(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Dec. 5)

End of Strike
Crackdown on Unions Cannot Bring About Industrial Peace

After calling off an eight-day strike, the Korean Railroad's (Korail) labor union
termed it a ``half success''; Major newspapers dubbed it ``an unconditional
surrender.''
The truth is closer to the latter, as the union had to end the walkout without
getting anything it had demanded, which is almost unprecedented. And the biggest
reason is the union made a grave tactical mistake of underestimating the
determination of the Korail management, and the government behind the state-run
rail company ??? particularly President Lee Myung-bak.
Another element that sets the latest labor strike apart from others is that it
was actually ``provoked'' by the management, which unilaterally terminated the
existing collective agreement with the union. Such one-sided nullification of
labor-management accords took place at 12 state-run or funded firms this year,
with Korail being the biggest case.
Government officials might think ??? if not loudly ??? this is part of the Lee
administration's policy campaign to ``advance'' the nation's lagging
labor-management relationship and ``reform'' the inefficient public sector.
From the viewpoint of the nation's organized labor, this would be what they mean
by ``the audacity of the evil-doer,'' however.
What decisively weakened the Korail union's position was the cold response from
the average citizens, not just by the commuting inconvenience but by the news the
rail workers' average annual wage is 60 million won ($50,000). That could appear
quite handsome compared with the national average, but therein lies the problem.
Assuming the nation's per capita income is $15,000 at the least, a breadwinner of
a family of four is supposed to make at least $60,000 a year, and that there are
so many workers earning less than that only points to the extremely unbalanced
redistribution structure of this country.
President Lee even went one step further, saying, ``People cannot and should not
understand walkout by workers who have been guaranteed lifetime employment.'' By
this remark, the chief executive only revealed his problematic logical thinking
(unemployed people cannot dream of staging strikes at all) as well as his utter
lack of respect for the constitutional rights of people.
Yes, there are problems of a handful of labor aristocrats, especially at some
large firms and state enterprises, often capitalizing on the weakness of
managerial legitimacy at the top, whether they are tax-evading, slush
fund-creating chaebol owners or state enterprise heads handpicked by the
presidents themselves.
Let's look at the other side of the coin. One of the Lee administration's
administrative slogans is ``less government, more market,'' the outdated motto of
neo-liberalists. But Korea's working hours are the longest in the 30 OECD
countries, while its labor organization rate is third from last, forcing most of
the workers to fight on their own against their employers. Add to these the
bottom-ranked portion of government spending on public welfare, and one gets an
inkling as to why its birthrate is the lowest and its suicide rate the second
highest among OECD members. In short, Koreans have been fully thrown into the
market with little aid from the already small government.
Korea is not even keeping its two promises made 13 years ago to the International
Labor Organization ??? allowing multiple unions at a single company and
abolishing a rule that stops employers from paying wages to full-time unionists
??? to join the so-called club of rich countries. Little wonder Seoul has
ratified only 24 of the total 188 ILO agreements and ranked 128th out of the 183
ILO members, or 27th in the OECD.
The government is right in calling for the advancement of labor-management
culture, but it should do far more than it is now to attain the goal, instead of
cracking down on justifiable union activities by enlarging relatively small
problems. It should at least be a fair and objective mediator between employers
and employees rather than siding with the industrialists.
President Lee may succeed in maintaining an ostensible industrial peace through
his tenure but it is a false calm, which will explode far more fiercely later,
throwing away any economic legacy he might leave.
(END)