Yoon Hee-sook Responds to 'Joeun San'... "Wages Will Decrease if the 52-Hour Workweek Is Introduced"

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Ji-eun] Yoon Hee-sook, a member of the People Power Party, responded to a question related to the "Jeon Tae-il Spirit" posed by "Jin-in Joeun-san," who became famous for the "Seven Proposals for the New Year" addressed to President Moon Jae-in. In response to Joeun-san's question, "If the 52-hour workweek is implemented, will my salary remain the same?" Yoon replied, "If working hours are reduced due to the 52-hour workweek, income will decrease."

On the 15th, Yoon stated on Facebook, "I don't know which industry you are in, but considering your mention of various physical labor experiences and the urgent need for overtime pay, while the hourly wage may remain unchanged if working hours are reduced by the 52-hour workweek, overtime pay will decrease, leading to reduced income," she said.

Earlier, Yoon received criticism from the ruling party after writing that postponing the introduction of the 52-hour workweek for small and medium-sized enterprises until after overcoming COVID-19 aligns with the Jeon Tae-il spirit. Joeun-san also asked Yoon on his blog: ▲If the 52-hour workweek is implemented, will my salary remain the same? ▲Can I rest more, work less, and still receive the same pay? ▲If not, is depriving the freedom to work more to earn more truly in line with Jeon Tae-il's spirit?

In response, Yoon answered the first question by saying that the salary might decrease if the 52-hour workweek is implemented. Regarding the second question, she said, "The way to earn the same income while working less is when productivity increases through sufficient preparation such as technological or equipment upgrades and system innovation before the policy change, so that work performance does not decline even if working hours decrease," adding, "Since the 52-hour workweek was introduced hastily with an unreasonably short preparation period for small and medium-sized enterprises, it is difficult to expect this currently."

Regarding the third question, she said, "The handwritten notes introduced in Jeon Tae-il’s biography express his hatred of 'all external constraints that destroy the hope of human essence' and criticism of 'a generation that thinks others should bear responsibility for the consequences of their own incompetent actions,'" adding, "Presumably, depriving Mr. Jo of the freedom to autonomously decide working hours and income would not be the 'humane life' he dreamed of."

Yoon added, "However, are you perhaps overworking to the point of physical exhaustion? If so, I believe that the issue of working hours should not be left solely to Mr. Jo’s personal free will and market principles," and "Like the current situation of delivery workers, working hours that harm workers’ health should not be neglected."

He explained, "Some sectors of our economy still face serious issues with long working hours, requiring caution and improvement," but "since income has increased and the economic structure has changed, policies must be wise."

Yoon said, "Forcing too rapid a change would push Mr. Jo into taking on side jobs, moving further away from policy goals," and "Above all, unlike Jeon Tae-il’s era, we now have an economy with insufficient jobs, and unemployment has become the greatest enemy of a humane life, so eliminating jobs due to policy shocks is unacceptable."

He added, "Young Jeon Tae-il dreamed of workers being guaranteed a humane life, but what is needed to achieve that inevitably varies depending on the era and circumstances," and "I believe he would willingly agree with my argument not to mechanically apply the 52-hour workweek to small and medium-sized enterprises facing closure risks due to the COVID disaster, so as not to take away workers’ jobs."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.