Grand but Hollow

Government Ought to Play More Active, Objective Role

By most standards, the agreement between employer organizations and labor unions Monday is little short of a ``grand compromise.''

Critics may say ― with some reason ― the four-party accord, which also involves the government and civic groups, is little more than an abstract declaration with no binding force mainly because of its lack of concrete guidelines.

More problematically, the 64-point agreement was reached in the absence of a more militant umbrella union and progressive activists, raising questions on its representative nature and even practicability.

None of this should be reason enough, however, to underrate the importance of the nation's first social pact in 11 years. You must not expect too much at your initial attempt: If parties involved firmly agree on the principles, they will be able to compromise on details, too, with patience and in time. And once the pact manages to get on the right track, those who boycott it will be regretting their decision.

Moreover, unlike the first social pact made in the middle of the Asian financial crisis under the initiative of the government, labor and management are taking the lead this time, with the government joining later. President Lee Myung-bak also stressed the significance of the private sector's initiative.

But it is the very passivism of the government, which appears to be sitting back while putting up front all other sectors of society, even including the religious circles, that makes us doubt whether the whole episode will go much beyond being a big media event. For example, the government promised all financial and administrative support to ``share the pains'' with employees and employers, but the labor ministry has steadfastly refused to make specific commitments as to how much it would spend to expand social safety nets, saying repeatedly the supplementary budget is still in the making.

More serious is the government's overall labor policy ― or lack thereof. The Lee administration may be the first one in recent memory that started its tenure with no labor reform of its own. It was only a few months ago that the business-friendly government made a labor-related proposal of sorts by calling for even extending the maximum employment period of temporary workers and lowering minimum wages for aging laborers.

The government is not seriously tackling the problem of so-called non-regular workers, regarding it as a ``side issue.'' It doesn't require a labor expert to know no labor policy or initiative devoid of this issue can be complete in a country where the part-timers and contract workers make up half of the total workforce, but the government is turning a blind eye to their plight, at least in terms of its policy-making.

In the agreement, the union that represents regular workers vowed to refrain from staging ``illegal strikes'' for early economic recovery. However, it is the ``non-regular workers'' who conduct most of the unlawful walkouts, showing how hollow the accord proves to be.

When it comes to labor-management accord, everyone here talks about the ``Wassenaar Agreement,'' or the ``Dutch Model,'' in which workers accepted 9-percent wage cuts, employers promised a 5-percent reduction in work hours to spread jobs, and the government rewarded exemplary firms with 5-percent tax cuts. All this could be done at the behest of the government under the leadership of former Dutch Prime Minister Rudd Lubbers, who was determined to remedy the ``Dutch disease.''

What Korea needs now are such a government and leader.