복수노조 출현의 결정요인과 노조조직률 증감효과 패널분석

Although 7 years have passed since the formation of multiple labor unions has been permitted for individual workplaces, there have been very few studies that statistically examined how such institutional changes affected on-site industrial relations. As such, this study draws on data from the WPS (Workplace Panel Survey), which provides information on the status and changes in various indicators of industrial relations (including multiple unions) at the workplace level to econometrically examine the following questions – “Which workplaces saw the formation of multiple unions?” and “Did multiple unions affect the increase of union density?”. The probabilities of multiple union formation showed statistically significant differences across industries. Higher probabilities of multiple union formation were largely associated with higher organization rates and inclusion in the public sector. Also, factors such as prior experience of a strike or a clear anti-union stance on the part of management were also associated with statistically significantly higher probabilities of multiple union formation. In both cross- sectional and panel data analyses, statistically significantly higher probabilities of multiple union formation were associated with factors such as larger workplace size and whether the previous period’s representative union was affiliated with the FKTU (Federation of Korean Trade Unions) or unaffiliated, as opposed to the KTCU (Korean Confederation of Trade Unions). Looking at the relationship between multiple unions and union density, the number of unions was found to be positively associated with the growth of union density. While this might suggest that multiple unions could significantly affect union density, looking at affiliations revealed that cases where the previous period’s representative union was KTCU-affiliated had relatively lower membership growth rates than otherwise. Focusing on the panel model estimates, the results of the above two empirical analyses may be summarized as follows. First, multiple unions occurred in larger workplaces and in workplaces where the previous period’s representative union was not KTCU-affiliated. While the formation of multiple unions did have the effect of leading to higher overall union density, this was found to be driven mainly by workplaces where the previous period’s representative union was not KTCU-affiliated. These key findings are largely in line with the theoretical or empirical predictions that were made prior to the arrival of multiple unions – that allowing the formation of multiple unions would lead to more unions but wouldn’t bring substantial membership growth, that multiple unions would tend to form in large-scale workplaces or workplaces that were prone to frequent strikes and adversarial industrial relations, and that allowing multiple unions would strengthen the domination / intervention by employers, thus providing the conditions for an industrial relations landscape that is stacked in the favor of management in the long run.