본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

제조업 현장에서 바라본 생산적 노사관계의 확립방안 - 금속 산별교섭의 실태와 발전방향을 중심으로 -

The reality and direction for development of industry- level collective bargaining in metal industry

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The sizes of enterprise-based unions and unions beyond enterprise-level have become similar in terms of the number of union members, and it is expected that an era of unions and bargaining beyond enterprise boundaries will emerge as major companies have moved towards industrial unions. For example, four Korean auto manufacturers, including Hyundai Motors, made movement towards the industrial unions in June 2006. The metal industry, which represent the national industrial system in Korea like in other advanced countries, experienced the transition from enterprise-level to industry-level bargaining structure in some sub-sectors including 40,000 union members since 2001. After large companies such as Hyundai Motors transformed their union structure in 2006, metal industrial union became huge organization having approximately 140,000 members. Unfortunately, industry-level collective bargaining in Korean metal industry was unstable during several years. Collective bargaining were conducted in three levels, that means, national, regional and company level respectively. Even worse, twice or more strikes occurred in a year at some establishments accompanying each level bargaining. Therefore, management side has been very reluctant to the transition from enterprise-level to industry-level bargaining. Some directors and managers from near one hundred companies formed metal employers' association in 2006 in response to the request of metal union, but most large companies haven't joined this. In case of 2007 industrial bargaining in metal sector, there were little advance in bargaining structure and agenda. Only small parts of union members were covered by national level industrial bargaining and most large companies refused joining this bargaining table. Large companies offered lots of increase in their employees' compensation while small and medium companies couldn't. As a result, wage gap between large companies and SMEs widened in spite of the aim of the metal industrial union. Union and management in metal industry must endeavor to take advantage of industrial-level bargaining instead of enterprise-level bargaining through coordination and harmonization of their targets and behaviors. While pursuing that purpose, labor and management must keep in mind that industrial relations move towards reducing bargaining cost and overcoming bi-polarization.

Abstract

The sizes of enterprise-based unions and unions beyond enterprise-level have become similar in terms of the number of union members, and it is expected that an era of unions and bargaining beyond enterprise boundaries will emerge as major companies have moved towards industrial unions. For example, four Korean auto manufacturers, including Hyundai Motors, made movement towards the industrial unions in June 2006. The metal industry, which represent the national industrial system in Korea like in other advanced countries, experienced the transition from enterprise-level to industry-level bargaining structure in some sub-sectors including 40,000 union members since 2001. After large companies such as Hyundai Motors transformed their union structure in 2006, metal industrial union became huge organization having approximately 140,000 members. Unfortunately, industry-level collective bargaining in Korean metal industry was unstable during several years. Collective bargaining were conducted in three levels, that means, national, regional and company level respectively. Even worse, twice or more strikes occurred in a year at some establishments accompanying each level bargaining. Therefore, management side has been very reluctant to the transition from enterprise-level to industry-level bargaining. Some directors and managers from near one hundred companies formed metal employers' association in 2006 in response to the request of metal union, but most large companies haven't joined this. In case of 2007 industrial bargaining in metal sector, there were little advance in bargaining structure and agenda. Only small parts of union members were covered by national level industrial bargaining and most large companies refused joining this bargaining table. Large companies offered lots of increase in their employees' compensation while small and medium companies couldn't. As a result, wage gap between large companies and SMEs widened in spite of the aim of the metal industrial union. Union and management in metal industry must endeavor to take advantage of industrial-level bargaining instead of enterprise-level bargaining through coordination and harmonization of their targets and behaviors. While pursuing that purpose, labor and management must keep in mind that industrial relations move towards reducing bargaining cost and overcoming bi-polarization.

참고문헌 (13)

  1. 금속산업사용자협의회, "2007년 금속노사 중앙교섭 분석 및 평가", ~ (2007)
  2. 김훈, "『2005년도 노사분규 실태분석 및 평가 : 금속부문』. 노동부", 한국노동연구원, 2005
  3. 배규식, "『유럽의 산별 단체교섭과 단체협약 연구』. 한국노동연구원", ~ (2007)
  4. 은수미, "비용과 효과의 측면에서 본 산별교섭: 보건의료 및 금속산업을 중심으로", 경제와사회, (75) (2007), 한국산업사회학회
  5. 이종래, "금속산업 산별교섭", ~ (2006)
  6. 전 인, "노동통제하의 사용자단체 역할과 서비스: 경영자총협회의 생존과 성장, 1970-1987", 한국노사학회 여름 학술대회 발표문 (2007)
  7. 조성재, "현대차 성과급 분쟁을 둘러싼 담론 지형과 근본 문제", 노동리뷰 (2007), 한국노동연구원
  8. 조성재, "『금속산업 노사교섭 실태분석 및 발전방안 연구』. 노동부", 한국노동연구원, 2004
  9. 조성재, "『2006년도 노사분규 실태분석 및 평가 : 완성차부문』. 노동부", 한국노동연구원, 2006
  10. 조성재, "『2007년 노사관계 실태분석 및 평가 - 금속 산별교섭』, 노동부", 노동연구원, 2007
  11. Aidt, T.S, ""The Cost and Benefits of Collective Bargaining," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, no. 0541", ~ (2005)
  12. Calmfors, L, "Bargaining Structure, Corporatism and Macroeconomic Performance", Economic Policy, 6, pp.14~61 (1988)
  13. Traxler, F., "National Labour Relations in Internationalized Markets. A Comparative Study of Institutions, Change, and Performance" (2001), Oxford University Press

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (19건)