The Dispatched Labor Law/Employment Security Law "Registered Dispatchment is not Enough" Statement on "Looking Ahead For Progress" Passing the Lower House (21 May 1999) |
|
Photo: 500 people chanted "Heed RENGO's demands" before the Diet, May 19. After
pushing its 7-point demands for the Dispatched Labor Law Amendment,
RENGO held an emergency rally on the evening of May 19 when the labor
committee in the House of Representatives passed the five-party unification
bill regarding the revision of the Dispatched Labor Law and the Employment
Security Law. Further, RENGO ratified its judgement on the amendment
by the three opposition parties and decided on its strategy for the
amendment at the 24th Central Executive Committee held the following
day on May 20.
The unitary demands that the three opposition parties agreed to, consist of most of the worker protection measures pursued by RENGO. However, the measures to "prohibit registered dispatchment" on newly planned temporary dispatched labor, which RENGO had placed such great importance on, were not adopted. This matter is highly regrettable and entirely unsatisfactory. The following are the opposition parties' unitary demands for worker protection measures:
When liberalizing dispatchment services, RENGO concluded that it is critically important to add penalties to guarantee the effectiveness of the above measures considering that current employment and working conditions of dispatched workers who have been categorized into special fields. RENGO studied the amendment based on the unitary demands that the three opposition parties agreed upon, and RENGO assesses that from the view of RENGO conclusion, the issues regarding protection of workers are nearly solved in the amendment. However, RENGO judged that the employment instability that registered dispatched workers must bear is still insufficient from this settlement. (The Outline, endorsed at the 24th Central Executive Committee.) |
Referent Unions |
|
||||||||
|
1999 Demand | 1999 Settlement | 1998 Result | ||||||
No. of unions | No. of workers | wage standard | Wage increase+ | Wage standard | Wage increase+ | Wage standard | Wage increase+ | ||
35 yrs old | 79 | 726,394 | ¥318,539 | ¥321,898 | ¥3,454 | ¥319,435 | ¥897(0.28%) | ¥315,379 | ¥1,964 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 yrs old | 45 | 87,074 | ¥277,791 | ¥280,845 | ¥3,124 | ¥278,812 | ¥1,021(0.37%) | ¥271,454 | ¥1,695 |
Referent Unions | Average per union (simple average) | ||||||||
|
1999 Demand | 1999 Settlement | 1998 Result | ||||||
No. of unions | No. of workers | Wage standard | Wage* increase | Wage standard | Wage* increase | Wage standard | Wage* increase | ||
35 yrs old | 125 | 229,300 | ¥297,339 | ¥308,777 | ¥11,139 | ¥305,227 | ¥7,888(2.65%) | ¥299,984 | ¥8,602 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 yrs old | 123 | 454,994 | ¥263,439 | ¥274,047 | ¥10,118 | ¥270,863 | ¥7,423(2.82%) | ¥267,060 | ¥8,476 |
Demanding Unions | Average per union worker (weighted average) | Average per union (simple average) | |||||||||||
No. of unions | No. of workers |
Age |
Years of service | Average wage | 1999 Demand | 1999 Settlement | 1998 Result | Age | Years of service | Average wage | 1999 Demand | 1999 Settlement | 1998 Result |
834 | 1,804,667 | 38.5 | 17.2 | ¥309,798 | ¥9,279 | ¥6,542(2.11%) | ¥7,999 | 37.5 | 15.2 | ¥278,201 | ¥9,049 | ¥5,462(1.96%) | ¥6,954 |
|