I never thought it would rise to this level with the 69-hour workweek. Let's take a moment to address some labor issues surrounding such working hours in South Korea. South Koreans generally show little interest in labor issues. It's quite paradoxical; we are all workers, yet we don't actively discuss labor topics. In high school, for example, the history textbooks barely cover labor issues outside of the Japanese occupation and liberation, maybe totaling about five pages. In our daily studies or reflections, labor discussions are rarely addressed, and people feel very uncomfortable talking about it. Even when they do, it often feels like a matter that doesn't concern them personally, as if it’s just a problem for someone else. There are three main reasons why labor issues are not discussed.

정도인데 하나하나 좀 말씀드릴게요. 첫 번째는 1970년대로 가야 됩니다. 총 60년대 때부터 우리나라의 가장 중요한 화두는 '잘 살아보세'였습니다. 1억 달러 먼저 수치를 보자, 이런 게 굉장히 강했었기 때문에 정말 노동시간 자체는 이슈가 안 됐죠. 기본 12시간 교대로 일을 했고요. 잔업을 맞추기 위해서 약간 근로를 한다든지, 아니면 토요일 날 하루 종일 일한다든지, 주 한 90시간 정도 노동했다, 이렇게 통계적 발견을 할 수 있어요. 여기 이제 메커니즘이 뭐냐면 열심히 일을 하고 잔업까지 하게 되면 그만큼 돈을 더 벌 수 있잖아요. 그러니까 잔업을 해서 돈을 더 벌어서 우리 가족을 먹여 살려야지, 요것 때문에 일을 더하는 거예요. 근데 사람 일하다 보면 졸리잖아요, 피곤해요. 그러니까 어떻게 하냐, 약을 주는 거죠. 이 약을 먹으면 이제...

When I first woke up, just having one made me feel awake, and I would drink coffee to get to work. But as time went on, even taking two would still leave me dozing off and I would end up getting hurt. Since I was working all day, my eyesight, which used to be quite good, around 1.2, dropped to 0.1 in about two years. After working for four years in a specific labor environment, I developed pneumoconiosis from the dust, or after working with ice cream packaging, I got sick from air conditioning, which made my body feel like it was intoxicated. There were countless side effects occurring during that growth process, and the industrial accident rate was very high. Looking at the statistics from 1975, around 80,000 workers were injured in just that year, and by 1980, the number rose to about 110,000. This shows a very rapid increase in what is referred to as industrial accidents.

Based on the year 1976, the light of the United States and the United Kingdom was about five times brighter than that of Japan. Japan started its industrialization about 20 years earlier than our country. The speed of industrial development and revival shows a gap of about 20 years between Japan and our country. However, the excessive working hours and the resulting industrial accidents were significantly more serious in our country compared to Japan. Despite this, there were few job opportunities, so many people felt that they had to secure any job available. There was a strong sense of purpose during that era, believing that securing jobs would save our country and advance our nation. This made it impossible to raise issues regarding working hours. Additionally, another very concerning aspect was labor discipline. For female workers, there were incidents of sexual harassment.

You know, hitting or touching someone's buttocks, if you can't do that properly, it was quite common to even be hit. Insults and nagging were a given, and naturally, we experienced violence and verbal abuse in that order. There was no distinction between sexual harassment, sexual violence, or violence itself; that issue didn't even exist. Instead, there were many phrases that joined in, like workers can't do it this way. The logic was that we were able to get jobs through this, and how amazing that asset is. In our generation, the term passion pay didn't even exist. There was no such thing as passion exploitation. When you learn a job, you just take what you're given; that's actually a form of harm. The perspective on labor has changed; nowadays, people can't even tolerate that weakness.

If necessary, I can work 60 hours, but I can also work 70 hours, which means I can earn more money. This logic is, in fact, still strong in our society. Then we can think, Was there no labor law at that time? or Was there no union? Yes, there were labor laws, but no one followed them. And there were unions, but they were created by President Syngman Rhee to consolidate the labor sector as his political support base. The state created these unions, and those who were obedient to the state became union leaders. And within these industry-specific unions, do you know what the job of the branch leader is? It's to break the democratic unions in that local factory, primarily for the benefit of those people because it's all about the money.

When you received it and came down, we are now modernizing individually, but the way you guys started this was very distorted from the beginning. The most important point in our history is the June Struggle of 1987. Through this, our country permanently transitioned to a democratic state, right? All of our country's agendas started from the late 1980s. Issues like impeachment or environmental problems raised by civic groups—all the things we think about all began again in the late 1980s. However, the very first and most significant issue that emerged was labor, because we are all workers. Historians usually mention that there were major labor struggles in July and August of 1987. The roots of the labor movement go back deeper; during the 1970s, there were struggles that heroes fought through, and even though some people felt, Ah, this is really a problem,

Especially, the incident involving Jeon Tae-il, who self-immolated, was the most significant event. As we moved into the 1980s, South Korean university students began to engage with radical ideologies such as Marxism and Leninism. They realized that democracy encompasses not only political rights but also economic democracy. This idea, although simple, began to take root among a small group of activist students who believed that labor is also a form of democracy. However, this sentiment did not gain widespread social support, and democratization occurred under such circumstances. The downside was that democracy was achieved through the June Democratic Uprising in 1987. At that time, as we know, our history shows that we only achieved a democratic government through revolution during the Syngman Rhee administration. What was particularly frustrating about the Syngman Rhee era was the power that was used to dismantle the system.

What is even more regrettable is that the June Uprising is not the June Democratic Revolution. In other words, it was not an event that led to the downfall of the Chun Doo-hwan regime or his resignation, nor was it an exile to Hawaii. As a result, we entered a phase of coexistence between the conservative forces and the democratic forces calling for historical transformation. This transitional phase is represented by an ordinary person. Despite being from the military background, he always walked around claiming to be an ordinary person, never showing any signs of being a soldier. He was the leader of the Democratic Justice Party, and he was quite clever. He used the term labor disputes. What does this mean? The demands of the labor movement are about the restoration of democratic order, the recovery of liberal democracy and political democracy.

I will accept this; I acknowledge that this is the people's wish. I truly want to open a new era that is different from the Chun Doo-hwan era. However, the labor issue is somewhat different, isn't it? It is a matter of labor-management relations, so it feels like a way of saying that labor and management should take care of it themselves. Perhaps this was unavoidable because if the demands for political democratization were combined with labor issues, it wouldn't be an easy problem for Roh Tae-woo or the Fifth Republic to handle. There is a sense of frustration that if people had been more proactive, we could have created a better labor world. Additionally, who led the great labor struggles in the 1980s? It was all major corporate male unions, which shows a lack of continuity. In the 1970s, it was all grassroots women's unions from small businesses. In the 1980s, those who led the great labor struggles...

Many companies, such as Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hyundai Motor Company, and Daewoo Shipbuilding, have a significant number of employees who are relatively comfortable in terms of labor conditions. Labor movements have been primarily driven by these individuals. As a result, the history of Korean labor has struggled to connect with the broader issues at hand. Although there are some who interpret labor issues quite radically, they have failed to gain substantial social support. In this context, when the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) was established in the 1990s, it faced criticism for being theoretically too radical. This criticism often came from those representing larger labor groups, but the main issue lies not just within the KCTU itself, but also in the labor movement history of the 1970s and 1980s, which has gradually built upon itself.

I think the fundamental reason is that we haven't been able to achieve stable growth. However, after that, we had some issues regarding this. During the administrations of Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, both governments made various efforts. At that time, Lee In-jae became the youngest Minister of Labor. He was a very influential figure, and for the first time in our history, he talked about wages near Munho-dong. He stated that even during a strike, there is a right to partial wage payment. Then, when labor-management disputes arose during his tenure as Minister of Labor, he spoke about the contribution of autonomy. Up until then, the Minister of Labor and the government had unilaterally sided with the management, but he attempted to facilitate dialogue between both parties. Although it didn't go well, this was the first time there was some excitement around this issue. Then, as we moved into the later years of the Kim Young-sam administration...

The labor law was introduced, and there was an attempt to adopt a pro-labor stance, but then suddenly the position changed to align with global trends, which caused quite a stir. The important thing here is that the labor sector put up tremendous resistance. When the labor sector opposed it broadly, the government eventually conceded power. Nowadays, in South Korea, we see a culture where the government completely ignores civil society's claims for five years. This is very different. During Kim Young-sam's presidency, there were transitional elements. Then, starting with Kim Dae-jung's administration, we can say that the current labor system was fully established. Finally, what we faced was that after experiencing the foreign exchange crisis, the way for South Korea to survive was...

The plan was to borrow money from the United States and adopt its systems to transform the existing industrial sector from a system eroded by government intervention and power into a healthy corporate ecosystem like that of the United States. Additionally, the so-called salary system, which is part of the American corporate system, would be implemented. This means that employees would be evaluated solely based on their abilities; if someone has the skills, they could be promoted to director in one go. If an individual significantly contributes to the company's value, they could potentially earn hundreds of millions in salary. The aim was to create a transparent corporate ecosystem based on merit. This was the first strategy. However, anticipating that there would be clear issues, the second strategy involved the establishment of the Labor-Management-Employer Council. This council aimed to enhance the social welfare system and create a negotiation table set up by the government to promote fairness.

Kim Dae-jung's strategy during his administration was to create a system that facilitated dialogue between the labor unions and management to resolve issues collaboratively. This initiative began with the Presidential Commission and continued through three phases. Initially, it started with basic discussions, but eventually, it led to the establishment of a legal framework. In 1995, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions was recognized, and in 1999, the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union emerged, marking the creation of a labor system that had legal recognition and could address labor issues through public procedures. However, despite securing a public system, the anticipated effectiveness was minimal. There was an expectation that, while defending against neoliberal trends, a more stable labor environment could be established.

I thought that more systematic systems would be established amid these legal challenges. However, the actual reality follows the logic of capital, the logic of the privileged, or the logic that changes according to the whims of the ruling party whenever the regime changes. Because of this system, the existing corporate culture has survived, leading to regular occurrences of restructuring, voluntary retirements, and corporate reorganizations. Additionally, when labor-management relations are created, all the thriving companies hold power, while the less favorable positions have now become dominated by the owner system. The labor-management discussions, which were originally meant to be a dialogue between workers and management, have now turned into a conflict between convenience store owners and part-time workers over minimum wage, becoming entirely disconnected from the original purpose. This situation needs to be addressed.

The labor movement has reached a point where unemployment benefits are the only support available. In the 1990s, during the administrations of Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, despite the rich discourse at the time, there was relatively little contribution to stabilizing our lives. We need to consider how we can improve and how we can unite in the process of moving forward. Since we are all workers, I hope we can create a consensus and direction that allows all of us to thrive together.

"왜 근로시간에만 화내나요?" 노동자에게 진정 중요한 건... | 대한민국 노동의 역사

★심용환_SHIM YONG HWAN 의 역사(HISTORY) 채널★
역사학자, 작가, 성공회대 외래교수, 심용환 역사N교육연구소 소장, 방송인
[단박에 중국사], [단박에 한국사], [1페이지 세계사 365], [1페이지 한국사 365], 
[역사 전쟁], [헌법의 상상력], [리더의 상상력] 등의 저자
심용환 특유의 재미있지만 깊고, 쉽지만 넓은! 
현재를 사는 우리가 알아야 할 역사 채널 ‘현재사는 심용환’입니다.
Shim Yonghwan's unique fun but deep, easy but wide!
It's a history channel that we should know about living in the present, "Nowstory is Shim Yong-hwan."

Contact us for Advertising & Business.
★'현재사는 심용환' 광고&비즈니스&심용환 소장님 섭외문의 ★
(브랜디드광고&ppl/콘텐츠제작/방송/강연/공연/출판 등)
_소속사 (주)심용환역사앤교육연구소 
 [Shim Yong-Hwan Institute of History & Education Co., Ltd]
_Homepage [ https://www.historynedu.kr/contact ]
_E-mail [ syh@historynedu.kr ]

★SNS★
심용환 소장 인스타그램
https://www.instagram.com/yonghwanshim/
심용환 역사N교육연구소 공식 인스타그램
 https://www.instagram.com/historynedu_official/ 
