Labor Market Reform and Labor Law (Japanese)

What can companies do and what can't they do? It is essential for the nation as a whole to give calm consideration to this question once again. The Regulatory Reform Committee at the end of the last century stated that what is required of us is calm debate based on the evidence rather than emotional argument that appeals to gut feelings, and that situation remains basically unchanged to this day. Companies that do not do the things they can do are naturally blamed, but if they are subjected to requirements that exceed their capacity that would only bring the workplace to a standstill. Even if ideals and theories held in the mind are imposed forcefully onto reality, that rarely meets with success. Looking at the issue of part-time workers and other non-regular employees alone, for companies that are unable to free themselves from the constraints of the present system and are effectively locked in to the system, the options available to them are limited. For example, there is an approach in which regular employee status is granted to non-regular employees. Even if we assume that this thinking is generally regarded as being correct, applying it in a one-size-fits-all manner is unreasonable, and if it is necessary to do so it will ultimately end up being no better than building castles in the air unless measures such as the recognition of exceptions to the rule are put in place to act as shock absorbers or lubricants. What can companies do and what can't they do? Thinking calmly about this question will also be the quickest route toward improving the employment conditions of the people who work in companies.

コウネンレイシャ コヨウ アンテイホウ ノ カイセイ ト ソノ モンダイテン キボウシャ ゼンイン ルール ヘ ノ ギモン

末永敏和教授退職記念

Institutional Reform of Working Hours from a Workplace Standpoint: With a focus on incorporated national universities (Japanese)

In the case of public servants, a clear distinction is made between regular days off (Saturdays and Sundays) and public holidays (national holidays and the New Year holiday) and these holidays which are designated as days "when attendance is not required even during regular working hours," are still counted as working hours even when workers are absent. Although this means that the hourly unit value of labor is lower for public sector workers than it is for those in the private sector (overtime compensation is also reduced accordingly), this computational trick is naturally not permitted for private companies. On the other hand, unlike private companies, various leave systems are in place for public workers. In addition to annual leave and sick leave, there are 17 kinds of special leave available, and in the case of permanent workers (equivalent to regular employees at private companies), all of these are paid leave. Public sector also differs from private sector in that 80% attendance is not required to take annual leave and a worker's salary is not reduced during the period of sick leave and maternity leave. Under such circumstances, how have national universities, which were forced to transform themselves from a place for public workers to incorporated entities subject to labor-related laws, dealt with the trial-and-error adoption of institutional reforms for working hours, including the introduction of the discretionary labor system for teachers? This paper discusses how institutional reform of working hours should be approached from the standpoint of workplaces, by using incorporated national universities as an example.

サイヨウ ノ ジユウ ト ソノ セイヤク モトメラレル シンチョウ ナ ギロン

尹景徹教授退職記念

サイヨウ ノ ジユウ ト ソノ セイヤク ソク ハイケンホウ カイセイケイ ノ ヒハンテキ ケントウ

論