.
But other companies, which cannot afford such increased costs, complain of the current situation. ``How many companies do you think could take such brave steps like Shinsegae? Not so many, I believe,'' said a public relations official of a discount store.
As of March, the number of non-regular workers is estimated at around 5.77 million, some 36.7 percent of the total salaried workers in the country, according to the government. The labor circles estimate the figure at 8.79 million.
While the ``limited'' spread in some industries to make temporary workers regular ones is rated high, there are some problems as well since some companies utilize loopholes in the law in the process of selecting out the beneficiaries and arranging salary scales for them.
Woori Bank, for example, maintained the previous base rate for job class to minimize the cost, though it is true that the 3,076 employees will now enjoy better welfare and job security.
Unionized workers, however, raised concerns that such measures could create and deepen discord between workers because of its discriminative nature.
Both labor and management expect that a collision is inevitable if they cannot meet halfway in the course of negotiations before enforcement of the law.