Abstract
The advanced countries for industrial accident prevention take the view that use of contractors in itself does not result in poor safety and health standards, but poor management can lead to injuries, ill health and additional costs. Therefore, regulations such as prohibition of contract and approval of contract stipulated in Occupational Safety and Health Act in Korea are not found at all. Developed countries for industrial accident prevention do not stipulate the same obligations as those who receive contracts to those who give contracts like the Occupational Safety and Health Act in Korea.
While the UK, Germany, and Japan are all taking a sophisticated and sophisticated approach to effective implementation at the government level, Korea is facing many problems in terms of the sophistication and effectiveness of the risk assessment legislation due to the government's lack of authenticity and expertise. Recently, the risk assessment has been downgraded through the revision of the notice (Guidelines on workplace risk assessment).
Unlike Korea, all advanced industrial accident prevention countries focus on developing and continuously distributing industrial accident techniques rather than direct financial support. In addition to inspecting and supervising small and medium-sized enterprises, the government has developed industrial accident prevention techniques suitable for the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, guiding and promoting them on a large scale.
In ILO, advanced countries for industrial accident prevention, labor inspectors are considered important in the role of judicial police officers and the role of administrators in advance prevention, while Korea lacks awareness of the importance of professional prevention guidance and neglects its role.
In the case of advanced industrial accident prevention countries, apart from the operation of certification bodies, government ministries are actively enacting OSHMS guidelines and guiding and promoting them. This is because government ministries need to play the role of a control tower, such as setting and guiding directions for workplaces and certification agencies regarding OSHMS. On the other hand, the Korean government has never enacted OSHMS guidelines, and it is simply approaching punishment rather than continuously guiding and promoting OSHMS.
In the case of advanced countries for industrial accident prevention, there is no case of ordering to receive safety and health diagnosis only from designated institutions, which are private institutions like Korea, just because a serious industrial accident has occurred. The supervisory authority is responsible for the investigation of the cause of the industrial accident, and it is requested to an expert (specialized institution) regardless of whether it is a designated institution or not, only if it requires a high level of expertise.
Korea has many problems with the Occupational Safety and Health Act even with much more administrative personnel and costs than advanced countries for industrial accident prevention. Only when these problems are solved can Korea's occupational safety and health legislation be substantially advanced.
While the UK, Germany, and Japan are all taking a sophisticated and sophisticated approach to effective implementation at the government level, Korea is facing many problems in terms of the sophistication and effectiveness of the risk assessment legislation due to the government's lack of authenticity and expertise. Recently, the risk assessment has been downgraded through the revision of the notice (Guidelines on workplace risk assessment).
Unlike Korea, all advanced industrial accident prevention countries focus on developing and continuously distributing industrial accident techniques rather than direct financial support. In addition to inspecting and supervising small and medium-sized enterprises, the government has developed industrial accident prevention techniques suitable for the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, guiding and promoting them on a large scale.
In ILO, advanced countries for industrial accident prevention, labor inspectors are considered important in the role of judicial police officers and the role of administrators in advance prevention, while Korea lacks awareness of the importance of professional prevention guidance and neglects its role.
In the case of advanced industrial accident prevention countries, apart from the operation of certification bodies, government ministries are actively enacting OSHMS guidelines and guiding and promoting them. This is because government ministries need to play the role of a control tower, such as setting and guiding directions for workplaces and certification agencies regarding OSHMS. On the other hand, the Korean government has never enacted OSHMS guidelines, and it is simply approaching punishment rather than continuously guiding and promoting OSHMS.
In the case of advanced countries for industrial accident prevention, there is no case of ordering to receive safety and health diagnosis only from designated institutions, which are private institutions like Korea, just because a serious industrial accident has occurred. The supervisory authority is responsible for the investigation of the cause of the industrial accident, and it is requested to an expert (specialized institution) regardless of whether it is a designated institution or not, only if it requires a high level of expertise.
Korea has many problems with the Occupational Safety and Health Act even with much more administrative personnel and costs than advanced countries for industrial accident prevention. Only when these problems are solved can Korea's occupational safety and health legislation be substantially advanced.
| Translated title of the contribution | A Critical Review of Occupational Safety and Health Legislation — Focus on Recent Issues — |
|---|---|
| Original language | Korean |
| Pages (from-to) | 101-158 |
| Number of pages | 58 |
| Journal | 노동법포럼 |
| Issue number | 39 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2023 |