President Yoon Seok-youl of South Korea has set off a firestorm with his recent comments about “withdrawing from the ILO clause” pertaining to the payment of foreign workers. During a cabinet meeting on October 30, he remarked that small business owners employing foreign labor are grappling with soaring labor costs and suggested the need for “emergency measures,” possibly including a withdrawal from the International Labor Organization (ILO) agreement that mandates equal pay for foreign and native workers. While the presidential office later clarified that this was a comment based on field observations, the issue has proven too contentious to be brushed aside easily.
The Semantics and Implications
The term “withdrawing from the ILO clause” is not an entirely accurate depiction. What it implies could be interpreted as a withdrawal from the ILO itself, or specifically, from the ILO Convention No. 111 concerning discrimination in employment. South Korea ratified this convention in 1998, which obliges nations to eliminate all forms of discrimination in employment based on factors like race, religion, gender, or nationality.
Legal Feasibility and Global Obligations
Experts point out that although it is theoretically possible for a country to withdraw from an ILO convention, it would be neither easy nor advisable. Such an action would conflict with global human rights declarations and other ILO guiding principles, such as the Philadelphia Declaration, which affirms that everyone, regardless of race, faith, or gender, has the right to pursue economic stability and material well-being.
Professor Park Eun-jung of Inje University noted that the issue of non-discrimination is not just a matter of individual ILO conventions but of the broader international framework of human rights and labor standards. Yoon Hyo-won, an Asia labor relations consultant, also highlighted that South Korea’s commitment to non-discrimination is also stated in the South Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement, complicating any potential withdrawal.
Domestic Laws Still a Hurdle
Even if South Korea were to withdraw from the ILO convention, current domestic laws prohibit the differential treatment of foreign workers in terms of wages. This includes legislation like the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Foreign Workers’ Employment, which expressly prohibit discrimination based on nationality.
Politics and Populism?
The question then arises as to what motivated President Yoon to bring up this controversial topic in the first place. Analysts suggest that the comment may have been a political maneuver aimed at consolidating his base ahead of upcoming elections. Yoon Hyo-won interpreted it as a kind of right-wing populism, offering a policy option with little practical viability.
There’s also the consideration that this could be a prelude to efforts to reduce minimum wages for foreign workers, a subject that has been continuously promoted by conservative forces and business circles in South Korea.
In summary, while President Yoon’s comments have ignited a vigorous debate, the complex web of domestic laws and international commitments makes the prospect of actually implementing his suggestion both legally and ethically challenging.
