Despite the Enforcement of the Gapjil Prohibition Act... 34% of Office Workers Say "Gapjil Has Not Decreased"

Non-Regular and Non-Office Workers More Likely to Experience Harassment
Over Half Identify 'Non-Executive Supervisors' as Perpetrators

[Asia Economy Reporter Minji Lee] It has been 1 year and 6 months since the amended Labor Standards Act (Gapjil Prohibition Act) banning workplace harassment was enforced, but 34% of office workers still report experiencing Gapjil abuse.

According to a survey of office workers released on the 10th by the civic group Workplace Gapjil 119, composed of labor experts, 34.1% of respondents said they had experienced workplace harassment in the past year. Although this is slightly lower than the 36% reported in the survey conducted last October, workplace Gapjil behavior remains prevalent. The survey was conducted from the 22nd to the 29th of last month, targeting 1,000 office workers nationwide aged 19 to 55.

Harassment experiences were higher among non-regular workers (non-permanent employees, 36%) than regular workers (permanent employees, 32.8%). It was also more common among non-office workers (35.6%) than office workers (32.6%), showing a tendency to be concentrated on relatively vulnerable groups in the workplace. Additionally, younger age groups reported higher rates (20s: 38.8%, 30s: 35.9%, 40s: 33.1%, 50?55 years old: 27.3%).

By industry, the rates of experiencing harassment were particularly high in accommodation and food service industries (45%) and health and social welfare services (42.2%). Specific types of harassment included insults and defamation (23.4%), unfair orders (18.8%), and coercion beyond work duties (15.2%).

Regarding perpetrators, about half (44.6%) identified “supervisors who are not executives.” Employers accounted for 27.9%, and colleagues of similar rank made up 15.8%. Cases where perpetrators were special relations not covered by the workplace harassment prohibition law?such as “customers, complainants, or client employees” (4.4%), “employer’s relatives” (2.6%), and “managers or employees of the primary contractor” (2.3%)?totaled 9.3%.

The majority of respondents agreed that legislative measures should be taken to supplement the current Gapjil Prohibition Act’s shortcomings. Combining “a provision to punish perpetrators should be included” (78.4%) and “a provision to punish only if the perpetrator is the representative or a relative of the representative” (7%), 85.4% agreed on establishing punishment provisions for perpetrators.

Furthermore, 80.2% supported “including provisions to punish failure to fulfill obligations such as prompt investigation and protection of victimized workers,” 85.5% agreed that the law should apply to workplaces with fewer than five employees, and 86.0% supported applying the law even when the perpetrator is a third party (special relation).

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