Welcome to BASE21

[Analysis] Further Neo-liberal Attack Under the Name of Shortened Working Hours

The Korea Tripartite Commission (KTC, a special advisory board affiliated to the President to deal with labour issues, constituted of representatives from the government, trade unions and the business sector) is coming close to an agreement on the long-debated curtailment of weekly working hours, from the present 44 to 40 hours, decreasing the workweek to 5 days. Some of the most intense issues that were debated, such as the number of paid leave, setting a limit to overtime work, paid menstrual leave and the period of implementation -to name a few- were 'resolved', as the Federation of Korean Trade Unions(FKTU) backed off on most of the issues. In the end, representatives from the three sectors agreed upon the 40-hour workweek, while most of the regulations concerned with workers' overall working condition were thrown into the rubbish bin.

Unlike the FKTU which decided to remain faithful to the KTC, the KCTU left the KTC, radicalized its strategies and fought against the government. Noting the movement in the KTC to exchange the curtailment for abolishment of holidays and other conditions, the KCTU changed its slogan to "curtailment of working hours without deterioration of working conditions". However, they were too late.

The FKTU must be congratulating themselves at what they must think to be a historical victory -after all, the 6-day workweek was always considered to be a symbol of 'economic underdevelopment'- but the real victory goes to the capitalists who now stand at the wide-opened gates to much more flexible use of labour.

The rose coloured fantasy of the shortened working hours

The representative of KTC agreed to commence negotiations on the curtailment of working hours in 1998, just as the economic crisis unfolded. As hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs overnight, working conditions deteriorated and unemployment soared. The two trade union umbrella organizations, FKTU and KCTU, initiated the proposals for the shortened working hours on the basis that it will create jobs so as to lessen unemployment and further layoffs, and also that it will improve quality of workers' lives. Thus, the shortening of working hours was thought by the labour to be one of the remedies needed to cure the problem of unemployment and deterioration of working conditions brought on by the economic crisis. It was thought to be at least a shield, if not a proper weapon, against neo-liberal attacks.

However, not only were the two main logics of the argument inappropriate, but the thought that the shortened work hours could be in anyway an effective counteraction to the attack on labour came back in a boomerang to hit them on the back of their heads. First of all, creation of new jobs or job-sharing by decreasing work hours can only take full effect during times of economic growth. Even in 1991 when the work hours were decreased from 48 to the present 44 hours, there was no significant creation of jobs. That period was just after the economic growth had hit the ceiling and was on its way back down. Also, even if the curtailment is effective in creating jobs, it is more than evident that the jobs created anew will be casual or part-time work - highly unstable low-waged work.

Secondly, will the shortening of work hours really improve the quality of workers' lives? This is an important issue since it also involves the matter of industrial safety and workers' health. However, if we close up on the fact that capitalists are trying to attain a whole series of deregulations in exchange for the curtailment, the hope for an improved quality of life will end at being mere hope. Regulations restricting overtime work have been abolished, as well as the number of paid leaves cut. In the face of neo-liberal attack on workers, the hope that workers will be able to spend more time resting in leisure is only a rose-coloured fantasy which capitalists implanted.

Moreover, with the increase of part-time casual labour, despite the shortened working hours the total of individual working time will only increase. This is already the case in many industrialized countries, where working time in one workplace might have been decreased but the total individual working time has in fact increased because workers now have to take on 2 to 3 jobs to earn a living.

Essence behind the shortened working week

The two main logics were debated long and hard inside the KTC. However, 40-hour workweek took so long to be negotiated, not because the business counterparts disagreed to it as a whole, but because it was their strategy in the first place to keep 'pretending' to disagree until they could get everything they wanted, nicely wrapped up in one single package. Proponents of neo-liberalism have always emphasized the necessity of decreasing work time, to boost productivity through enhanced efficiency and to promote 'harmony' between workers and the management. Perhaps in the short run, the labour costs for employers will increase, but is ultimately beneficial because it will further enable employers to maintain a more varied and flexible workforce.

Historically the demand for a decrease in working time was and issue that united the working class in their militant struggle against the bourgeoisie. This was especially so, when workers in the manufacturing industry were running machines for more than 60 hours - which is still the case in many Third World countries today. However, we are now placed in a different situation, where capitalists have realized the importance of controlling working time, and thus have taken possession of shortened working hours for their own cause.
The fact that the curtailment comes along side the abolishment or at least the mitigation on regulations on work time or to be more exact, accompanied by flexibility measures, cannot be emphasized enough. The different types of paid leaves have been integrated and decreased in total, the limit to overtime work has been lifted, premium on overtime allowances decreased, transformational working time period increased from the present 6 months to one year, and paid menstrual leave is to be abolished. Also, the time of implementation has been differentiated between sectors - to much indignation of workers in small workplaces. Even in more developed countries, the curtailment of working hours during the recent years had always come together with neo-liberal flexibility of labour, resulting in the usage of the legislation as a method of softening the resistance of the working class.

In Korea, already a whole series of revisions were made to the Standard Labour Laws after the economic crisis, more than any other time in Korean history. The illegitimate passage by ruling party members of the bill allowing layoffs and the introduction of transformational working time system in December of 1997 was first in the series that forecasted massive neo-liberal attacks on labour. The passage was so explicitly impudent that Korean workers went on a massive general strike and militantly struggled throughout the winter. Perhaps the government and the capitalists learned a lesson from the struggles - to be more cautious when making revisions. They are now willing to throw a few carrots while pushing forth their interests. This year in June, maternal leave was increased from 60 days to 90 days, in exchange for deregulation in the usage of women workers. Unfortunately, many women's organizations are remaining blind to the essence of the legislation and welcomed the revision(see PICIS Latest from Korea, 2nd July 2001, "Protection of maternity? Undermining of women workers' rights!"). And now, we have yet another historical 'exchange' taking place.

The series of revisions line up to the capitalists' attempt to push forth a more flexible use of labour, by controlling worktime as well as by creating more casual labour. The capitalists can afford to 'sacrifice' (as they like to define it) a couple of clauses for the sake of attaining further flexibility. Also, the Standard Labour Laws will only apply to less than half of the entire workforce, since most of the workers have been transferred to casual labour. The number of casual workers is now amounting to nearly 70% of the total workforce. And 70% of entire casual labour are women.

Resistance against neo-liberal globalization, now!

If the struggle to attain a shortened work week has turned out to have serious repercussion on working conditions, in the light of the fact that the capitalists had monopolized the demand to their own ends of heeding flexibility of labour, then it is high time that the workers mobilize political struggles against neo-liberal globalization in its totality. This applies also to the struggle of women workers against the revision of maternity protection clauses. Lobbying with the government through the newly inaugurated Ministry of Gender Equality for more 'maternity protection clauses' will do nothing to help the women workers whose jobs and lives are jeopardized by the neo-liberal attacks. There won't be any women left to gain benefit from the revision. Thus the time has come for workers to fight not with the revision of the bills that will only be beneficial to a handful of full-time workers, but against restructuring, against exploitation of casual labour, and against neo-liberal globalization.[PICIS]