KSOEM
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Accepted articles > Article
- Review article Introducing statutory paid sick leave in South Korea: necessity and key considerations
-
Jinwoo Lee*
-
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [Epub ahead of print]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2025.37.e22
Published online: July 28, 2025
Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hanil General Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- *Corresponding author: Jinwoo Lee Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hanil General Hospital, 308 Uicheon-ro, Dobong-gu, Seoul 01450, Korea E-mail: uzhamjinbo@gmail.com
• Received: April 23, 2025 • Revised: May 23, 2025 • Accepted: May 23, 2025
© 2025 Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 205 Views
- 2 Download
Abstract
- South Korea remains one of the few Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries without a statutory paid sick leave system or a public sickness benefit program. This paper examines the necessity of introducing statutory paid sick leave in South Korea and outlines key considerations for its implementation. The “right to rest when sick” is a fundamental health and labor right that ensures workers can recover from illness without risking job loss or income insecurity. A comparative review of international systems demonstrates that most countries have institutional mechanisms to support workers during non-work-related illnesses or injuries through paid sick leave and/or sickness benefits. In contrast, South Korean workers—especially those in small workplaces or non-regular employment—face limited access to such protections. The absence of these systems exacerbates social inequality and increases the risk of presenteeism and delayed medical care. Introducing statutory paid sick leave is not only a public health investment but also a measure to promote labor rights, reduce productivity losses, and prevent poverty caused by illness. The implementation of such a system must ensure universal coverage, prohibit employer retaliation, and be integrated with future sickness benefit programs to create a comprehensive social safety net.
BACKGROUND
The ‘right to rest when sick’ of a working person means the right not to be dismissed or suffer any disadvantages in employment when an individual is unable to work for a certain period of time due to injury or illness in the course of economic activity, and the right to be guaranteed a survival that is in line with human dignity for the individual and their family members even during the period of inability to work. In other words, the ‘right to rest when sick’ is both a right to health for working individuals and a right closely related to labor rights and social security rights.1
The systems that guarantee the right to rest when sick include industrial accident insurance, paid sick leave, and sickness benefit system. The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance system provides medical treatment and income support when a worker is injured or becomes ill due to work. In South Korea, this system guarantees not only medical care benefits but also income replacement and necessary services such as temporary disability benefits and nursing care benefits.
However, there are cases where individuals are unable to work due to injury or illness not related to their job, but rather for personal reasons. Sick leave is a system that protects people who cannot work due to non-work-related injury or illness from the risk of deteriorating health and unemployment (dismissal) by granting them the right to rest. Sick leave can be divided into a contractual sick leave system established by labor contracts, employment rules, and collective agreements, and a statutory sick leave system established by law.
Even if it is not an occupational accident or disease, no one should be forced to continue working while sick or fall into economic ruin due to the inability to maintain their livelihood. There are many cases where industrial accident applications are rejected. If injured workers don't receive workers’ compensation, they are deprived of both medical expense coverage and injury leave benefits. This can lead to a substantial burden of medical and living costs, resulting in serious financial hardship. Due to economic constraints, the worker may be forced to forgo treatment or receive inadequate care, which can result in a deterioration of their health condition. Therefore, it is essential not only to guarantee the right to rest but also to ensure income security. The risk of income loss that occurs when using sick leave can be resolved through the ‘paid sick leave’ system, in which the employer pays wages, and the ‘sickness benefits’ system, in which cash benefits are paid from publicly funded resources.
Many countries design and coordinate their statutory paid sick leave and public sickness benefit systems in their own unique ways to ensure employment and income security for sick workers.2 According to a report3 prepared with reference to country-level data from the World Social Security Program of the International Labour Organization and the International Social Security Association, out of 184 countries in the world, 173 countries, excluding 11 countries including South Korea and the United States, have introduced paid sick leave or sickness benefit schemes to institutionally guarantee risks of diseases or injuries outside of work. Among these, 61 countries provide protection solely through statutory paid sick leave, while 112 countries have adopted sickness benefit schemes. Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, South Korea and the United States are the only ones without a sickness benefit system. South Korea is the only country confirmed to lack both a statutory sick leave system (including unpaid leave) and a sickness benefit program.4
METHODS
This is a narrative review based on a comprehensive search of academic databases and relevant sources. It is a literature-based study; therefore, neither approval by the institutional review board nor the obtainment of informed consent is required.
RESULTS
The first introduction of a public sickness benefit through government legislation is known to have occurred in Germany in 1883, under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, with the enactment of statutory health insurance.5 At that time, voluntary paid sick leave was already spreading in Germany. Therefore, it can be inferred that paid sick leave existed prior to the introduction of sickness benefits in 1883. Afterwards, in 1969, Germany enacted the Continuous Wage Payment Act (Lohnfortzahlungsgesetz), which established statutory paid sick leave requiring employers to pay 100% of wages during the first 6 weeks of incapacity for work. The United Kingdom introduced statutory paid sick leave in 1897. Although it was employer-funded, participation in insurance was not mandatory. The initial compensation system involved a lump-sum payment of 50% of basic salary for up to 6 months.6
Since then, statutory paid sick leave has spread further around the world. Although there are no international standards for the specifics, most OECD countries have their own sick leave system, which they operate together with the public sickness benefit system.3 The only OECD countries without a statutory paid sick leave system are South Korea and Japan. The specifics of paid sick leave systems vary by country, including the requirements for applying for sick leave, the duration of sick leave, the level of benefits paid during sick leave (income replacement rate), and the obligations imposed on employers to protect workers who take sick leave outside of income protection. The reason for such differences is the role and weight that each country gives to the paid sick leave system in order to achieve the goal of securing employment and income for workers who are sick. In the absence of a public sickness benefit system, the statutory paid sick leave system would be heavily burdened (e.g., Switzerland), while in countries with a highly covered and guaranteed sickness benefit system, the paid sick leave system works as a complement to the public sickness benefit system (e.g., Norway, Sweden). In Europe and the Americas, there are many examples of paid sick leave and sickness benefit working together seamlessly. In particular, most OECD countries have statutory paid sick leave that relieves workers of their work obligations for a period of time and provides a relatively high-income guarantee at the beginning of the sick leave period at the expense of the employer. After that, the responsibility for bearing the cost is transferred to public organizations such as the government and public corporations, and income security is maintained until the worker recovers through the sickness benefit with a relatively low wage replacement rate.2
Paid sick leave systems in OECD countries tend to have the following characteristics. First, a minimum employment period (ranging from 1 to 12 months) is generally used as a prerequisite for receiving paid sick leave. Additionally, a medical certificate is often required for sick leave exceeding a certain period (e.g., for all sick leave, or after 2, 3, or 7 days). Second, the duration of sick leave varies significantly depending on whether it is paid or unpaid. For paid sick leave, the available duration typically ranges from as short as 14–16 days to more than 3 weeks. In the case of unpaid leave, workers are generally entitled to 12 or 17 weeks of sick leave. As shown in (Fig. 1), in Austria, paid sick leave is paid at 100% of the employee’s wage for the first 16 weeks without a waiting period, and then sickness benefit is paid for up to 52 weeks, at 50% of the employee’s usual earnings. In Germany, paid sick leave is provided without a waiting period at 100% of wages for 6 weeks, followed by a sickness benefit at 70% of wages for up to 78 weeks. The salary guarantee level/income replacement rate for paid sick leave is generally 80%–100%. Third, dismissal or any disadvantageous treatment due to the use of sick leave is strictly prohibited.2
South Korea does not have either a statutory sick leave system or a public sickness benefit system. Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act regulates sick leave by stating, “When an employee suffers an injury or illness due to work, the employer shall provide the necessary medical treatment at the employee's expense or bear the necessary medical treatment expenses.” However, there is no legislation that explicitly defines the concept of paid sick leave. Related regulations that do exist apply only to civil servants. According to Article 18 (Sick Leave) of the Regulations on the Service of Public Officials, civil servants may be granted up to 60 days of sick leave per year only in the following cases: when they are unable to perform their duties due to illness or injury, or when their attendance may endanger the health of other employees due to an infectious disease. According to Article 18 (Sick Leave) of the National Civil Service Regulations, civil servants may be granted sick leave for up to 60 days per year only when they are ‘unable to perform their duties due to illness or injury’ or ‘when the civil servant is infected with an infectious disease and there is concern that the civil servant’s attendance may affect the health of other civil servants.’ In other words, civil servants are entitled to take paid sick leave in cases of illness or injury, regardless of whether it is work-related. Therefore, a public system exists for civil servants to ensure income security during periods of illness. Because their wages continue to be paid during sick leave, the term “paid” sick leave applies. However, in most private workplaces in South Korea, there is no law governing leave for non-occupational injuries or illnesses, and the availability of sick leave is determined by employment rules within the workplace. The absence of statutory paid sick leave in South Korea can be estimated as follows. During Korea's rapid industrialization, the Workers' Compensation Insurance Act was institutionalized before the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Industrial accidents were more urgent than prevention. This sequence aimed to alleviate the legal burdens on employers in the event of work-related injuries. In contrast, non-work-related illnesses were left to the domain of “corporate welfare,” determined by collective agreements or employment rules. The purpose was to reduce the financial burden on employers.
For these reasons, workers are required to take “annual leave” under the Labor Standards Act to seek medical treatment or rest when they or a family member becomes ill. However, even this entitlement is not guaranteed in workplaces with fewer than five employees, as statutory annual leave is not mandatorily applied to such establishments. For non-regular workers and daily workers, access to paid leave is frequently unavailable. Consequently, the occurrence of illness or injury often leads directly to income loss, highlighting a significant gap in the existing social protection framework. Non-wage workers, including the self-employed, are generally excluded from coverage, as there is either no identifiable employer or no formal employment relationship. Consequently, there is no institutional mechanism to guarantee either leave or income protection for these workers.6
According to data from the OECD on ‘self-reported annual sick leave days per person’ (Fig. 2), the average number of sick days taken per worker in South Korea in 2019 was only 1.2 days per year. In comparison, the average annual sick leave days in major countries were significantly higher: the United Kingdom at 4.2 days, Italy at 5.9 days, the United States at 7.4 days, Canada at 8.5 days, France at 9.2 days, and Germany at 11.7 days. These figures suggest that a large proportion of South Korean workers may be continuing to work while ill, which could result in decreased productivity and increased risk of workplace accidents or illnesses. This situation is likely due to the absence of a formal ‘right to rest when sick’, a right that is recognized and institutionally supported in most other countries. Since there is no system to guarantee this, the idea of ‘resting when sick’ is unfamiliar.
An analysis of the 25th (2022) of the Korean Labor and Income Panel Study revealed that the provision rate of paid leave was 58.3%, while the provision rate of sick leave (wage payment not confirmed) for non-occupational illnesses or injuries was 38.4% (Table 2).7 There were significant disparities in provision rates depending on workplace size, employment status, and union presence. Non-regular workers had access to sick leave at only one-fifth the rate of regular workers, and temporary employees had similarly lower access compared to permanent employees. In cases where there was a union, the rate of sick leave provision was 79.8%, but in cases where there was no union, it was only 30.3%. Workers’ access to sick leave also differed significantly depending on the size of the workplace (Table 3). The rate of sick leave provision for workplaces with less than five employees was 10.6%, which was one-seventh of that for workplaces with 1,000 or more employees, and only one-fourth of the overall 38.4%. As the size of the workplace increased, access to sick leave tended to increase proportionally.
A study that analyzed the process of poverty through changes in health status according to employment type through in-depth interviews found that when workers suffered from non-work-related illnesses or injury, they had different opportunities to take leave depending on their employment status. Non-regular workers, in particular, were found to be more likely to lose their jobs shortly after the onset of illness.8 Workers who lost their jobs often entered worse non-regular employment before fully recovering their health in an attempt to maintain their income, or they remained in long-term unemployment. Even for regular workers, there are cases where they are unable to find a new job after losing their job and continue to be unemployed or enter irregular jobs.9 Ultimately, this results in a dual economic burden consisting of income loss and medical expenses, inevitably leading to a cycle of deteriorating health, unemployment, and deepening poverty.
The introduction of statutory paid sick leave has the potential to mitigate social inequalities. In South Korea, disparities in access to paid sick leave are evident across workplace sizes and between public and private sectors. Notably, although paid sick leave is most needed by precarious and low-income workers, it is often not provided, thereby deepening existing social disparities.10 Workers without access to paid sick leave are 3.0 times more likely to forgo medical care for themselves and 1.6 times more likely to forgo medical care for their family members compared to those with access.11 Low-income workers, in particular, were at the greatest risk of delaying and forgoing health care for themselves and their families.
The introduction of statutory paid sick leave should be viewed not as a cost to employers and society, but as an investment. One of the major obstacles to implementing such a system is the concern that it would place an additional financial burden on employers and may be abused by workers for other purposes. However, numerous studies suggest that statutory paid sick leave actually brings substantial benefits to employers. It reduces employee turnover, thereby lowering one of the primary cost drivers for employers.12 It can improve the efficiency of the entire workplace by reducing presenteeism, which is a situation where people go to work even when they are sick.13 Finally, it is effective in preventing infectious diseases. For instance, one study estimated that if paid sick leave were implemented nationwide in the United States, it could reduce absenteeism due to flu-related symptoms, resulting in an annual cost savings of between $630 million and $1.88 billion.14
Statutory paid sick leave can enhance employers’ accountability for workers’ health. In South Korea, employers are required to pay 100% of industrial accident insurance premiums, yet the rate of occupational injury claims remains low, and the approval rate for work-related illnesses is also not high.
As presenteeism is a social problem among Korean workers, if a universal statutory paid sick leave system borne by employers is introduced, the cost burden for workers to use paid sick leave will increase. As a result, this could incentivize them to implement stronger preventive measures in the workplace. This is supported by studies indicating that employer engagement in preventive health measures can reduce the incidence of severe illness and workplace accidents, ultimately lowering occupational fatality and injury rates.15 The introduction of statutory paid sick leave can act as an important system that can induce preemptive efforts to prevent illnesses and accidents in the workplace.
DISCUSSION
A statutory paid sick leave system should be applied universally to all workers. Currently, Korea’s Labor Standards Act has an exception provision for ‘workers at workplaces with less than five employees,’ so it needs to be revised. In order for the paid sick leave system to be introduced to small-sized businesses, practical measures such as support for hiring replacement workers as well as cost support from the Industrial Accident Prevention Fund should be sought. Paid sick leave should also be applied to gig and platform workers. For these groups, the waiting period for receiving sickness benefits should be minimized, and initiatives such as municipally funded paid sick leave should be encouraged. The level of wage protection for paid sick leave should guarantee 100% of previous income, and the period of sick leave should be applied at the current civil servant level. Since there is no culture of taking time off when sick, there are confirmed cases of forcing employees to use up their annual leave when sick, and regulations to prohibit this are also necessary. Additionally, it is necessary to prohibit disadvantageous treatment or dismissal due to the use of paid sick leave, and to specify punishment provisions for violations.
In most OECD countries that operate a sickness benefit system, statutory paid sick leave provided by employers is guaranteed prior to the provision of public sickness benefits for wage workers. The income replacement level during the employer-funded sick leave period is generally higher than that of the public sickness benefit system. Therefore, in cases where collective agreements between labor and management allow for longer periods of paid sick leave than the statutory minimum, workers may first use the full period provided by the employer before transitioning to the public sickness benefit system, if necessary. The employer can also guarantee the difference between the private and public guarantee levels.2,16 The primary barrier to introducing statutory paid sick leave is likely to be the additional financial burden on employers. For workplaces that previously did not provide contractual paid sick leave, temporary government support could be considered, taking into account the size and financial capacity of the enterprise. When the statutory paid sick leave period ends, most OECD countries provide coverage directly to the public sickness benefits system without a waiting period. In the process of introducing statutory paid sick leave in South Korea, it is important to follow the example of OECD countries, recognize existing collective agreements or employment rules, and ensure that it is closely integrated with the forthcoming sickness benefit system.
If statutory paid sick leave and sickness benefits are implemented in South Korea, they will be among the last components to be introduced within the country's public social security system. It is therefore crucial to design these new systems in a way that complements existing social security programs, avoiding redundancy or conflict while ensuring effective integration. In this regard, it is essential to incorporate the perspectives of civil society and workers throughout the planning and evaluation stages of establishing the right to rest when sick.
The vicious cycle that occurs due to the lack of the right to rest when sick can be resolved or alleviated through various policy interventions. Although the right to rest when sick, such as paid sick leave, may not fundamentally alter the hierarchical structure of the labor market, it can play a significant role in preventing or minimizing the unequal outcomes that lead to job loss and poverty.
CONCLUSIONS
Abbreviations
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Fig. 1.
Status of paid sick leave and sickness benefit coverage (benefits and duration) in selected European Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Source: Lee JH. Paid sick leave and sickness benefits in other countries and policy directions for Korea. Korean Labor & Society Institute, affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU); 2020, 2 (partially modified).3
Fig. 2.
Average annual self-reported sick leave days per worker in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Source: Kyunghyang Newspaper, based on data extracted from OECD stat (11 Oct 2021, 06;:09 UTC (GMT)).
Table 1.
Global and OECD overview of paid sick leave and sickness benefit systems (184 countries, including 38 OECD members)
| Region | No. of countries | Statutory paid sick leave only | Sickness benefita |
Countries with neither |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Country names | ||||
| Europe | 45 | 1 | 44 | - | - |
| Asia-Pacific | 51 | 24 | 21 | 6 | Kiribati, South Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Lebanon |
| Africa | 50 | 32 | 14 | 4 | Burkina Faso, Ghana, Senegal, Sierra Leone |
| Americas | 38 | 4 | 33 | 1 | United States (Statutory paid sick leave exists in: 13 states, DC, 20 cities, and 3 counties) |
| World | 184 | 61 | 112 | 11 | - |
| OECD | 38 | 2 | 34 | 2 | South Korea, United States (statutory paid sick leave in certain states) |
Source: Lee JH. Paid sick leave and sickness benefits in other countries and policy directions for Korea. Korean Labor & Society Institute, affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU); 2020, 2 (partially modified).3
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
a“Statutory paid sick leave” refers to countries that have implemented only statutory paid sick leave without a sickness benefit system, and many countries that operate sickness benefit programs, statutory paid sick leave is also provided in parallel.
Table 2.
Provision rates of paid leave and sick leave by employment type, employment status, working hours, and labor union presence
Source: Lee et al. Korean Labour and Income Panel Study, 1998-2022 [1-25]. Korea Labor Institute, Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2022.7
Values are presented as percentage.
aNon-response is an unaltered value.
Table 3.
Provision rates of paid leave and sick leave by workplace size
Source: Lee et al. Korean Labour and Income Panel Study, 1998-2022 [1-25]. Korea Labor Institute, Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2022.7
Values are presented as percentage.
aNon-response is an unaltered value.
- 1. National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Recommendation and Statement for Guaranteeing the Right to Rest When Sick for Workers. Seoul: National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea; 2022.
- 2. Namgung J. An international comparison of sick leave systems: current status and implications. Mon Labor Rev 2020;186:7–18.
- 3. Lee JH. Paid Sick Leave and Sickness Benefits in Other Countries and Policy Directions for Korea. Seoul: Korean Labor & Society Institute, affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU); 2020, 2.
- 4. Raub A, Chung P, Batra P, Earle A, Bose B, Jou J, et al. Paid Leave for Personal Illness: A Detailed Look at Approaches across OECD Countries. Los Angeles, CA: World Policy Analysis Center; 2018, 32.
- 5. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Busse R, Riesberg A. Health Care Systems in Transition: Germany. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2004.
- 6. Kang HJ, Jung HJ, Kim JM, Kim IH, Kang MY, Im SH, et al. A Study on Pilot Program Implementation Plans for the Introduction of a Korean-Style Sickness Benefit Scheme: Part 1. Sejong, Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare; Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2021.
- 7. Lee KH, Lee JE, Shin SO, Jeong HS, Kwon IS. Korean Labour and Income Panel Study, 1998-2022 [1-25]. Sejong, Korea: Korea Labor Institute, Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2022.
- 8. Lee SY, Kim KT. Path to poverty of sick workers and fictional Korean social security. Korea Soc Policy Rev 2017;24(4):113–50.Article
- 9. Kim SJ, Kim KT, Jung Y, Park GR, Oh SJ. Changes in household economic activities and status due to illness and related policy issues. Sejong, Korea: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2018.
- 10. Scheil-Adlung X, Sandner L. Evidence on paid sick leave: observations in times of crisis. Intereconomics 2010;45(5):313–21.
- 11. DeRigne L, Stoddard-Dare P, Quinn L. Workers without paid sick leave less likely to take time off For illness or injury compared to those with paid sick leave. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(3):520–7.ArticlePubMed
- 12. Cooper PF, Monheit AC. Does employment-related health insurance inhibit job mobility? Inquiry 1993;30(4):400–16.PubMed
- 13. Hemp P. Presenteeism: at work--but out of it. Harv Bus Rev 2004;82(10):49-58, 155.PubMed
- 14. Asfaw A, Rosa R, Pana-Cryan R. Potential economic benefits of paid sick leave in reducing absenteeism related to the spread of influenza-like illness. J Occup Environ Med 2017;59(9):822–9.PubMedPMC
- 15. Asfaw A, Pana-Cryan R, Rosa R. Paid sick leave and nonfatal occupational injuries. Am J Public Health 2012;102(9):e59–64.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 16. Kim KJ. The political issues on the introduction to statutory sick leave. Han Yang Law Rev 2021;32(2):45–69.Article
REFERENCES
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
Cite
XML DownloadIntroducing statutory paid sick leave in South Korea: necessity and key considerations
Fig. 1. Status of paid sick leave and sickness benefit coverage (benefits and duration) in selected European Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Source: Lee JH. Paid sick leave and sickness benefits in other countries and policy directions for Korea. Korean Labor & Society Institute, affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU); 2020, 2 (partially modified).3
Fig. 2. Average annual self-reported sick leave days per worker in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Source: Kyunghyang Newspaper, based on data extracted from OECD stat (11 Oct 2021, 06;:09 UTC (GMT)).
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Introducing statutory paid sick leave in South Korea: necessity and key considerations
| Region | No. of countries | Statutory paid sick leave only | Sickness benefit |
Countries with neither |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Country names | ||||
| Europe | 45 | 1 | 44 | - | - |
| Asia-Pacific | 51 | 24 | 21 | 6 | Kiribati, South Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Lebanon |
| Africa | 50 | 32 | 14 | 4 | Burkina Faso, Ghana, Senegal, Sierra Leone |
| Americas | 38 | 4 | 33 | 1 | United States (Statutory paid sick leave exists in: 13 states, DC, 20 cities, and 3 counties) |
| World | 184 | 61 | 112 | 11 | - |
| OECD | 38 | 2 | 34 | 2 | South Korea, United States (statutory paid sick leave in certain states) |
| Category | Employment type |
Employment status |
Working hours |
Labor union |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-regular | Non-regular | Permanent | Temporary | Daily | Full-time | Part-time | Present | None | |
| Paid leave | 78.4 | 24.6 | 74.0 | 20.3 | 3.3 | 66.8 | 13.9 | 91.8 | 52.0 |
| Sick leave | 54.3 | 11.7 | 49.8 | 9.4 | 1.7 | 44.5 | 6.7 | 79.8 | 30.3 |
| Workplace size (no. of employees) | Paid leave | Sick leave |
|---|---|---|
| 1–4 | 19.4 | 10.6 |
| 5–9 | 38.9 | 15.5 |
| 10–29 | 61.8 | 34.4 |
| 30–49 | 67.8 | 43.4 |
| 50–69 | 75.2 | 42.2 |
| 70–99 | 77.2 | 52.3 |
| 100–299 | 86.9 | 55.9 |
| 300–499 | 89.9 | 67.3 |
| 500–999 | 91.5 | 72.1 |
| 1000 or more | 97.0 | 72.9 |
Table 1. Global and OECD overview of paid sick leave and sickness benefit systems (184 countries, including 38 OECD members)
Source: Lee JH. Paid sick leave and sickness benefits in other countries and policy directions for Korea. Korean Labor & Society Institute, affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU); 2020, 2 (partially modified). OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “Statutory paid sick leave” refers to countries that have implemented only statutory paid sick leave without a sickness benefit system, and many countries that operate sickness benefit programs, statutory paid sick leave is also provided in parallel.
Table 2. Provision rates of paid leave and sick leave by employment type, employment status, working hours, and labor union presence
Source: Lee et al. Korean Labour and Income Panel Study, 1998-2022 [1-25]. Korea Labor Institute, Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2022. Values are presented as percentage. Non-response is an unaltered value.
Table 3. Provision rates of paid leave and sick leave by workplace size
Source: Lee et al. Korean Labour and Income Panel Study, 1998-2022 [1-25]. Korea Labor Institute, Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2022. Values are presented as percentage. Non-response is an unaltered value.
