I'm curious how a country with such a deep history of authoritarianism and right wing politics ended up with such draconian labour laws. Are they a recent thing?
That's fair comment, I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. I have no idea how accurate the description given is and I'm not intending to critique it, I'm just interested in the history.
When workers strike in the US the company can simply hire replacement workers. If the company does so the striking workers are not guaranteed their jobs back after the strike.
It’s not worker which is protected but the union which wields power and union leadership involved in negotiations.
Normally there should be a rule of law which balance the rights of company and worker and has to be reasonable. You turn it other way and it takes away the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest. If they are seen as criminals just if they do not agree with the provisions, they can show dissent only by closing business.
So the said worker whom this union is suppose to save don’t get a job, as entrepreneur will not takes risk of being put in jail, just because he did not agree to unreasonable demand of union. Also there are many other locations in Asia for multi-nationals. So the overall job market suffer if there isn’t a balance between company and worker demands.
Also it’s not really protection of workers, because workers need to work according to unions agenda, which are governed by leadership in those unions. If I am not wrong in Korea there are 2 unions.
The US has very weak protections for workers across the board.
In addition to South Korea, Japan, Mexico, and Quebec outlaw strikebreaking. The practice is so rare in the EU that it is usually not even mentioned in labour law.
