Reform of the public service personnel system and basic labor rights
Reform of the public service personnel system was proposed by the Koizumi
Administration two years ago, as part of its declared commitment to push
for structural reforms in Japan. There is a risk, however, that unless
some sort of agreement is reached among government, labor and management,
submission of the bill to the current Diet session will be postponed.
Since 1948, when Japan was under US occupation, the basic labor rights
of Japanese public service personnel have been restricted as follows.
(1) Public service personnel engaged in clerical work: Have the right to
organize, but collective bargaining and strikes are banned.
(2) Industrial civil service staff members such as those engaged in printing,
minting coins and notes, and forestry: Have the right to organize and to
collective bargaining, but strikes are banned.
(3) Police, Fire Department, Self Defense Force and prison employees: Organizing,
collective bargaining, and strikes are banned.
As compensation for these restrictions, the National Personnel Authority
--which is not subject to Cabinet command or orders in individual business
operations--have traditionally overseen public service personnel's working
conditions and benefits such as wages in the light of trends in the private
sector.
The focus of the controversy involving the revised bill is as follows:
On the one hand, the government and the ruling party are working to push
reforms of the public service personnel system, most notably by introducing
a performance-based grading system. Labor unions, on the other hand, state
that, if that is the case, then they would strongly demand a revival of
basic labor rights that would enable labor and management in the public
service sector to voluntarily conduct negotiations and to conclude collective
agreements, just like in the private sector.
Without these safeguards, the labor union side would strongly oppose the
reforms, because (1) introduction of a performance-based grading system
would ultimately weaken the functions of the National Personnel Authority
and strengthen the authority of the Cabinet (their employer), and (2) the
fact that "grading, which influences promotions, wage hikes and personnel
transfers, should be subject to administrative management, not to negotiations"
would result in labor unions being given no say whatsoever, leading to
a situation in which employees' wages and appointments would be determined
entirely to the advantage of the employers.
Shortly before this, in mid-April, the chairman representing the labor
side on the ILO Board paid a call on the Japanese government and handed
in a written request, urging the government to conscientiously fulfill
the recommendations it had received from the ILO in the fall of 2002.
The written request featured the signatures of all of ILO's 33 board of
directors on the labor side, who demanded that the Japanese government
(1) reconsider their intention of publicly announcing its plan to maintain
the existing regulations limiting public service personnel's basic labor
rights, and (2) hold full-scale, frank, and meaningful discussions with
the relevant labor unions to investigate the six items which the Committee
for the Freedom of Association alleges that the existing system violate
the principle of freedom of association.
The bill still leaves substantial room for discussion with the union side, whose members are urging the establishment of public service
personnel/labor relations that comply with international standards. Whether or not the bill will be submitted is largely up in the air, especially since the government hopes to avoid any unnecessary confusion in the Diet.