스웨덴의 간접고용 사회적 규제와 “관리된 유연성”: 파견업 단체협약을 중심으로

Sweden is a country exempt from potential abuses of temporary agency work, which owes to strict regulation on the staffing industry and proper protection of temporary agency workers, whereas the contract type of indirect employment along with illegally dispatched workers has been extremely overused in Korea. The Swedish regime of regulation praised as the model of "managed flexibility" could be established thanks to the LO's strategy of active intervention. It is the aim of this study to analyze how they regulate the usage of indirect employment with a special reference to temporary agency work, identify how the regime of regulation operates and manages to contain flexibility, and explain why the social partners accept the model of managed flexibility and contribute to its reproduction in Sweden. In 2000, LO chose to deploy the strategy of strong regulation on temporary agency industry and reached a collective agreement with the Staffing Agency Association, which made it possible for a regime of strict social regulation to be established. LO relies more on collective agreements than on labor laws in regulating temporary agency work. The collective agreement imposes the principle of regular employment on staffing agencies, compels client firms to abide by equal treatment of temporary agency workers with their regular workers under the protection of the same collective agreement, and guarantees the monthly wage with the 90% of replacement rate for temporary agency workers off duty. Such a strict regulation leaves little room for the client firms to take advantage of temporary agency workers for cost reduction, so that they come to use temporary agency workers mainly for numerical flexibility in particular occasions. The regime of regulation based on collective agreements is itself a compromise between capital and labor. LO gave up its position of ban on temporary agency work in exchange for the protection of temporary agency workers under social regulation, while the staffing agencies accepted the strict regulation so as to acquire social recognition of their operation as proper business. In that sense, the social regulation on indirect employment and thus the managed flexibility regarding temporary agency work can be defined as a product of class compromise. Owing to fair burden-sharing between temporary agencies and client firms, all the stakeholders could benefit from the usage of temporary agency work. The temporary agencies can enhance their social legitimacy by guaranteeing employment security for temporary agency workers, while the client firms can secure numerical flexibility by paying workers with reasonable wages. The regular workers employed by the client firms can take advantage of temporary agency work as buffer for their own job security without the risk of social dumping, while the temporary agency workers can enjoy employment security as well as income security. As a consequence, the Swedish regime of regulation for temporary agency work could reproduce itself with the managed flexibility unharmed.