[Editor’s note: The Korean government is recently trying to enact a legislation that is designed to protect special service workers such as golf caddies or insurance planners (who have been mostly viewed as self-employed who enter into contracts with companies on an independent basis). But this proposed legislation, which would guarantee special services workers three major labor rights (i.e., right to organize labor union, collective bargaining right, and right to hold labor protest that are constitutionally protected rights given to employees), is already facing stiff resistance both from the relevant industries and the workers themselves. For instance, the golf course companies are warning that if the legislation is passed, they will have no choice but to lay off the golf caddies and will install a system where golfers could play without the aid of caddies. Even most golf caddies are saying that they have been and will be doing fine without such legislation, which could bring more harm in practice than the protection originally intended. It is also interesting to note that, as can be seen from an editorial of Joongang Daily News re-produced below, there seems to be dissension within the government itself as to how the special service workers should be viewed. It would perhaps be advisable for the government to reach internal consensus before trying to pass the legislation, let alone the issue of whether the proposed legislation is realistic in the goals it is intended to achieve.]

Source: Joongang Daily News, dated August 2, 2007

Conflicting laws overlap

Are golf caddies self-employed entrepreneurs or wage-earning employees? The Fair Trade Commission began enforcing an inspection guideline this month to protect special service workers such as caddies, visiting teachers, insurance sales people and truck drivers.
The commission intends to punish companies that have contracts with these workers and abuse them by breaking laws, forcing the workers to meet sales targets or purchase their products. The commission is meddling with these workers because the antitrust agency regards these workers as self-employed entrepreneurs, not as wage-earning employees. The commission does not regard special service workers as employees, but says they do their own contracting businesses. Thus the antitrust laws apply to these workers.

In contrast, the Labor Ministry considers them as employees. The legislative proposal to protect these types of workers is pending at the National Assembly. The legislative proposal guarantees three major labor rights, including collective bargaining rights. The Fair Trade Commission treats the same types of workers as self-employed entrepreneurs, while the Labor Ministry sees them as employees.

The commission and the ministry are both government organizations, but have not agreed on the nature of workers they intend to protect and are going their own ways. Without making an adjustment or agreement within the government, they are trying to demonstrate benevolence. Even so, they insist that their law should be prioritized. This is lamentable.

In the meantime, the companies suffer. For an identical incident, these workers can bring a case before the commission as a self-employed worker or present a case to the National Labor Relations Commission as employees. It is obvious that there would be confusion in application of the law in many different businesses. It is questionable if such laws indeed protect the rights of these workers. As seen in the breakdown of the non-regular workers protection law, if the unreasonable, overlapping laws are enforced, it is likely to take jobs away from these workers. The laws designed to protect may become a cause of future dispute.