Statement by the Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine on the proposed reform of working hours in South Korea
Article information
Abstract
The current 52-hour workweek in South Korea consists of 40 hours of regular work and 12 hours of overtime. Although the average working hours in South Korea is declining, it is still 199 hours longer than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 1,716 hours per year. In view to this, the South Korean government has now proposed to reform the workweek, mainly intending to increase the workweek to 69 hours when the workload is heavy. This reform, by increasing the labor intensity due to long working hours, goes against the global trend of reducing work hours for a safe and healthy working environment. Long working hours can lead to increased cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, industrial accidents, mental health problems, and safety accidents due to lack of concentration. In conclusion, the Korean government’s working hour reform plan can have a negative impact on workers’ health, and therefore it should be thoroughly reviewed and modified.
The South Korean government has announced a plan to reorganize the working hours of employees to up to 69 hours per week when they have heavy workload. As of May 2023, overtime can be extended by only one week at a time. The current maximum workweek is 52 hours; this includes 40 hours of regular work and 12 hours of overtime. The government’s revised plan allows for extending overtime hours by monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual periods, besides the one-week period that can be settled by labor-management agreements. The maximum working hours allowed to be extended per week is 69, guaranteeing 11 hours of work per day, 30-minute breaks every 4 hours, and one day of paid vacation per week.
However, considering the opposition of the labor force, academia, and the media to the reform, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has ordered to consider a maximum workweek of 60 hours; this alternative too allows for long hours when unavoidable at certain times of the year. The average annual workweek in South Korea has declined from 2,163 hours in 2010 to 1,915 hours in 2021, but it is still 199 hours higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 1,716 hours (Fig. 1).1 Government reforms can lead to increased labor intensity due to long working hours. The global trend is to reduce working hours and to promote safe and healthy working conditions as a fundamental right; this is outlined by the International Labor Organization (ILO). However, South Korea is moving in the opposite direction. The current state of the working hour regulations of major countries shows that Korea has relatively long working hours (Table 1).234567
As regards health issues, the government’s plan to reorganize working hours can significantly increase the occupational accidents related to cerebrovascular disease, as suggested by the Korean work-related cerebro-cardiovascular disease criteria. The current standard for determining occupational cerebrovascular disease follows three criteria: first, a sudden event or change in work environment; second, work burden for a short period; and third, chronic overwork. The government plans to reorganize work hours can increase the number of occupational accidents related to cerebrovascular disease, as suggested by these three criteria. Currently, the Korean Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and its subordinate laws consider the following as “workload aggravating factors”: working exceeding 60 hours per week on average (64 hours per week on average for 4 weeks prior to onset) during the 12 weeks prior to onset; working exceeding 52 hours per week on average during the 12 weeks preceding the onset, especially when the work falls under any of the following categories: unpredictable schedules, shift work, lack of holidays, exposure to harmful environments (cold, temperature change, noise), high physical intensity, frequent business trips involving large time differences, and high mental strain.8 For compensation purposes, the 69-hour maximum workweek proposed can conflict with the existing worker compensation laws as longer work hours are associated with higher risk of cerebrovascular or heart disease in the cases mentioned above.
In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) and ILO found that 8.9% of the world’s population were exposed to long work hours (55 hours or more). They also attributed 3.7% of the ischemic heart disease deaths and 6.9% of the stroke deaths to long work hours.9 In a case-crossover study, Shin et al. found a 1.45-fold increase in risk of cerebrovascular disease for a 10-hour increase in average weekly work hours in the most recent week compared with the average weekly work hours over a three-month period.10 In an analysis of 42 cohort studies, including 36 unpublished studies from the IPD-work consortium, stroke incidence was 1.27 times higher for working 49–54 hours per week and 1.33 times higher for working 55 or more hours per week compared to working 35–40 hours per week.11 In a meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies involving 339,680 participants, Li et al.12 found that working more than 55 hours per week was associated with a 1.13-fold increased risk of ischemic heart disease compared to working 35–40 hours per week. Descatha et al.13 conducted a meta-analysis of 162,644 participants from 7 cohort studies, to find that working 55 hours or more per week was associated with a 1.35-fold increased risk of stroke compared to working 35–40 hours per week (Table 2).13
Policy changes in work hours can have a negative impact on workers’ health conditions other than cerebrovascular diseases too. Working long hours can negatively affect the mental health of workers, leading to sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. In a study of the Whitehall II cohort, Virtanen et al.14 reported a 3.24-fold decrease in sleep duration, a 6.66-fold increase in difficulty falling asleep, and a 2.23-fold increase in early morning awakening among those working 55 hours per week compared with those working 35–40 hours per week, suggesting the association between long workweek and sleep. In another cohort study, full-time workers aged 44–66 years working 55 hours or more a week showed a 1.66-fold increase in depressive symptoms and a 1.74-fold increase in anxiety symptoms compared to those working 35–40 hours per week.15 In a study of 4,539 full-time participants of the 2007–2009 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Kim et al.16 found a 1.38-fold increase in suicidal ideation among those who worked 60 hours or more per week compared with those who worked 40–51 hours per week. Numerous studies have found long work hours associated with poor sleep and mental illness (Table 3).1718192021
Additionally, longer work hours increased the risk of accidents due to decreased worker concentration. A systematic review by Wagstaff et al. found a consistent 1.32- to 1.98-fold increase in risk of occupational accidents in four studies on working more than 8 hours per day and a consistent 1.37- to 3.29-fold increase in four studies on working more than 12 hours per day (Table 4).22232425262728
From the above findings, a work time reform plan that increases working hours can have a negative impact on worker health. Therefore, the government’s working hour reform plan should be thoroughly reviewed and modified.
Notes
Funding: This work was supported by the Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine Research Fund.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: Kang HT, Kanwoo Y, Koh SB.
Data curation: Lee DW, Kim HC.
Funding acquisition: Kim SK.
Investigation: Kang HT, Lee DW, Park SG.
Methodology: Jeong KS.
Resources: Kim CJ, Lee J, Jeong KS.
Supervision: Lee DW, Park SG.
Validation: Lee J, Kanwoo Y, Kim HC, Song H, Kim SK.
Visualization: Koh SB.
Writing - original draft: Kang HT, Kim CJ, Koh SB.
Writing - review & editing: Kang HT, Kim SK.
Abbreviations
CI
confidence interval
HR
hazard ratio
ILO
International Labor Organization
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OR
odds ratio
RR
relative risk
WHO
World Health Organization