[Editorial] End the confusion over the labor reform

The government is going nowhere with its idea of flexing the statutory 52-hour workweek. It has passed the 40-day deadline to pre-announce the legal changes after introducing the plan, but it has yet to find a new direction for the amendment.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor originally proposed to keep to the 52-hour workweek framework set under the previous government while allowing wider flexibility on overtime by arranging overtime on a monthly, three-month, six-month or annual basis instead of the uniform weekly basis. The new arrangement could have workers work as long as 69 hours per week during the peak season and take a lengthy vacation during the slow season.

The idea drew a strong protest from the labor community, opposition parties and young workers. The backlash was so strong that President Yoon Suk Yeol stepped forward. He opposed overwork beyond 60 hours a week and ordered the ministry to set an appropriate cap on overtime extension, according to the presidential office. It looked as if the office was not aware of the outline of the changes to the policy the ministry is considering.

Such confusion has happened before. The presidential office went into denial when the labor minister announced changes to workhour policy in June last year. After repeated scorns, the labor ministry could not find a solution that could please the public and the president. The miscommunication between the presidential office and the government offices in charge raises questions over leadership and confidence in policymaking.

On Monday, the deadline for pre-announcing legal changes, the labor ministry announced that it would come up with revised measures after a more thorough study to submit to the National Assembly in September. It plans to poll 6,000 people and conduct interviews to reflect opinions across the generation, industry, profession, and labor and management. The plan raises questions about what it had been doing all this time if it is doing the survey work now. It may end up trashing the plan after dilly-dallying. No policy can please everyone. The government clearly has no clear thought or vision on the workhour rule as it shakes on every public backlash.

The labor ministry has been amateurish in explaining its plan. The number 69 was overemphasized by the ministry that it gave the impression that the original 52-hour workweek would be replaced by the 69-hour workweek. Political and populist influence is inevitable, with less than a year left before the parliamentary elections next April. The labor ministry must stick to the fundamentals. As flexibility is key to labor reform, it must change the rigid 52-hour workweek more flexibly than before.