Kyunghyong "Concerns Over Confusion at Site Due to Employment Insurance Act Amendment, Some Revisions Needed"

[Asia Economy Reporter Changhwan Lee] The Korea Employers Federation announced on the 28th that it has submitted the business community's opinions to the Ministry of Employment and Labor regarding the partial amendment drafts of the "Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act" and the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Collection of Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premiums," which were publicly notified by the Ministry.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor's recent legislative notice includes the application of employment insurance to 14 occupations such as insurance planners, equal burden of employment insurance premiums (50% by special-type workers + 50% by employers), and the establishment of an upper limit on employment insurance premiums (within 10 times the average premium).

The Korea Employers Federation emphasized that the Ministry's draft selects an excessively large number of special-type workers (hereinafter referred to as workers) to whom employment insurance applies, raising concerns about confusion during the initial implementation of the system.

It also pointed out that applying the same employment insurance premium sharing ratio (50% to 50%) between workers and employers as in general labor relations is inappropriate, given that the relationship between workers and employers differs from typical employment relationships.

While setting an upper limit on premiums to minimize resistance to system enrollment is desirable, setting it at 10 times the average premium is too high and effectively meaningless as a cap, the Federation added.

Accordingly, the Korea Employers Federation explained that it requested the Ministry of Employment and Labor to minimize the number of applicable occupations during the initial implementation of the system (or specify a deadline for regulatory review), differentiate the employment insurance premium sharing ratio (75% by workers vs. 25% by employers), and rationalize the premium cap (around twice the average premium).

Regarding minimizing applicable occupations, the Federation demanded that considering the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance gradually expanded the applicable occupations for workers over 12 years, employment insurance should also minimize applicable occupations at the initial stage, taking into account the manageability and necessity of applying to workers' occupations.

They argued that if the 14 occupations for workers are introduced all at once as per the Ministry's draft, a measure to review the scope of application after a certain period (for example, 3 years) should be introduced simultaneously.

Concerning the differentiation of premium sharing ratios, the Federation claimed that since workers have an intermediate nature between employees and self-employed persons, the employment insurance premium sharing ratio should be set differently from that of employees.

They also stated that when applying a premium cap, a certain proportion of people benefiting from it must be secured for the system's introduction to be meaningful, but the draft's cap (10 times the average premium) is too high and unrealistic.

Therefore, they emphasized that during the initial implementation of the system, the cap should be set at twice the level of the National Pension's cap and that the cap level should be reviewed in the future.

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