Three conditions for true ‘social dialogue’

If labor politics gain ground, the true meaning of social
dialogue will be lost.

Cho Joon-mo

The author is an economics professor of Sungkyunkwan University. The walkout by the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) from the Economic, Social and Labor Council (ESLC) — a consultative body for the government, employers and workers — has highlighted the need or lack of “social dialogue” in the labor sector. I cannot agree that the union representatives’ participation in the ESLC platform constitutes social dialogue. Social dialogue should not be a communication simply between certain interest groups or between labor and management. The true meaning of social dialogue in the labor area must fulfill three requirements.

First, the concerned parties must share the need for a labor reform and commitment to find a solution. Korean society is faced with ultralow low birthrates and rapid ageing and must simultaneously cope with industrial challenges arising from technology progress and digitalization. If the older generation cannot solve the accumulated problems in the labor sector, the burden could fall heavily on the future generation. Unless the dual structure in the labor market is quickly addressed, the weaker party and future generations will be victimized.

Second, the representation of the stakeholders must be reassessed. The labor market and labor-management relations are diversifying. The voices of the younger generation, female workers and various occupations should be represented. Social dialogue reflecting these diverse voices in the digital democracy age is essential for Korean society to elevate to a matured stage. If the representatives cannot speak for all the diversified labor participants, their social dialogue will be no more than an exclusive club.

Third, the members of the dialogue must bear responsibility. They should consider the weaker party and endeavor to lessen the burden for the future generation. Social dialogue loses its true meaning if it merely serves the self-interests of certain groups or is a means of political wrangling.

I doubt that social dialogue has met these requirements so far. Collective selfishness came before the will to solve problems. Instead of representing the people, the platform indulged the members of trade unions, served their own interests, and was used to show their group loyalty. The commitment to the people and public interests was disregarded.

Under such a structure, it is difficult to bring about social unity. Agreements reached after much dispute result only in rhetorical statements and transfer the cost to the people. Their agreement is detrimental to public interests — which may be better off without it.

It cannot be called a social dialogue or help public interest if there is no willgness to compromise and meaningful results beyond exchanging their own views. If the labor representatives see their participation in the dialogue as a trade-off to gain something from the government, more losses are inevitable for public interests due to the violation of principles and waste of taxes.

The union-led labor group demands two things from the government for their return to the dialogue. One is the surrendering of law enforcement authorities. It wants the government to soften its law enforcement that has soured the bilateral relationship. But it should not demand the neutralization of law enforcement from the government in return for its participation in the social dialogue. Labor relationship is a multi-layered structure with the rule of the law forming the first floor, self-order the second, and peaceful coexistence the third. If the rule of the law that forms the first stage gives way, the labor-management relation crumbles. When the ground floor is stable, labor and management can set their table and design their symbiotic relationship. The government and experts only need to provide support.

Another demand from labor unions is that the government must take action to end the labor conflict at a Posco subcontractor. But this issue involves an individual worksite. No government or political interference in a labor dispute in a particular worksite has turned out well. The union is merely making excuses to shun social dialogue. The umbrella union must take responsibility for peacefully solving the problems for one of its union members instead of worsening the conflict by politicizing it. This calls for an arbitration by a private expert group agreed to by the labor and management.

Dialogue in such outdated ways can only hamper labor reform and deepen public fatigue , leading to questions about the validity of social dialogue. The labor-management dialogue channel institutionalized since the 1998 foreign exchange crisis has been stalemated despite rapid changes in all other areas. The system is too old to discuss a future-oriented labor reform. If labor politics gain ground, the true meaning of social dialogue will be lost, not to mention the golden opportunity to implement labor reform for the future generation.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.