[Reporter’s Notebook] The Purmil Incident Fallout... Management Must Take Full Responsibility

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-yoon] As the impact of Purmil's business closure grows, opinions on the matter are divided. On one side, there are those who say the sudden layoff notice is an unfair act, while on the other, some argue that the company is closing down and the labor union is making unreasonable demands. Public opinion seems to lean more toward the latter. Similar criticism is pouring in online as well.

Earlier, Purmil decided to end its business on the 30th of next month and sent emails on the 17th to about 400 employees notifying them of the business closure and layoffs. This decision was made based on the judgment that the accumulated losses over several years had become unsustainable.

This is not a matter to be taken lightly. First, the sudden layoff notice is problematic. The Labor Standards Act requires that workers be notified of layoffs at least 50 days in advance to prevent sudden unemployment from destabilizing their lives. However, the notice was given just over a month before the business closure, and as a result, some employees are facing an uncertain livelihood starting next month.

Employees who have worked for over a decade are in an even more desperate situation. Although it is true that there has been significant turnover in recent years due to the company's instability, many had hoped after hearing rumors of a sale circulating in the market. Moreover, besides the employees, dealership owners and truck drivers who transported Purmil products received no notification even after the business closure announcement. It is difficult to view their reactions as mere obstinacy.

Typically, when a company closes due to worsening business conditions, the CEO apologizes to employees and presents countermeasures. However, the management has yet to provide a proper response to the union's requests for dialogue. They have not even disclosed who will handle follow-up measures for clients, truck drivers, and dairy farmers after the business closure.

One reason for the criticism directed at the union is the nationwide distrust toward some union members who have committed illegal acts or acted obstinately in the past. However, applying the same standard to this situation seems difficult. Since the company's establishment 45 years ago, there have been no disputes or strikes, and during the worsening business conditions, the union even endured wage cuts.

Purmil's management should engage sincerely in dialogue even now. If the business must be closed, they should clearly disclose follow-up measures and future plans, and also clarify suspicions raised in the public about ‘tricky business closure’ aimed at corporate tax exemption benefits.

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