[기획보도 부문_제138회 이달의 방송기자상] 제대로 쓴 역사가 맞습니까? : 〈조동(朝東)100년, 두 신문 이야기 연속보도〉: 2020년 3월 5일~4월 1일 한국탐사저널리즘센터 뉴스타파 김용진, 박중석, 최윤원, 조현미, 홍주환, 최형석, 신영철, 윤석민 기자

홍주환 (사)방송기자연합회 2020 방송기자 Vol.54 No.-

이것이 도덕적 상해였을까

홍주환 (사)방송기자연합회 2020 방송기자 Vol.55 No.-

거버넌스 구조변화와 공공부문 노사관계

홍주환,김현우 한국노동사회연구소 2006 한국노동사회연구소 연구보고서 Vol.2006 No.4

This study aims to examine the challenges in re-establishing the social significance of the industrial relations in the public sector in response to the changes in the structure of governance in South Korea. The features of the public sector industrial relations(PSIR) are characterized in their responsiveness to the characteristics of the governance structures and processes. Nowadays the Korean governance structures are transforming into what is emphasizing the corresponsiveness of the state and the civil society, and if not responding to the changing features, the PISR structure would be an anarchronic one. Therefore the Korean PSIR should be realigned on the base of the accurate analyses of the governance structure. This study is intended to raise the related issues to the public sector managements and unions. Since 1990s, the theoretical discussions on governance have developed in social science world. They are in context of changes as below: economic globalization and the weakening capacity of the nation-states; expanding of the citizen-participating democracy; strengthening of market-driven economic system, etc. And they raised the necessities of new approaches to the roles of the traditional nation-states. In the broadest meanings, the governance is related the question of maintenance of social or organizational orders and the management or distribution of the material/immaterial resources. Therefore the governance can be devided in many levels: global level governance, nation-state level governance, regional/local level governance, and organization level governance like corporate governance or public authority governance. Public sector governance means the structures and processes of governance in the operations of governmental authorities and public enterprises. Traditional public governance can be said to be the government-initiated one. That is, the loci of dicision-making and accountability of the public sector operations were at the top levels of the government. But as the social and political democratization and the economic globalization are in progress and the civil society's voices and the market forces go strong, the traditional public sector governance becomes weaker and new forms of governance appear. Therefore, the new government operation programs have appeared. On the one hand, the new public management has come to expand the market logic into the public sector, on the other, the new public service initiatives have been proposed to make civil society's voice vitalized in the public spheres. The evaluations of the governance structure and process would be somewhat normative, and above all it is important they be reorganized for the expansion and deepening of social and organizational democracy. The market-centered new public management has the problems of its weak relations with the democratic governance. Therefore it is necessary to establish the new style governance structure and process, on the one hand, making government efficient, on the other, making the state and the civil society corresponsive with each other. The characteristics of the PSIR can be found in that, compared with the private sector industrial relations, the scope of the stakeholders are all-societal. Therefore it can be said that the PSIR is a dependent variable of the changes of the public sector governance structures and processes. The recent transformation of the PSIR is seemed to be caused by the radical changes of the public sector governance. Under the traditional governance, the PSIR has maintained relatively stable structures. Especially, in the European welfare state model, it has been very important to make the PSIR stable, because it has emphasized the roles of the public sector. Since 1980s, however, with the government-failure initiatives the welfare state model has got weak and the role of the public sector has been resettled, which have made the stability of the PSIR damaged. The Korean traditional state can be grouped as one of the undemocratic developmental state models, and the Korean public sector had performed the very key roles in the working of the developmental state. And for the stable PSIR the state used the management devices of, on the one side, the oppressive control and, on the other side, the economic allurement. Therefore the conflictual aspects of the PSIR have not been explicit but implicit. Since 1990s' political and social democratization the public sector unions have got their own democracy back, however, the government's old-style union management has not been reconciled with the new situation. And that have resulted in the conflictual developments in the PSIR. After the IMF financial crisis, the government began to privatize and restructure the public sector organizations radically, and this made the PSIR changed radically. The transformation of the governance in Korea can be said as the results of the decline and restructuring of the developmental state. That is, the restructuring of the developmental state has weakened the government-leading governance. In appearance, the aspects of the growing influences of the market and civil society initiatives in Korea are similar with in the European welfare states. Practically, however, in Korea the market-initiatives have been over-emphasized, but the corresponsiveness with the civil society has been under-emphasized. Therefore the transformation of governance in Korea can be characterized by the leading role of the government. These characteristics have been exposed in the course of the reforms of public sector governance. The government-leading public sector governance reforms have been inclined to exclude the participation of public sector workers and their trade unions, which are the direct stakeholders in that results. The reform has been proceeding with the exclusion of the stakeholders-participating discussions on the objects and the concrete processes. Meanwhile, the countermeasures of public sector unions have not been founded upon the alternative perspectives on the direction of public sector governance restructuring. The alternative public sector governance should be one that is aimed to the increase of the corresponsiveness level of public sector structures and processes with civil society, and to the enhancement of public sector workers' quality of working life. This state of things raised some questions of the corresponsiveness of the PSIR with the governance structures. The public sector governance reforms concretely result in the restructuring of each organizations in the public sector. And it is necessary to investigate that such reorganizations (1) proceed in the course toward the leveling-up of the responsiveness and efficiency in the public sector, (2) guarantee the democracy and efficiency in the PSIR structures and processes. The government has been trying to restructure its sub-organizations via the administration reform plans, and it has submitted and been promoting the plans of the non-government public authorities reform. In Korea, the participatory democracy is the important agenda for the social development. Therefore the government-initiated restructuring of the public sector governance raises the question of the participation of labor unions and civil society which are the stakeholders in the governance processes. The key questions in the corresponsiveness of the governance structure with the PSIR are how the production and supply of public services would be responsive to the industrial relations structures. And the indicators of those questions are that (1) the strategies of the industrial relations partners are properly devised or not, and (2) that would increase the quantitative and qualitative levels of the civil society members' participation or not. The main conclusions of this study are as followings. The government-initiated reforms of the public sector governance have been emphasizing rather the control than the autonomy of the public authorities. The reforms like those can be said as positive, for, if the public sector authorities were totally autonomous from the public sector governance, they could pursuit their own interests than the civil society's needs. But if that could be positive, the control should be democratic. Considering from this perspective, the reform plan of the government is not positive because it does not guarantee the substantive participation of public sector management and trade union and the civil society. The democratic control, that is, the democracy in the public sector governance could be realized in case the participations and the collaborations of the stakeholders is guaranteed. The government's one-sided control can not ensure the interests of the managements, trade unions and civil society. And the over-emphases on the autonomy of public sector managements and trade unions could exclude the government's policy-making and civil society's interests. Likewise if there are no ways for the civil society to participate in the control systems, the government, managements and trade unions would possibly not respond to the civil society's interests. Therefore the public sector reforms should be one that is systematically ensure the participations of all stakeholders. From the viewpoint of the public sector trade unions, the public governance participation can be attained from the two directions. One is the participation in the course of the public sector policy-making as an stakeholder. Trade unions should be ensured to participate in the national-level public sector operation committees and the authority-level executive boards and to make voices and check on the their administration. Another is the collective bargaining with the government and management on the employment conditions and terms. On the national level, trade unions should make demands for the abolition of the government's one-sided guidelines on the employment conditions and terms, and for the new guidelines reflecting the public organizations' specific characters and situations, for example, via the surveys of all organizations' wage levels. One the authority's level, based on the national guidelines, trade unions should bargain with the management and make collective agreements. To realize these objectives, the public sector trade unions, first of all, should make organizational solidarities secure. As now, the public sector trade unions are divided into four organizations. One dividing line is whether they are governmental civil service organizations or not, and another is whether they are members of KCTU(Korean Confederation of Trade Unions) or FKTU(Federation of Korean Trade Unions). In this situation of disunion, public sector trade unionism can not exercise their influence over the public governance structures and processes. Therefore in the short run they should make the solidarity frame and communicate each other around the common agendas, and in the long run, unite organizationally into the one public sector trade union.

노동시장 구조개선과 노동의 대응 노사정위의 노동시장 구조개선특위 읽기

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2015 노동사회 Vol.182 No.-

쟁점과 대안 : 복수노조제도 시행 후 노사관계 변화

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2015 노동사회 Vol.183 No.-

특집 : 87년 노동자대투쟁 20주년 ; 87년 노동체제 붕괴 이후의 노사관계와 노동운동의 과제

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2007 노동사회 Vol.123 No.-

동향과 쟁점 : 보론 ; 총액인건비제 평가와 공무원 노동조합의 대응

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2006 노동사회 Vol.110 No.-

동향과 쟁점 : 비정규입법안 논의 "과정"이 우리에게 던지는 질문들

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2006 노동사회 Vol.109 No.-

배움터 : 책읽기 ; 한 잔의 커피 뒤에 가려진 노동의 가치 『커피밭 사람들: 라틴아메리카 커피노동자, 그들 삶의 기록』서평

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2015 노동사회 Vol.182 No.-

무엇이 “선진화” 혹은 “타협” 되었는가?

홍주환 한국노동사회연구소 2006 노동사회 Vol.114 No.-