|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| E-Land Not Solely to Blame for Current Labor Unrest |
| [Analysis] Cooperative negotiations among stakeholders necessary for the tempoary workers issue |
|
Jae Young Lee (ohmyjoshua)  |
 Email Article
 Print Article
|
|
|
|
Published 2007-11-02 11:24 (KST) |
|
|
|
E-Land, a company specializing in the fashion business and distribution industry, has been acclaimed as one of the most exemplary companies in Korea. It is particularly well known that one of the company's core values, publicly announced as based on altruistic Christian spirit, is to respect each individual worker's originality and to put practical efforts into the development of respective workers potential. The company has included book-sharing and education programs designed to enhance their workers' potential.
However, with regard to its relationship with its laborers, this company seems to be recently facing a flood of criticism from Korean Christians, as well as its displaced laborers. This is due to the company dismissing a lot of temporary workers. This move began to surface after the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-time Employees came into force on July 1 this year.
 |
TODAY'S TOP STORIES |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FROM THE SECTION |
|
|
|
|
| In fact, the dismissal was not illegal, since the displaced workers were dismissed as their contract period became due. E-Land has been blamed for two main reasons. Firstly, the company failed to provide its temporary employees with prolonged employment. This criticism comes from the Korean traditional belief that a company should care for its workers like family members. Secondly, it has shifted its business strategies in a way that increases it dependence on outsourcing, which is also not illegal and recognized as an effective business method in pursuit of efficiency.
The main perspective of these criticisms is to see the company and its displaced workers as the strong and the weak. This standpoint stems from the view that the company which has the authority to determine employment is in a strong position, while its workers who are not equipped with equivalent legal and political means to counter such action should naturally be viewed as the weak.
It is true that a company may be advantaged in determining employment in relation to its laborers. However, it does not follow automatically that a company is always in a strong position, and should therefore be blamed for every business decision that it makes. A company cannot always keep control of every market circumstances that could lead it to a limited scope of business strategic options.
If the goal of the criticism against E-Land is only to remain complacent after pointing a finger at any target easily noticed at first sight, it's fine to cling to this simple perspective. But, if there is sincere interest in presenting an accurate picture of the case, and to clear a path for appropriate remedies to the problem, the event should be contemplated in a more considerate perspective. This should that take into account, the competition-driven market and labor responsibility as participants in this market, as well as legal regulation.
Considering market competition, superficially, it would seem that various creative business strategies for competition in a market might be available to a company's chief executive. Such strategic options range from technological innovation, development of a new market to increased productivity in labor and capital.
In reality, these options, though very attractive, desirable and needed for a company's success, cannot often be accepted as the most viable choice to overcome immediate competition challenges from the market. In this regard, a market can prevail over a company in that it can sometimes urge a company to settle for an alternative decision, especially when the company's overall interests are at stake. Therefore, under market influence, a company can also be weak like its laborers, though not to the same extent.
Furthermore, it is most likely that concern that the overall health or competitiveness of a company can be risked by failure to downsize its workforce when necessary, drives its business decision-making more strongly than its care for the well being of its workers.
It is undeniable that a company should take its laborers into consideration in its business decision-making. The current struggle between E-Land and its displaced laborers is obviously in part due to the inability of the company to come up with a business solution for its competitiveness in a market, particularly a less damaging one for its workforce. However, all the blame cannot be directed at the company.
There could have been hope for a company to embrace the laborers' interests, if the law in charge of regulating related business practices was properly functional, by forcefully motivating a company to adjust its business priorities in decision-making. Unfortunately, this was not the case with E-Land. The newly passed law, "Act for the Protection of Part-Time Employees" has been criticized for its insufficient substance and lack of regulating force.
It cannot be said that the problems could have been averted, because this law, born as the result of almost the first (or quite rare) legislative efforts enacted with a view to regulating matters concerning temporary workers, failed to dispense with intrinsically many possible flaws. These were pointed out by Lee Sang-soo, the Minster of the Ministry of Labor, in a recent interview with OhmyNews. Such matters are generally controlled by mutual contracts.
This law was of a nature that requires continuous follow-ups that should be implemented through negotiation, with the participation of diverse stake holders such as laborers, business and government authorities. Much worse, this subsequent process could not proceed because protesting displaced laborers refused to sit for further negotiations.
A formal gathering was scheduled to be hosted by the Economic and Social Development Commission (an advisory body for the President), on Sept. 11. This meeting was aimed at negotiations among the stake holders. However, the laborers boycotted the meeting and insisted on direct talk with the Minister of the Ministry of Labor. Consequently, the intrinsic flaws within the law, and the absence of laborers' cooperation with respect to further negotiations, have combined to worsen the situation.
From the perspective of Koreans' traditional belief about the relationship between a company and its workers, E-Land may be somewhat blameworthy for the current struggle. But it should not be forgotten that a solution can be achieved only through continuous negotiations by all stake holders. Finger-pointing is certainly not a wise way to recommend it.
|
|
©2007 OhmyNews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity. |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
How worried are you about the H1N1 influenza virus? |
|
 |
| * Vote to see the result. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
.jpg)
