(1996-97년) 노동법 개정과 국가 자본 노동의 역학관계

Abstract

이 논문은 조직노동운동을 제도화하려 했던 최초의 시도로서 노사관계개혁위원외(이하 노개위)의 노동법 개정 활동에 일차적으로 주목하고, 국가·자본·노동의 역학관계가 선명이 드러났었던 노동법 개정 전 과정을 분석하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 이러한 분석을 통해서 노개위가 출범할 수 있었던 요인은 무엇인지, 그리고 노개위가 추진하려고 했던 노동법 개정에 대한 타협은 왜 실패하였고 그 과정은 왜 계속 굴절되었는지, 또한 총파업을 거쳐 재개정된 노동법은 어떤 의미를 갖는지 등을 규명해보고자 하였다. 먼저 노동법 개정을 시도하게 된 구조적인 측면을 살펴보기 위해 국가·자본·노동의 구조적 조건을 먼저 분석하였다. 김영삼 정부의 출범으로 정치적 민주화가 공고화되고 있었지만 노동법 개정 시도가 국가 내 보수 세력과 재벌들의 반대로 철회된 이후 노동 배제적 노동통제정책은 지속되고 있었다. 자본은 임금과 노동시장의 유연화를 도입해 개별노동자들에 대한 통제를 강화하면서 자본 우위의 노사관계를 유지하려고 했다. 그리고 국가의 직접적인 통제에 저항하면서 성장한 노동운동 세력들이 민주노총으로 결집하면서 민주노총은 조직노동의 대표성을 획득하고 있었다. 이러한 역학관계에서 국가나 자본이 노동시장의 유연화를 법제화하기 어려웠고 조직노동도 노동기본권 요구를 관철시킬 수 없었다. 이러한 국가·자본·노동 간의 역학관계에서 노동법 개정을 시도할 수 있었던 것은 조직노동을 제도화하여 자본주의 경제발전을 도모하고자 했던 국가 내 개혁적 관료들에 의해서였다. 이들 개혁관료들은 문민정부의 개혁 작업이라는 것과 노동법 개정에 대한 국내외적인 압력을 이용하여 국가 리더십을 설득할 수 있었고 노개위 출범도 추동할 수 있었다. 이들은 노동과 자본과의 타협으로 노동운동을 제도화하는 한편 고용의 유연화를 도입하는 노동법을 구상하고 있었고 실제로 민주노총은 노동법 개정 협상에 참여하게 되었다. 하지만 일보 개혁관료들에 의해서 추진되었던 노동법 개정은 이들의 취약한 지지기반에 의해서 좌절되었고 여기에 협상주체들이 배타적인 이해관계를 고수하면서 노동과 자본의 타협은 이루어질 수 없었다. 개혁관료들은 소모적인 노사관계의 지양이라는 명분에만 동의할 뿐 조직노동의 수용에 실제로 반대하거나 필요성을 인식하지 못했던 대다수 국가권력으로부터 지지를 받지 못했고, 노개위의 노동법 개정 방향을 사실상 거부했었던 재벌이나 한국노총도 노동법 개정에 대한 타협을 불가능하게 했다. 조직이 합법화되는 대신 정리해고제나 변형근로제를 논의해야 했던 민주노총도 조직 내부의 갈등으로 쉽게 타협에 이르지 못했다. 결국 노동과 자본의 타협은 실패하였고 노동법은 정부와 국회에서 날치기로 개악 처리된 것이다. 노동법이 이처럼 왜곡된 원인은 무엇보다 개혁관료들의 협소한 지지기반과 일관된 국가리더쉽의 부재, 그리고 독점자본으로부터 자유로울 수 없었던 국가의 제한된 자율성 등 국가 수준의 문제점이 가장 큰 요인이라고 할 수 있다. 민주노총 중심으로 전개되었던 총파업을 거쳐 여야 합의로 재개정된 노동법은 노개위에서 논의되었던 수정공익안에 근접하는 수준으로 처리되었는데 이것은 결국 노개위의 공익안을 무시한 채 노동법을 개악하여 날치기 통과시킨 것은 오히려 조직노동의 동원력을 과시할 수 있는 기회를 제공해준 오류였다고 할 수 있다. 결과적으로 재개정된 노동법은 조직노동을 포섭하고 노동시장의 유연화를 도입하과 했던 노개위 추진세력의 의지가 관철된 것이라고 평가할 수 있다. 노동의 요구대로 노동기본권을 보장하여 노동운동을 제도화하였고, 정리해고가 2년 유예되었지만 자본의 요구대로 노동력의 유연화와 노조 활동을 위축시키는 조항들을 법제화했기 때문이다. 이러한 법제화는 노조의 기반을 약화시키고 개별노동자에 대한 자본의 통제력을 강화시킨다는 점에서 분명 자본에 유리한 입법이지만 조직노동이 그 동안의 제약에서 벗어날 수 있게 되었고 국가가 일방적인 노동통제정책의 전환을 모색하게 되었다는 점에서 조직노동이 획득한 노동기본권도 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 이제 노동은 조직역량을 결집하고 정치 세력화할 수 있는 토대를 마련한 한편 국가와 자본으로부터 어려운 선택을 강요받게 된 것이다.;This thesis aims to analyze the whole process of revision of labor laws in 1996-97, trying not only to institutionalize the organized labor for the first time but also to introduce flexible systems of labor market. This process of revision of labor laws through Industrial Relation Reform Committee(IRRC) was made known the dynamic relation of nation, capital and labor. So this study focuses on how the IRRC could be formed, why the process of revising the labor laws was frustrated and how the revised labor laws should be modified once again after general strikes can be appreciated. First this theses pays attention to the structural conditions of nation, capital and labor to show why the revision of labor laws was initiated. Kim Young Sam's government was inaugurated to consolidated political democracy, namely procapitalist democracy. At early phrase of Kim's government, there was an attempt to reform the labor laws that was criticized as a instrument to repress the labor movement and couldn't reflect the dynamic relation of capital-labor. Such an intention, however, was frustrated by conservative sections of ruling party and nation apparatus' resistance, above all, Chae-Bul's strong opposition. Since then, any attempt to revise the labor laws has bee delayed and repressive labor policies has been persisted. Capital, has opposed the revision of labor laws would secure laborer's rights, has strengthen it's control over laborer in workplace by introducing the new management strategies. Labor, has resisted nation's repression distressfully, has grown to form another peak labor organization KCTU(Korean Confederation of Trade Unions) against FKTU(Federation of Korean Trade Unions). KCTU had strong potentiality to mobilize laborers by including many large and weighty unions and had heritage of union movement with militancy from the experience of hardships. As a result, it could be said that KCTU represented the interest of Organized labor actually and could not be excluded or repressed anymore. Under the such structural conditions, it was reformative bureaucrats that propelled the revision of labor laws and organization of IRRC. Their intention was overcoming the costly industrial relation and construction the industrial peace to develop capitalist economy. Actually these bureaucrats made an attempt to legalize KCTU and disuse clauses had prohibited union's activities according to labor's strong demand. Instead of securing the labor's rights, they tried to exchange this for neoimperialism policies like layoff, flexible labor market and wage system. There were favourable environments for them to establish IRRC to revise labor laws, because Kim's government was anxious for joining OECD had demanded the revision of labor laws of Korea and capital as well as government perceiving the change of paradigm in production has demanded introduction of flexible new production system anyway. Most of all, they showed that the labor policies of government excluding KCTU could not accomplish it's aims and resulted in intensifying of labor movements. Finally KCTU could participate in negotiating to revise labor laws as peak labor organization at the first time. But the attempt to revise labor laws extensively had to be suffered a setback. The strategy of reformative bureaucrats to exchange the interest of capital and labor only to fail in getting support of other bureaucrats in government and making capital and labor compromise. Most bureaucrats in government and capital, especially chae-Bul, opposed to reformative bureaucrats' intention to legalize KCTU and secure the union's political activity, didn't make a compromise with KCTU. FKTU, was recognized as a only peak labor organization from the authoritarian regime, opposed to KCTU's legalization also although it claimed the labor's fundamental rights and made impossible to be agreed to the revision of the labor laws. What is more, KCTU was always suffering from dispute of participation in IRRC and compromise with a matter of revision between soft line and hard line, because they were pressed to accept the legislation of layoff, flexible working system at the price of institutionalization of labor movement. Besides, the economic destress was deepen at the second half of the 1996. The newly appointed economy minister and secretary would like to implement more flexible production system to solve the economic downturn without recognition of KCTU and reformation of labor rights. As market-oriented economy bureaucrats got the influence, chae-Bul put a veto on compromise with labor. Finally IRRC couldn't encourage to compromise of the revision of labor laws completely. The labor laws were distorted in government and the National Assembly determinately. The ruling party, never had autonomy from Chae-Bul, passed the labor laws coming into operation the layoff immediately and delaying the legalization of KCTU in itself without deliberation with opposition party. The passed labor law and the opposition to ruling party brought general strike of labor on a large scale and KCTU-led strike deterred the execution of government and forced Kim's government to revise labor laws once again. At last the labor laws were revised with agreement of ruling party and opposition party and determined at the level mediation committee suggested originally. It was opportunity that ruling party passed the labor laws alone gave the organized labor to show its mobilization power. Therefore it can be said that the attempt of the reformative bureaucrats to co-opt the organized labor and introduce the flexible labor market was accomplished. According to labor's claim, the revised labor laws secured the labor rights and institutionalized the labor movement. On the other hand, the labor laws was legislated to guarantee a flexible labor market and to shrink the union's activity though the legislation of layoff was put off. These legislations can be estimated to be favorable to capital in that they can make union feeble and strengthen employer's control to rank and file. We can't underestimate, However, the clauses that the organized labor acquired through the hard way. The organized labor can multiply it's power resource to be social partner not to be overlooked and make government consider the transition of labor policies. Now, the labor is able to construct the foundation to be a political power and is forced to make a choice but to weaken itself at the same time.