Work smarter, not harder

By Cho Hee-kyoung

You would've had to have been living under a rock for the last few months to have not heard about ChatGPT, the latest generative artificial intelligence (AI) developed by OpenAI, that is designed to understand natural language input and generate human-like responses in various contexts. Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, recently issued a report predicting that AI could replace 300 million full-time jobs worldwide, but that it would also lead to the creation of new jobs and a productivity boom, thanks to greater automation and efficiency that the use of AI would bring.

Juxtaposed in this context, the South Korean government's recent proposal to increase the maximum number of work hours per week seems like a peculiar throwback. Korea has been notorious for its long working hours. On average, working hours in South Korea are around 20 percent longer than in other OECD countries. In 2018, the previous Moon Jae-in administration introduced a mandatory cap of 12 hours of overtime per week, halving the previous cap of 24 overtime hours. In addition to the standard 40 hours per week, this set the maximum weekly working hours at 52, amid growing concerns regarding overwork and its adverse impact on workers' health and welfare and also the recognition that long hours are inversely proportional to productivity.

However, citing the need for labor reform, the Yoon Suk Yeol government has pushed forward a proposal that it argues would give more flexibility for workers and improve work-life balance, especially to workers with children. Under this new proposal, the average total weekly working hours would remain at 52, but companies would be able to calculate the average over a longer period of time, for example, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually. It means that workers can put in longer overtime hours during busy periods and bank those hours that they could later take as additional leave.

If the proposal became law, workers would be able to do up to 52 hours of overtime in a month on top of their 40 standard-hours per week. But since the current Labor Standard Law requires a half-an-hour break for every four hours worked and eleven hours of continuous break during a 24-hour period, this means that the maximum number of hours that can be worked per week cannot exceed 69 hours, which is where the headline "69-hour work week" came from. However, if workers are not guaranteed 11 hours of continuous rest during a 24-hour period, the maximum allowed weekly overtime is reduced to 64 hours under the proposal.

President Yoon is fond of using the example of a software developer who may have to put in 100 hours a week when the software is about to be launched but then is able to take a month off for a stay in Jeju once the busy period is over. Another oft-cited case is that of seasonal businesses, like an ice cream manufacturer, whose workers would be able to work longer hours during the summer months and then take longer leave when it is less busy.

In principle, labor flexibility and banking overtime to take extra holiday sound all well and good. Unfortunately, the reality does not quite match the ideal. One of the biggest criticisms is that even now workers are unable to take leave that is legally due to them. One survey conducted shortly after the proposal was introduced asked office workers how many annual leave days they took last year. The legal entitlement is 14 days a year for a person with five to ten years of work experience. The answer to the survey was that employees on average took only 6 days of annual leave last year.

The reason why workers are unable to take their full holiday entitlement was largely because no one who would be able to fill in for them while they are on leave so their other colleagues end up having to take up the slack. This problem was particularly severe in small and medium sized enterprises, or SMEs, where more than 80 percent of total workers are employed. So when workers do not even get to use their current annual leave entitlement how could they possibly take a whole month off?

Overtime pay instead of banking extra hours as leave is also likely to be undermined because of the rampant misuse of what is known as a "blanket pay" system where workers agree that their total compensation would include any overtime worked. The system is designed to protect casual or irregular workers or workers whose remuneration depend on the outcome rather than hours put in but which is too often exploited and applied to even those workers who should be entitled to overtime pay for extra hours worked. Typically, workers with little bargaining power have no choice but to agree to a "blanket-pay" contract waiving their right to overtime pay entitlement.

The argument regarding flexibility and its necessity for seasonal or cyclical businesses is also weak. Certainly, if there is unforeseen demand, it may be that employees do need to work longer than usual for a limited period. But for big product launches or for annual sales peak seasons, the demand for extra labor does not just occur overnight. They can be predicted and planned for and extra labor can be hired if necessary even on a temporary basis. It is not that businesses cannot do this but that they do not want to, because it costs more.

I asked my students what they thought about the proposal and put to them the argument that the increased flexibility would benefit parents who could bank extra leave so that they could spend more time with their children during school holidays, for example. Their response was that raising a child cannot be crammed into short spurts of time. It would seem that the policymakers in the current administration have far less insight than undergraduate students.

Cho Hee-kyoung (hongikmail@gmail.com) is a professor at Hongik University College of Law.