South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has proposed a provocative shift in the nation’s labor strategy, arguing that non-regular workers should receive higher pay than regular employees when performing the same work under the same conditions. Speaking on Thursday, April 9, 2026, the President asserted that the current system fails to account for the inherent risk and instability faced by temporary staff.
During the first general meeting of the National Economic Advisory Council held at the Blue House, President Lee challenged the conventional logic of employment stability. He argued that since regular employees are already compensated through the “reward” of job security, those in precarious positions should be financially compensated for their instability to balance the scales. This approach signals a move toward a more pragmatic, results-oriented labor policy designed to reduce the anxiety and desperation associated with non-regular employment.
The President’s remarks reach amid a growing concern over the “balloon effect” in the South Korean job market, where strict protections for regular employees have inadvertently led companies to avoid hiring permanent staff altogether. By advocating for higher wages for the precarious workforce, Lee aims to address the fundamental imbalance of the labor market without relying solely on the forced conversion of temporary roles into permanent ones.
The Logic of “Instability Compensation”
President Lee’s core argument rests on the idea that stability itself is a form of non-monetary compensation. He noted that in South Korea, it is currently common for those with unstable employment to receive less pay, a trend he described as “fundamentally wrong.”
According to the President, if non-regular workers are paid a premium to offset their lack of security, the intense desire and anxiety surrounding the pursuit of regular status may diminish. This “instability compensation” is intended to make non-regular work a viable and fair option rather than a secondary tier of employment. President Lee emphasized that under equal conditions, it is common sense for the person facing instability to receive more pay.
Critiquing the “Two-Year Limit” Loophole
A significant portion of the President’s critique focused on the existing legal framework that limits non-regular employment to two years. The law was originally designed to force companies to convert temporary workers into regular employees once the two-year threshold is reached. However, Lee argued that the policy has produced the opposite of its intended effect.
He pointed out that companies now frequently terminate contracts at the 1-year and 11-month mark specifically to avoid the legal mandate to provide permanent employment. This practice, he claimed, effectively forces “employment for less than two years” rather than encouraging permanent hiring. Lee called for the creation of policies that actually benefit workers rather than creating systemic contradictions.
A Shift Toward Pragmatic Labor Policy
Beyond wage adjustments, President Lee urged the government and policymakers to move away from ideological battles and embrace a pragmatic approach to labor regulation. He suggested that the traditional obsession with “employment stability” has been undermined by corporate tactics, such as the excessive leverage of subcontractors and fixed-term contracts to avoid hiring regular staff.
To counter these “tricks,” the administration is considering several practical measures to improve the actual living standards of workers, regardless of their contract status. These include:
- Wage Increases: Direct pay raises for non-regular workers to compensate for job insecurity.
- Unemployment Benefit Reform: Easing the requirements for receiving unemployment benefits to provide a stronger safety net for those between contracts.
- Regulatory Flexibility: Approaching labor regulations with a focus on practical outcomes rather than adherence to specific political values.
This pivot suggests that the administration may prioritize “income security” and “social safety nets” over the rigid goal of “job title conversion,” recognizing that the corporate appetite for regular hiring has significantly declined. President Lee stated that labor policies should not be bound by ideology or value but should be approached practically.
Broader Economic Implications
The National Economic Advisory Council meeting as well touched upon the broader structural health of the economy. In addition to labor concerns, President Lee discussed the need to improve the economic constitution of the country and suppress real estate speculation.
One notable proposal mentioned during the session involves corporate real estate. The administration is reviewing the possibility of imposing substantial holding burdens on non-business real estate owned by companies. This move is intended to discourage corporations from using real estate as a speculative investment vehicle and instead encourage the productive use of capital.
Key Takeaways from the President’s Proposal
| Current System/Issue | President Lee’s Proposed Shift | Intended Goal |
|---|---|---|
| Regulars get stability; Non-regulars get lower pay | Non-regulars receive a “risk premium” (higher pay) | Reduce anxiety and balance compensation |
| 2-year limit forces regular conversion | Reform mandates that lead to “1 year 11 month” firing | Prevent systemic loopholes in hiring |
| Ideological focus on “Permanent Status” | Pragmatic focus on “Actual Treatment” | Improve real-world welfare (wages, benefits) |
| Strict unemployment benefit criteria | Relaxed eligibility requirements | Strengthen the social safety net for temporary workers |
As the administration moves forward with these proposals, the focus will likely shift to how these “pragmatic” changes will be codified into law and whether corporate interests will resist the mandate for higher non-regular wages. The next steps will involve detailed policy drafting by the National Economic Advisory Council to determine the specific mechanisms for wage adjustments and the relaxation of unemployment benefit requirements.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts on this approach to labor compensation in the comments below. Do you believe a “risk premium” for temporary workers is a viable solution to job insecurity?