정년제의 법제화 논의에 대한 법적 타당성 연구

The objectives and cultural context of age discrimination legislation, which plays a large part in each country determining what type of legislation is deemed to be appropriate. The purpose of this study was to bring together evidence of the operation and impact of legislation to prohibit age discrimination in those countries that have such laws. This paper identified 5 countries with extensive age discrimination legislation: the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Germany. For many years, experts in academia have pointed out the structural weakness and financial instability of public pension schemes and the inefficiency in labor management, and pressed for a fundamental reform of the old ageless working system. But the discussion often became entangled in political disputes among interested parties and the reform did not materialize. If not properly dealt with now, however, the instability is sure to result in greater economic and social burden. In this context, this paper has two main objectives. First, it describes the current situation of Korea's old-age employment security system along with its problems. Second, it presents proposals to improve the old-age employment security system in preparation for the 21st century. I argue that the reform measures should be compatible with ever-changing economic and social circumstances as well as financially sustainable. The effeciveness or impact of the legislation, in terms of progress towards these objectives. Some key issues where choices of emphasis will need to be made in the introduction of new legislation and policy to reduce age discrimination. The debate about mandatory retirement is fundamentally a moral issue, about human rights, but one strongly related to several major legal and economic issues. Mandatory retirement is a form of age discrimination that seems to be strictly prohibited by section of the Korean Labor Law Rights. This paper seeks to refute all those legal arguments, chiefly if not exclusively on legal grounds. The first set of arguments were those contending that mandatory retirement, in a supposedly ‘closed’ system of Korean labor market, is necessary to open employment and promotion opportunities for younger workers, with fresher, more innovative ‘new blood’, i.e., by forcing workers to leave at certain age. This basically involves the still widely held ‘lump of labour fallacy’; and it is refuted by not only economic logic but by the historical evidence from comparative jurisdictions that have abolished mandatory retirement in full: Japam, Germany, French, Canada, and the United States. Various studies now demonstrate that an end to mandatory retirement has encouraged very few to continue past the normal age of retirement, has not appreciably altered the average age of retirement, and has had no discernible consequences for the employment and advancement of much younger workers. The second related legal argument was that mandatory retirement is necessary to obviate the need to monitor productivity in order to dismiss unproductive elderly workers, and thus also to protect tenure. The third argument concerns the validity of freely-negotiated labour contracts, containing provisions for mandatory retirement. this paper demonstrates that mandatory retirement was imposed unilaterally, without negotiated contracts; but the paper also discusses the nature, and economic rationale, of such contracts that involve the suppression of individual rights in the presumed favour of the majority. The paper also addresses labour union concerns to protect normal retirement benefits at certain age. The paper also considers other legal and economic issues: mandatory retirement as an employment tool to ensure greater diversity of workers – and thus whether one may engage in one form of discrimination to combat the presumed consequences of another.