Editorial: the right to strike

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 2 Volume 22 Issue 1 2015 IUR ❐ EDITORIAL Editorial: inequality, precariousness, and routine repression of the right to strike T he Republic of Korea is often touted as a shining example of economic growth, and it is true that since 1960 the country has grown from a poor and under-developed economy to become one of the world’s most dynamic, joining the OECD club of industrialised nations in 1996. It is today wealthier than New Zealand or Spain, with a per capita GDP of just over euro 24,000. The World Bank says that ‘Korea has experienced remarkable success in combining rapid economic growth with significant reductions in poverty’. The country has experienced ‘real GDP growth averaging 10 percent annually between 1962 and 1994’, adds the Bank, and says that this performance is ‘spectacular’. To this extent, Korea is sometimes presented a poster child for mainstream liberalising economic theories. But it is quite wrong to portray Korea as a country that grew under political liberalism. Indeed, for four decades – including, specifically, much of the period during which this formidable economic performance was reported - the country was under authoritarian rule. It was in these conditions that Korea experienced an explosion of rapid industrialisation and economic progress, but here too that a unique economy emerged, dominated by the activities of family-owned industrial conglomerates, known as ‘chaebol’. World famous brands, such as Hyundai and Samsung are examples of chaebol companies that flourished in this period, inculcated by State support. The country has experienced major economic shocks arising from the two financial crises, which are discussed in Kwang-Yeong Shin’s opening article for this edition. As he explains, the response to these economic shocks tended to massively increase inequality and precariousness, gravely undermining workers’ standing to defend their rights. Besides this tale of economic fluctuation and a liberalising response focussed on labour market ‘flexibility’ (that created a hugely precarious workforce) is the story of South Korea’s political history of military rule and its enforcement of a single union system. Multi-party democracy was introduced in 1987, and the single union system was opened up in 1997, the year after the country joined the OECD, and just six years after the country joined the ILO (though it is significant to note that Korea has not yet ratified either Conventions 87 or 98, the key ILO instruments on freedom of association). The tendency towards strong repression of unions continues , despite these formal advances, either because they are perceived as left-wing or radical or because they were in sectors that the government thought should be free from unionisation like teaching and the civil service. Where these factors converged and unions with radical politics attempted to organise in the civil service and in teaching, repression has been particularly fierce. In this edition of IUR, academic lawyer Kwung Bae Cho, KCTU legal advisor Du-Seop Kwon, and ITUC lawyer Jeff Vogt each examine aspects of the extent to which repression of trade union rights continues. A particular problem exists around the right to strike, which is subject to routine criminalisation and the issuance of massive claims for damages based on losses that businesses claim to have suffered as a result of strikes taking place. On the whole, IUR’s contributors report, the government and the judiciary facilitate continuing repression because strikes are still viewed with suspicion as radical and anti-social activities. Also in this edition of IUR it is our pleasure to report a very significant development at the ILO, in which the Employers’ Group have largely backed down from their aggressive stance against the right to strike (muting also their criticism of the ILO supervisory systems). As if the Employers’ apparent change of heart were not news enough the story is yet more extraordinary as Government after Government stood with Workers to defend the right to strike as a key component of international law. In an equally welcome development from Canada, lawyer Peter Barnacle shares with us insights into a new perspective on labour rights that has emerged from a series of high profile cases at the Supreme Court of Canada, which has similarly shown greater levels of...