Same pay for the same work

公平な給与

The seniority-based lifetime employment system makes it difficult to slash the wages of regular workers, so employers try to cut payroll costs by letting go older workers who draw relatively high salaries. Staff shortages are covered by hiring part-time workers who can be paid much less than full-time employees. With fewer full-time jobs available, the jobless rate remains high.

Part-time employment has soared in the past several years as companies, large and small, have stepped up efforts to replace full-time employees with part-time and temporary workers. This is particularly true of midsize and large companies. In fact, various surveys show that this shift to part-time hiring — part of an escalating drive to reduce personnel costs — is reaching epidemic proportions across a broad spectrum of industries.

The young generation has a negative perception of the lifetime employment system, and with good reason. Company allegiance is no longer synonymous with lifelong service; regular workers are now considered to be almost as expendable as part-time and temporary workers. Even career-track workers in the prime of life may be suddenly forced to take early retirement if their organization falters. At home, jobless fathers are often regarded as "nuisances" because these former "corporate warriors" have little to offer when it comes to housekeeping and child care.

Seniority-based wages are part and parcel of the lifetime employment system. But many young workers believe — correctly — that they are not fairly rewarded under the age-indexed pay system. The fact is that employment is taking many different forms, thanks to the growing size of the service industry in the economy.

This is creating a new class of temporary, part-time or contract-based workers who hold more than one part-time job. Mostly young people, these workers apparently have little difficulty dividing their time between or among different firms. Indeed, working part-time appears to be an integral part of their free-wheeling lifestyle. But there is a big problem: the widening wage gap between regular employees and temporary workers.

According to the report, of the 60 million workers in 2001 (not including farmers and forestry workers), 24 percent were part-time workers who worked no more than 35 hours a week. Their numbers, which stood at 10 percent in 1980 and 15 percent in 1990, have continued to rise at an accelerated pace in recent years.

In 2001, the average hourly wage for regular workers was ¥2,778, compared with ¥1,026 for part-time workers. The gap is unsettling: Regular employees are earning nearly three times as much as their temporary counterparts. Pay for full-time workers has also declined, but only slightly. As the report puts it, "the increasing number of part-time workers is helping to push down both the average number of working hours and the average level of hourly wages."

Cost-conscious employers may be tempted to hire part-time workers as an easy way to pare payroll costs, but if such a practice becomes widespread it will likely impede efforts to build a vigorous economic society. For one thing, the huge wage gap may have a demoralizing effect on part-time employees. It is certainly unfair to pay them less than half what regulars get for doing the same work.

If nothing is done to improve this situation, job-hopping will become the norm among part-time and other temporary workers. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but if they continue to be treated as marginal workers, our economic society will lose vitality. They should be employed in a positive manner as a means of reinvigorating the work force, not just of cutting labor costs.

To that end, both labor and management need to work together to develop mutually beneficial solutions. The government, for its part, needs to turn around its labor policy to break the employment stalemate. Establishing a legal principle calling for the same pay for the same job will be a step in the right direction. Creating a system of "part-time regular employees" is another step worth considering. It is hoped that discussions on these and other forward-looking proposals will bear fruit.

The Japan Times: July 12, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

      年功序列に基づく終身雇用制では正社員の賃金カットが難しいため、企業は給与の高い中高年社員を退職させ、賃金の安いパートタイマーの採用で人員不足を補って人件費削減に努めている。

      若い世代は終身雇用制に否定的だが、当然だ。会社に忠誠を誓っても職が一生保証されるわけではない。正社員も使い捨ての時代であり、エリート社員といえども会社の業績が悪化すれば早期退職を余儀なくされる。家庭では失業した父親は厄介者扱い。かつての企業戦士も、家事や子育てとなると役に立たないからだ。

      サービス産業の拡大で多様な雇用形態が出現し、複数の勤務先を持つ臨時、パート、契約社員といった新しい労働者層が生まれた。パートタイム勤務は彼らの自由な生活スタイルに必要な形態だ。しかし、大きな問題もある。正社員と臨時社員の給与格差の拡大だ。

      前述の白書によれば、2001年には労働者の24%が週に35時間労働を超えないパートタイム勤務だった。 平均時給が正社員の2,778円に対し、パート社員は1,026円。パート社員の増加が平均労働時間と平均時給の低下に寄与している。

      安易な人件費削減策としてのパート雇用が広がると、不公平な給与格差がパート社員のやる気をそいでしまい、経済の活性化を妨げることになりかねない。労使は協力して解決策を探る必要がある。

      政府は雇用停滞の打開に向けて労働政策を改善しなくてはならない。同等の仕事には同等の報酬の支払いを義務づける法律の制定に踏み出すべきだろう。「パートタイム正社員」の仕組み作りも検討に値する。

      これらの課題や将来を見据えた他の提案に関する議論の結実を願いたい。

The Japan Times Weekly
July 20, 2002
(C) All rights reserved