(EDITORIAL from the Korea Herald on Oct. 19)

No justification

The Federation of Korean Trade Unions, the more resilient of the two national
labor umbrella groups, has no convincing reason to call a general strike in the
near future, but it has decided to do so. If it goes ahead with its pledge, the
general strike will be its first in 13 years.

Even more perplexing, the FKTU has decided to team up with its hardline rival,
the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, for the proposed strike. The national
labor groups are scheduled to meet on Wednesday for an alliance.
But the pursuit of a general strike, be it done together or separately, has no
justification. The two groups are calling a general strike against the long
overdue implementation of two statutory labor regulations - permission to
establish multiple unions at a worksite and a ban on the remuneration of
full-time union officials by corporations.
First of all, it is ethically irrelevant for labor to seek financial support from
management, in the form of monthly pay to full-time union officials, for
activities that are mostly directed against employers. Nor does management have
good reason to continue the absurd practice of paying for no work done by union
officials. Aren't its relations with labor basically adversarial?
The rules on establishing multiple unions and remunerating full-time union
officials, originally set to take effect in 1997, have not been enforced in the
face of opposition from unions. The delay may have been justified during the
early days of a labor movement, given that military-backed, pro-business
dictatorships imprisoned labor activists and took other measures to suppress
unions.
A convincing case may be made for an argument that persecuted unions were
entitled to financial compensation from protected employers during the early days
of democratization. But the demand for continued corporate backing makes little
sense, now that unions, whose rights are constitutionally protected, have become
strong enough to support themselves with proceeds from membership dues.
Nevertheless, the FKTU's leader claims enforcing the labor rules would be little
different from attempting to "annihilate unions." He says he has little room for
compromise on the issue with the ruling party or the administration.
At a meeting of deputies last week, the FKTU decided to stage a general strike
against the administration's decision to enforce the rules next year and withdraw
from an alliance in policy it has maintained with the conservative ruling party.
It also threatened to campaign against ruling party candidates in the 2010
provincial and municipal elections and the 2012 parliamentary and presidential
elections.
Of course, the ruling party cannot afford to take the threats lightly, and all
the more so, given that the FKTU has 725,000 eligible voters under it wing. For
the two, however, the so-called alliance in policy is nothing but a
ballots-for-parliamentary-seats deal.
The Grand National Party and the FKTU will do well to break up with each other.
The conservative party does not sit well with the FKTU. A labor group is a labor
group, be it more moderate than its rival or not. The party would be grossly
misguided if it should seek a compromise with the labor group on the labor rules
and attempt to delay their enforcement again.
The minister of labor is right to say that the issue demands a principled
approach and that the administration finds no reason to retreat from its decision
to enforce the rules next year.
The solution to the problem is simple. Unions may choose to keep full-time
officials, as they do now, if they can afford to pay them on their own.
Otherwise, unions do without them, as more than a third of unions at worksites
employing fewer than 100 have already been doing. The problem certainly is not an
issue over which it is worth considering a general strike.
(END)