This article examines the discussions between workers, employers, and the government surrounding the reduction of the legal working week in South Korea from 44 hours to 40 hours, analyzing the arguments and concerns of each side and exploring ways to reconcile the social and economic impacts.
How much leisure time we have to be human is one of the most important indicators of a society’s “quality of life”. In the modern world we live in, time is considered one of the most precious resources, and how we use it can make a huge difference to our quality of life. For this reason, working hours have become more than just an economic issue, but an important factor that greatly affects individual happiness and social health. However, the current legal working hours in South Korea are 44 hours per week, which is relatively high compared to 40 hours per week in most OECD countries. As a result, there have been recent discussions between workers, employers, and the government on the issue of reducing working hours.
On the one hand, workers argue that the quality of their performance is more important than the quantity of their working hours, which means that shorter working hours provide more opportunities for self-improvement through increased leisure time, and that the knowledge and experience they gain will improve their ability to perform their jobs, making them more competitive. On the other hand, increased leisure time is not just for relaxation, but also plays an important role in improving the mental and physical health of individuals. For example, adequate rest and hobbies can reduce stress, which in turn can increase focus and creativity at work. Additionally, taking a break from long hours and spending more time with family and neighbors can help you reconnect as a person, as well as give you a chance to recharge as a worker. In this case, workers are expected to feel love for their workplace and work, and productivity can be improved, and occupational diseases and industrial accidents that occurred due to long working hours in the past, such as overtime and extra work, can be reduced.
On the other hand, the business side argues that the reduction of the legal working hours will not actually reduce working hours, but will only increase the burden of labor costs by paying overtime wages for overtime work, thereby reducing the competitiveness of companies. In addition, labor costs are expected to rise due to production disruptions at the time of the introduction of the system and labor-management friction over working conditions. In particular, SMEs with high labor costs and low skill levels may face severe labor shortages. Therefore, the employers’ side argues that the system should be introduced gradually to give these companies time to go abroad to secure low-wage labor or switch to technology-intensive businesses, and to prevent labor conflicts that may arise from a hasty reduction in working hours. In particular, if the reduction in working hours leads to lower productivity and higher operating costs for businesses, this could have a negative impact on consumers. This could lead to higher prices and lower quality of service.
In this situation, the government, which is in a position to reconcile the confrontation between labor and management, is examining the socioeconomic effects of reducing working hours. The government expects the reduction of unemployment to be the most positive effect of shorter working hours. In addition, since the reduction of the working week from 44 hours to 40 hours means a five-day workweek with Saturday off, it is expected that leisure, culture, and education-related industries will be revitalized, creating employment and stimulating the economy. This could have a positive impact on the economy as a whole, and could spur the growth and development of new industries.
On the other hand, however, governments are concerned that shorter working hours could lead to conflicts between social groups or classes. Therefore, to prevent such problems, it is important for the government to balance the benefits and side effects of reducing working hours and find a solution that all members of society can agree on. To do this, governments will need to promote understanding between labor and management through various social dialogues and create an environment where they can work together.
In conclusion, reducing working hours is more than just a policy change. It is an important challenge for improving the quality of life of individuals and the health of society, and it is a complex issue that requires consideration of economic stability and competitiveness. It requires all stakeholders to work together to find the optimal solution. When these efforts come to fruition, our society will be able to move towards a healthier and happier future.
