[조혜윤] 231217 중대재해법 논술

[조혜윤]

논제: 중대재해처벌법의 실효성과 논란에 대해 논하고 본인의 입장을 설명하시오

In 2021, the legislation for Serious Accidents Punishment Act (hereafter SAPA) was initiated to prevent consecutive cases of on-the-job deaths. SAPA was enacted with the recognition that serious occupational incidents stem from systemic and structural issues within companies, such as inadequate safety management systems and the absence of risk management systems. Most importantly, the act holds employers or executives accountable for their duty to improve and assure safety of workers by preventing major industrial accidents. If employers or higher-ups violate their duty to assure safe working conditions, and they lead to major industrial accidents, they could be criminally punished. The law initially targeted businesses with 50 or more employees. Starting from next year, the law will be applied to workplaces with a workforce of 5 to less than 50 employees. Recently, regarding the application of law for smaller workforces, the ruling party and DP are pushing for an amendment to postpone the law application for additional two years. Civil societies claim that postponing the law application to businesses fewer than 50 employees, where 80% of work-related fatalities occur, implies continuing to push workers to death.

Those advocating for the postponement claim lack of business preparedness as the reason. This is true, but does not necessarily prove that the law puts excessive burden on employers. Rather, what the political circles should discuss is, how the government should allocate finances for employers so that they can better implement safety measures. For instance, a most notable initiative by the Ministry of Labor is financing small businesses for training and recruitment of safety and health management personnels. This initiative has been hailed as key for SMEs since they lack financial means to do so, and most importantly, having authorities for on-site inspections and interventions are critical for preventing occupational injuries or deaths. Nevertheless, both businesses and labor unions argue that the effectiveness of this initiative is questionable due of lack of support from the government. Indeed, lack of specialized personnel and insufficient budget emphasize the urgent need for bold government support. And thus postponing the act could in fact give a justificatory allibi for the government to not come up with concrete plans to execute implementation and financial allocation for building safety measures.

For instance, small-scale manufacturing industries, which recorded higher number of on-the-job deaths, face challenges as they lack the budget to subcontract safe machinery installations. This inevitably results in a higher rate of fatal accidents.  Hence, the fairness of punishment needs to be considered. Public institutions, which do not involve dangerous duties, allocate budgets to prevent major accidents, while industries with significant risk factors such as shipbuilding or construction struggle to prevent fatal accidents. It would be more efficient to implement the safety and health management systems in high-risk industries first.

Furthermore, some believe the law is more so focused on penalizing employers, which could heavily restrict profit-making and business activities. However, on the contrary, the level of penalties imposed on companies during the two years of enforcement has been merely a slap on the wrist. Despite over 450 major accidents occurring since the enactment of the law, only around 30 cases have been prosecuted. Of the 11 cases that have received court rulings, all but one were given suspended sentences. This has led to criticism that, compared to the fear propagated by businesses, the actual penalties are not that substantial.

Discussions on the postponement of law application may only cause side effects, such as negligence of poor labor conditions. The politics must ramp up their efforts to discuss what ought to be done in order to protect workers' rights to safety, regardless of the size of workplace they provide labor for.

[김정후]

논리와 근거 모두 탄탄한 글이라는 인상이 들었습니다. 특히 다양한 예시와 수치를 통해 논지를 진행한 점이 좋았습니다. 노동계 내에서도 경우에따라 근거를 들어주셔서 글이 더욱 탄탄해진 듯합니다. 반론에 대한 전략도 잘 드러난 글인 듯합니다.

[UNGP]

정부가 나아가야할 방향을 본인의 생각대로 짚어준 부분이 좋았습니다. 글의 구조도 탄탄하다고 느껴졌고 수치 인용도 좋았습니다. 분량을 조금 줄이고 대신 글의 퀄리티를 더 올리는 방향으로 가면 어떨까 합니다. 지금 글이 안 좋다는 뜻이 아니라 분량을 줄여서 여유를 더 확보하면 충분히 더 좋은 글이 나올 수 있을 것 같다는 피드백이었습니다. 감사합니다.

[송정현]

전체적으로 퀄리티가 높은 글이었습니다. 다만 서론을 조금은 줄이고 본론과 결론에 조금 더 힘을 실어주시면 더 좋은 글이 될 것 같습니다. 많은 예시와 통계 자료를 넣어주셔서 현안에 대해 잘 알고 있다는 게 눈에 보입니다. 잘 읽었습니다

[질홍칭구]

반론을 언급해서 주장을 펼치는 게 좋았습니다. 논리와 근거가 잘 연결되는 글이라고 생각했습니다.