[The Editors' Verdict] The Yellow Envelope Act: The Direction Is Right

Legitimate Legislation Reflecting Changes in Labor Structure
A Single Move Could Disrupt the Balance of Power Between Labor and Management
A Step-by-Step Approach Aligned with Legal Common Sense Is Needed

The level at which an agenda that seems to allow no compromise is handled reflects the maturity of society. The ruling party and business circles criticize the Yellow Envelope Act, which prevents workers from being held liable for losses caused by strikes, as unconstitutional. This criticism clashes with the claim that it is a natural legal amendment reflecting social change. Is there no option other than enforcement or abolition, the two extremes?

Several Yellow Envelope Act bills pending in the National Assembly all address three issues: workers, employers, and the definition of labor disputes. Simply changing the meanings of these three words can significantly shake the balance of power between labor and management. The amendment includes freelancers and platform workers within the scope of workers. There is no problem with the recognition that it is time to protect their rights as workers since they already occupy a considerable proportion in society.

However, as the labor market structure becomes more complex, it has become difficult to fully protect them under the existing definition of labor relations. Often, the company that employs the worker and the company that controls it are not the same. The amendment stipulates that even if one is not a party to the employment contract, if they have de facto influence over the worker, they should be regarded as an employer. This aims to resolve the issue where strikes against the primary contractor are automatically deemed illegal.

The definition of labor disputes, which previously only included disputes related to wages or working conditions, is also expanded. The key point is mass layoffs. Since mass layoffs were not considered labor disputes, strikes based on them were illegal. Many social conflicts have stemmed from this narrow definition of labor disputes. Those who could not strike, companies that were not strike targets, and issues that were not valid reasons for strikes are all brought within the legal framework at once. In effect, if workers oppose any management action, they can legally strike.

The current law also includes a provision that prohibits companies from claiming damages from workers or labor unions for losses caused by strikes. This also means that claims are possible for illegal strikes. The amendment does not change this part. The ruling party pushing the legislation emphasizes that "protection does not extend to illegal strikes," but since almost all strikes are made legal, this is a meaningless argument.

Moreover, the amendment even provides protection for illegal acts such as violence and destruction. Companies can only hold unions responsible if they planned the illegal acts. Even then, if holding the union accountable would make its existence impossible, claims cannot be made. This is a double safeguard protecting both unions that planned violence or destruction and union members who carried it out.

During the 2013 Ssangyong Motor strike, citizens sent 47,000 won in yellow envelopes to support workers who were ordered to pay 4.7 billion won in damages. The intention to fully embody this spirit in the law is understandable. However, allowing illegal acts without concern is not reasonable. It is not wise for companies to oppose unconditionally the legislative intent to reflect the complex labor structure. The lawmaker’s effort to identify those not protected by the law and include them within the system is legitimate. This is when terms like corporate social responsibility are used.

The labor sector and progressive parties must face the reality that we cannot instantly move to a better world. What we must start immediately is the work of building a strong bridge connecting this land and a livable world for workers, regardless of camps or positions. This is not a compromise or a violation of the law’s intent. It is a discussion about the realistic possibility of bridging the gap between the Yellow Envelope Act and the current law.

Shin Beom-su, Industry Managing Editor

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