Employment Problems with Irregular Workers in Korea: A Critical Approach to Government Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the past decade, market forces have become an increasingly dominant factor in determining employment relations patterns in industrialized economies. In the context of growing global competition, deindustrialization and rapid technological innovation, firms have tried to reshape existing employment relations in a market-driven direction. Management has taken a variety of strategic actions to unbundle corporate structure and to externalize employment relations by resorting to outsourcing, spin-offs, and the increasing use of irregular labour.1 In particular, employers have expanded the use of irregular labour, such as temps, part-timers, temporary help-agencies or contract labour, on-call labour, and independent contractors, in order to seek cost reductions and more flexibility, and sometimes avoid the organizational reach of existing unions.2 The share of irregular workers in the total labour force of Korea has grown from 43.4 percent in 1996 to 52.7 percent in 2005. In Korea, there has been rapid growth in the irregular labour force, representing an externalizing trend in employment relations. Existing research literature on this topic has focused on the definition of irregular labour, its magnitude, working conditions, and background factors influencing its growth. Less attention has been paid to the impact social security systems have on management's use of irregular workers. The essential purpose of any social security system is to establish a minimum level of welfare which can be universally applied to all workers. Governments must focus on creating policies that aim to minimize workplaces excluded from the social security system. Our study offers an analysis of the influence of the social security system on employment relations in Korea. We particularly focus on how employers
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".