[Reporter’s Notebook] To Persuade on '69-Hour Workweek'... Start by Protecting Vulnerable Workers

"If you work 69 hours a week in concentrated shifts, shouldn't you be taking sick leave instead of long vacations?"

When the government announced a plan to reform the working hours system to allow up to 69 hours of work per week, criticism from office workers poured in both online and offline. Among the hundreds of comments on related articles, most criticized the government’s proposal, and among acquaintances and worker communities, concerns about increased overtime outweighed expectations that flexible working hours would allow for month-long long vacations. An employee working at a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) in Seoul said, "Even if large companies can do it, how many SMEs can actually allow long vacations?" and called it a "policy that is out of touch with reality."

In fact, this government proposal is closer to reducing working hours rather than increasing them. Although the maximum working hours increase from the current 52 hours per week to 69 hours per week, this is literally the 'maximum time,' and the total working hours over a quarter, half-year, or year will actually decrease. In a situation where it is difficult to drastically reduce fixed working hours immediately, workers can concentrate their work when necessary to take a sabbatical month or reduce the number of working days under a four-day workweek.

However, it is not easy for these expected advantages to be fully reflected in reality. Companies where workers usually work less than 52 hours per week or where unions are strong will not suddenly see an increase in working hours even if the government plan is implemented, so it is fine. But vulnerable SME workers who already work over 52 hours per week or who are under a comprehensive wage system and do not receive proper compensation for their work hours are likely to face even more blatant overwork if the maximum working hours increase. Some have already raised concerns about the misuse of converting overtime into saved leave to avoid paying overtime wages and preventing workers from taking leave, thereby reducing labor costs.

Therefore, for the government plan to be settled as originally intended through labor-management agreement, a system that robustly protects workers, especially vulnerable workers, must first be supported. Employers who violate the working hours limit should be actively identified and strictly punished, and effective alternatives should be found for workers who cannot comfortably take leave due to company or colleague pressure, overtime, or other reasons despite doing their work properly. It is also necessary to listen to the voices of MZ generation (Millennials + Generation Z) workers who say that working three consecutive days overnight without 11 hours of continuous rest is itself a form of violence.

Employment Minister Lee Jeong-sik evaluated this reform plan as a "historic advancement" that benefits both workers and companies. However, the business community welcomes it, while the labor community clearly opposes it. For the government’s labor reform to succeed amid opposition from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions, and major opposition parties, it must win the hearts of the majority of ordinary workers. We hope the government will conduct broad consultations and provide supplementary measures so that the plan is recognized not as 'ultra-long compressed labor' but as the beginning of long vacations and a four-day workweek.

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