사회적 대화기구의 역할과 과제 — 덴마크와 네덜란드의 3자협의체를 중심으로 —

Social dialogue instruments serve to ease social conflicts and create economic benefits in the critical situation in the country. Social dialogue is a means to pursue problem solving through dialogue, while achieving goals such as social justice, economic efficiency and democratic participation. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the European Union (EU) actively encourage social dialogue organizations through agreements and recommendations because social dialogue organizations are desirable in solving economic and social crises, and that is why advanced countries in Europe are spreading social dialogue organizations to the third world. In this sense, social dialogue can be evaluated as positive system contributing to social development, given that social partners, in times of crisis in the nation and society, seek and present reasonable solutions through dialogue. But, as in the case of Korea, if representatives of social dialogue are biased in pursuing only certain interests, it may not help overcome social crises. In particular, critics say that the union’s demand that represents the interests of a small number of full-time workers could lead to unfair consequences for non-regular workers and backfire rather than achieving a fair society originally intended. In this sense, social dialogue system is undemocratic and undesirable. That is why there is widespread distrust in labor-management negotiations and no trust in the tripartite consultative body in Korea. The cases of Denmark and the Netherlands, which have a deep history of social dialogue instruments, offer practical help in understanding the function of dialogue instruments and analyzing their success or failure. In Denmark’s case, the state does not intervene in labor-management relations if possible, labor-related laws are minimal and the parties of the social dialogue body set wage and other working conditions autonomously, the mutual respect and trust between the parties is very strong, and there is little act of dispute, and that the parties of the social dialogue are drawn to benefit everyone by exercising the spirit of compromise and concession. The spirit of the Dutch folder model, which has cooperated with each other to prevent the collapse of the banks even if there is social conflict to protect land below sea level, achieved “Dutch miracle” through a grand compromise between labor and management when the nation faced an economic crisis in the early 1980s. Thus the Dutch labor and management somehow do their best to strengthen national interest and national competitiveness by avoiding confrontation and conflict. Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice the fact that social dialogue systems in Denmark and the Netherlands, which were called the epitome of cooperative dialogue instruments, are also facing a crisis due to the rapid development of technology, digitalization and changes in employment forms. It can be said that social dialogue institutions in all European countries, as well as Denmark and the Netherlands, are facing challenges from rapidly changing socioeconomic realities. This is because the fundamental question arises whether the social dialogue body, which based on traditional subordinate labor, can represent the rapidly rising new form of labor, along with the mega trend of the fourth industrial revolution. Many of the problems facing the world can also be said to be the great task that social dialogue organizations must continue to address; in particular, problems stemming from the polarization of income and rapidly changing environment, the rise of low-income workers, fundamental changes in labor and employment relationships(especially changes and automation caused by technological innovation and digitalization), an increase in informal labor (change due to technological development and low birthrates), an increase in migrant workers and refugees, and an insufficient social safety net. In order to overcome these crises, social dialogue agenda must include not only the present but also the future transformation. Labor and management parties must also consider socioeconomic environment, political stability, their own competitiveness and the development of a sustainable society rather than sticking to the interests of their own groups alone. After all, for social dialogue to function properly, they must quickly adapt to changes in society beyond collective selfishness and transform themselves into “living instruments” that contribute to the welfare and national interests of the absolute majority.