준노조의 이해대변 효과성 연구: 조합원의 기대 - 만족수준 비교를 중심으로 = The Study on the Effectiveness of Quasi-union: Comparisons between Contingent Workers’ Union and Quasi-union

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As more and more vulnerable groups of workers in the labor market appear in the blind spot of representing their labor interests, mainly two approach of changes have occurred to labor organizations. First, non-regular workers’ unions increased in terms of the re-vitalization of labor unions. Second, quasi-unions increased as an alternative labor organization. Quasi-unions were organized to represent the interests of workers and minority groups who are marginalized in our society, serving as a labor union for them, and among them. This research paper intended to review the effectiveness of quasi-unions, which are alternative labor organizations, and to this end, the roles and functions of non-regular workers’ unions were compared and analyzed in terms of 1) organizing, 2) services for union members, 3) mutual insurance, 4) collective bargaining, 5) legislation, and 6) raising of social pressure. One of the major research results is that the expectation level for unionizing function of quasi-unions was observed at a lower level than that of non-regular workers’ unions. Moreover, it was revealed that the expectation and satisfaction levels for mutual assistance and collective bargaining of quasi-unions are lower than those of non-regular workers’ unions. The analysis result of t-test shows that in cases of non-regular workers’ unions, which have a lower level of commonness of interests and bargaining power, the expectation and satisfaction levels for legislation are high. This research has meaning that it attempted to develop Dunlop’s system model more suitable to reality by considering new actors in employment relationships. It also made a theoretical contribution to the alternative labor organization theory in that it represent the interests of the marginalized workers in society who are not properly represented by traditional unions.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

비정규 노동과 노동시장 취약 계층이 증가하면서 이들을 대변하기 위한 노동조직에도 변화가 나타났다. 첫째는 노조 재활성화 측면에서의 비정규직노조의 증가이다. 두 번째는 대안적 노동운동 측면에서 준노조(Quasi-union)의증가이다. 준노조는 새로운 고용관계 행위자로 노동조합의 역할을 대신하여사회주변부 노동자와 소수 집단의 이해를 대변하기 위해 조직되었으며, 국내의 대표적 예로는 청년유니온과 알바노조가 있다. 본 논문은 대안적 노동조직인 준노조의 효과성을 검토하고자 비정규직노조와 역할 및 기능을 1) 조직화, 2) 대조합원 서비스, 3) 상호부조, 4) 단체교섭, 5) 법률제정, 6) 사회적압력 제기 측면에서 비교․분석하였다. 주요 분석결과로 준노조의 조직화에대한 기대수준은 비정규직노조보다 낮은 것으로 나타났으며, 준노조의 상호부조, 단체교섭에 대한 기대수준과 만족수준 모두 비정규직노조보다 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 집단 간 차이분석(t-test) 결과, 이해관계 공통성과 교섭력이 약한 준노조는 법률제정에 대한 기대수준과 만족수준이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 새로운 고용관계 행위자를 고려하여 Dunlop의 노사정 중심 시스템을 현실에 부합하게 발전시키고자 하였다는 데 의의가 있으며, 향후 더 활발해질 것으로 예상되는 준노조와 비정규직노조 등 대안적 노동 조직론에 이론적 기여를 하고자 한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 양경욱, "커뮤니티유니온의 다양성: 청년유니온과 아르바이트노동조합의 비교연구" 한국산업노동학회 24 (24): 95-136, 2018

2 박명준, "주변부 노동자 이해대변을 위한 비노동조합적 시도:‘준노조’의 한국적 개념화를 위한 일분석" 한국산업노동학회 22 (22): 35-77, 2016

3 김미진, "일본 노동이해대변의 새로운 흐름" 12 (12): 22-30, 2014

4 권혜자, "비정규노동자의규모, 법적지위, 조직화방안" 한국노총연구원 1999

5 송민수, "고용관계의 새로운 현상: 제3행위자의 등장" 한국산업노동학회 21 (21): 1-35, 2015

6 김동원, "고용관계론" 박영사 2019

7 Fine, J. R., "Worker centers: Organizing communities at the edge of the dream" 50 : 417-463, 2006

8 Freeman, R., "What Workers Want" Cornell University Press 2006

9 Safford, S. C., "Unions on the rebound: Social embeddedness and the transformation of building trades locals" MIT Sloan 2001

10 Heery, E., "The involvement of civil society organizations in British industrial relations: extent, origins and significance" 50 (50): 47-72, 2012

11 Hyman, R., "The future of employee representation" 35 (35): 309-336, 1997

12 Craypo, C., "The economics of collective bargaining: case studies in the private sector" Bureau of National Affairs 1986

13 Kochan, T. A., "The Transformation of American Industrial Relations" Cornell University Press 1986

14 Heckscher, C., "Strength in networks: Employment rights organizations and the problem of Co‐ordination" 44 (44): 605-628, 2006

15 Jenkins, J. C., "Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements" 9 (9): 527-553, 1983

16 Friedman, R. A., "Predicting joining and participating in minority employee network groups" 43 (43): 793-816, 2004

17 Williams, S., "Non‐union worker representation through civil society organisations: Evidence from the United Kingdom" 42 (42): 69-85, 2011

18 Taras, D. G., "Non‐union employee representation in North America: Diversity, controversy and uncertain future" 37 (37): 513-542, 2006

19 Heery, E., "New actors in industrial relations" 44 (44): 601-604, 2006

20 Levesque, C., "Local versus Global: Activating Local Union Power in the Global Economy" 27 (27): 39-65, 2002

21 Dunlop, J., "Industrial Relations Systems" Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1958

22 Webb, S., "Industrial Democracy" Longmans, green, and Company 1897

23 Heery, E., "Handbook of Research on Employee Voice" Edward Elgar 208-223, 2014

24 Healy, G., "Equality and diversity actors: a challenge to traditional industrial relations?" 26 (26): 44-65, 2007

25 Bellemare, G., "End users: actors in the industrial relations system?" 38 (38): 383-405, 2000

26 Freeman, R., "Emerging Labor Market I.nstitutions for the 21st century" University of Chicago Press 2005

27 Angle, H. L., "Dual commitment and labor-management relationship climates" 29 (29): 31-50, 1986

28 Spinrad, W., "Correlates of trade union participation: A summary of the literature" 237-244, 1960

29 McAdam, D., "Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings" 23-40, 1996

30 Fine, J. R., "Community unions and the revival of the American labor movement" 33 (33): 153-199, 2005

31 Black, S. J., "Community unionism: A strategy for organizing in the new economy" 14 (14): 24-32, 2005

32 Osterman, P., "Community organizing and employee representation" 44 (44): 629-649, 2006

33 Tajfel, H., "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict" 33 (33): 74-, 1979

34 Kim, D. O., "A comparison of the effectiveness of unions and non-union works councils in Korea: Can non-union employee representation substitute for trade unionism?" 15 (15): 1069-1093, 2004