What if Jeon Tae-il evaluates the current labor standards law? “49.9 points out of 100”
Labor Standards Act average score of 49.9 points... Eliminating blind spots in the application of the law is a top priority
Quick Look
- As a result of Workplace Gapjil 119's survey of 102 labor attorneys, lawyers, and activists, the current Labor Standards Act was given an average of 49.9 points, and 69.6% of respondents evaluated the current government's labor policy negatively.
- 96.1% responded that those excluded from the law, such as workers at businesses with less than five employees, special employees, platforms, and freelancers, are not properly protected.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Ahead of the 56th anniversary of Jeon Tae-il's death, Workplace Gapjil 119 conducted a survey on the current Labor Standards Act targeting 102 people, including 64 labor attorneys, 30 lawyers, and 8 activists, in October.
Labor attorneys and lawyers working in the field of labor gave the current Labor Standards Act an average score of less than 50 points out of 100, effectively giving it a ‘failure grade’.
On the 8th, ahead of the 56th anniversary of Jeon Tae-il's death, Workplace Gapjil 119 conducted a survey asking 102 people, including 64 labor attorneys, 30 lawyers, and 8 activists active in the organization, their evaluation of the current Labor Standards Act during the month of October.
Respondents gave an average of 49.9 points to the question, ‘How would Jeon Tae-il evaluate the Labor Standards Act in 2026?’
80.4% (82 people) of the respondents believed that the Labor Standards Act was not properly followed in the workplace. 90.2% (92 people) responded that the law does not properly reflect the changed labor environment, such as employment patterns or the development of digital technology.
The most common cause (69.6%) cited ‘restrictions on the application of laws depending on the size of the workplace, working hours, etc.’ This was followed by ‘business owners’ actions to avoid the application of the law, such as splitting contracts’ (52%), and ‘lack of effectiveness of punishment and economic sanctions for violating the law’ (35.3%).
In particular, most of the respondents, 96.1% (98 people), evaluated that those excluded from the application of the law, such as workers in workplaces with less than five employees, special employment, platform, and freelance workers, are not properly protected.
79.4% (81 people) responded that eliminating blind spots against these people should be given top priority when revising the law.
A significant number of respondents evaluated the Lee Jae-myung administration's overall labor policy direction negatively.
Negative evaluation responses were 69.6% (71 people), which was more than twice as many as positive responses (30.4%, 31 people).
In particular, 98% (100 people) responded that no results were achieved in the field of ‘expanding the application of the Labor Standards Act to workplaces with less than five employees and ultra-short-time workers.’
Oh Jin-ho, chairman of the Workplace Gapjil 119 Executive Committee, said, “56 years have passed since martyr Jeon Tae-il called for compliance with the Labor Standards Act, but many workers are still not protected by the Labor Standards Act,” adding, “We must withdraw the Ultra-Regional Special Zone Act, which contains all kinds of special labor provisions, and completely revise the Labor Standards Act.”
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Discussions on comprehensive revision of the Labor Standards Act are likely to begin in earnest in the National Assembly.
Possible · Within months
The debate over the pros and cons of withdrawing the Ultra-Metropolitan Special Zone Act is likely to continue.
Possible · Within months
Open Questions
- What are the specific schedule and contents of the comprehensive revision of the Labor Standards Act?
- What is the government and ruling party’s position on the withdrawal of the Ultra-Metropolitan Special Zone Act?
- What is the current status of legislation to expand the application of the Labor Standards Act to workplaces with fewer than five employees?







