산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 87 노 동 정 책 연 구 2005. 제5권 제2호 pp. 87118 c 한 국 노 동 연 구 원 산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석: 보건의료노조의 사례 이주희 * 2004,,,.. 1990. : 2005 4 7, :4 7, :6 10 * (jlee@ewha.ac.kr)
88 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호,, (, 2003). 1987 1998 2 2004. 40 10% 2004 3 6. 11 (),. 100. 1999 2003. 5,,,.,.,.. 2) 2).., (),,.,, (wildcat militancy).
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 89., 2004. 2004,.. 1998,. 2000, 2001. 2002 63. 200 2002, 2003 3) 26 (wage drift). (wildcat cooperation), (Rogers and Streeck, 1995). 3) 2002 34% 2003 82%.
90 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호,. 2003 6 45 2004, 2003 10 2004, 2003 9. 2003 116 93,,,.. 1959 2004 1,100 (, 2003)., 2004 3. 10. 2004 2 6, 5 12. 6 5 :,,,,,, (2003),.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 91. 3 171 6 512,,,, 6 10. (). 10 5,. 6 9. 98,, 23...,,. 2004 (, 2004). 6 13 77% 6 10. 6 9 5,50010,000 4) 6 23, 7. 4) (5,500)( 10,000) (, 2004).
92 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 2004 66, 19882003 1988. 198889 1990. 2000,. 2004. 2004 66,. [ 1]. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - 보건의료분규수 전체분규수 : 1) 2 28. 2). 1988 1989 1988. 3),. : DB
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 93, 5. 6 20 5). 13 6 22 6 23. 4,.,., 6),. 7 2729 75.4% 78.6%. 1980,., < 1> 1980, 2000. 2004 5) : 1 8 1 40, 1;, 25 ;. 6).
94 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 1 1 1988 1 1 4 5 3 2 14 1 3 2 15 2 2 5 30 1989 4 1 2 7 10 5 1 2 18 1990 1 1 1 1 2 1991 1 1 1 1 1992 1 1 1 1 1993 2 2 1 1 2 1994 2 2 1 1 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1996 1 1 2 2 1997 1 1 1998 1 1 1 4 5 1999 3 3 1 1 2 6 6 2 2 2000 1 1 6 6 1 3 4 4 4 2001 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2002 1 7 8 1 1 1 1 4 8 2003 1 1 2 2 8 8 13 13 2004 16 16 14 14 15 15 : (1)(7). : DB.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 95 2004 ()* 1000 18 1800 1006 322 17.1 500999 6 736 352 66 14.0 300499 7 385 224 71 13.7 100299 26 173 106 37 14.0 100 9 79 41 26 14.0 66 678 378 120 14.8 8( 9) 1616 743 157 21.3 16( 19) 233 138 66 14.0 15( 40) 343 167 26 16.3 14( 29) 1462 885 316 13.8 13( 27) 190 144 60 13.8 66(126) 678 378 120 14.8 : 2004, 2003. : DB., < 2>,. 6 23 53(8/2), (7/23), (7/12), (7/3) 4, 1,000.,.,,....
96 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 102, 65.3% 89.9%.. (10 1). 5, 9(), 3( )1(), 5(), 6() (102 ).,.,. 2004,.,, 2004.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 97 2004 4. < 3>. 70%, 7.5.,. 1,000 100.,, 40., 27.... (47.2%). 97.1%,.. 83.6%, 4.3%, 5.3%.,
98 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호., 2004 10 30., 30.2(1294) 69.8(2993) 29.4 53.5(1894) 46.5(1647) 7.5 2.9 10.1( 446) 18.3( 810) 47.2(2089) 8.6( 380) 15.8( 697) 9.7( 356) 48.7(1789) 41.7(1532) 97.1(3624) 2.9( 107) 0.1( 2) 4.3( 153) 5.7( 204) 83.6(2982) 6.4( 228) :1) 9, 47, 29, 27,, 16.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 99,., 6,, 11. 4 23..,., 2. 5. 60%,. 5 40,. < 4>,.,,,,.
100 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 2.5 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.2 : 1:5:. 2004.,,..,. < 5> 5,. 15 (OLS),,.,,,,.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 101.,,..104 (.136) -.029 *** (.009).139 (.127) -.055 (.332) -.339 ** (.140) -.191 (.148) -.591 (.408) -1.352 *** (.338) -1.584 *** (.383).745 *** (.177).160 (.149).361 *** (.203).400 *** (.169) 3.083 *** (.461) 2544 Nagelkerke R 2.055-2log likelihood 2645.469 Chi-square 93.549 *** Degrees of freedom 13 * p<.1, ** p<.05, *** p<.01
102 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 2004 6 40%(68),,,.... < 6>,.,,.,.,. 2004 5
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 103 1) 2).096 *** (.036).081 (.037) -.002 (.002) -.004 (.003) -.008 (.031).018 (.032) -.025 (.083) -.060 (.086) -.024 (.036) -.041 (.037) -.036 (.037) -.013 (.038) -.035 (.070) -.041 (.072) -.085 (.055) -.117 ** (.056).002 (.070) -.075 (.072).156 *** (.043).133 *** (.045) -.249 *** (.039) -.146 *** (.041) -.046 (.050) -.037 (.052) -.070 (.043) -.023 (.045) 3.433 *** (.102) 3.519 *** (.105) R 2.086.044 * p<.1, ** p<.05, *** p<.01 :1) 1:5:. < 7> < 8>.,,, 5,,,,. 2),,..,,
104 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 ( 7 ).. 50% 5. 2002 252%, 975 93 0.23% 40 9.5% (, 2003). 5.006 (.046).018 (.056).003 (.003).009 ** (.004) -.040 (.040).046 (.049).005 (.108).173 (.130) -.070 (.046) -.010 (.055) -.042 (.047) -.118 ** (.058) -.136 (.091).036 (.111) -.282 *** (.071) -.116 (.086) -.402 *** (.091).092 (.111).248 *** (.056) -.250 *** (.068) -.265 *** (.051) -.561 *** (.062).065 (.065) -.485 *** (.080) -.061 (.056) -.234 *** (.069) 3.701 (.128) 3.632 *** (.156) R 2.073.056 * p<.1, ** p<.05, *** p<.01
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 105 1 8, 5 40. < 7>,,,., 5,. 7) 1980, 1% 1985 26.3%, 1988 2.8%. 8),, (Thomas and Kleiner, 1992). 1 1, 5. 7) 2%, 2005 (, 2004). 8). John T. Dunlop (Boston Globe, 1985 3 7).
106 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호,,,.,. 2001 2, 2003 31.5%(, 2003). < 8>.,.,. 5 2%, 5%,. 1 60%, (, 2004). < 9>. < 8>,,,.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 107,..136 *** (.049).261 *** (.056) -.005 (.003) -.004 (.004).030 (.043) -.136 *** (.049) -.240 ** (.117).171 (.132) -.028 (.050).073 (.056) -.082 (.051) -.033 (.058).137 (.099) -.047 (.112).208 *** (.077).070 (.087).223 ** (.099).429 *** (.112).318 ** (.060).397 *** (.068) -.209 *** (.055) -.302 *** (.062).061 (.071).106 (.080) -.029 (.061) -.122 * (.069) 3.140 *** (.139) 2.749 *** (.157) 2.072.131 * p<.1, ** p<.05, *** p<.01
108 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 2003 2% 5% 2004 5% 5% 2004 2% 2% 2004 5% 2% 2004 1,000(A) 1,187,950 1,247,347 1,247,347 1,211,709 1,211,709 1,000(B) 1,727,497 1,762,047 1,813,872 1,762,047 1,813,872 (B-A) 539,547 514,700 566,525 550,338 602,163 (A/B)100 68.8% 70.8% 68.8% 68.8% 66.8% 2003 2% 5% 2004 5% 5% 2004 2% 2% 2004 5% 2% 2004 1,000(A) 886,807 931,148 931,148 904,543 904,543 1,000(B) 1,253,707 1,278,781 1,316,392 1,278,781 1,316,392 (B-A) 366,900 347,633 385,244 374,238 411,849 (A/B)100 70.7% 72.8% 70.7% 70.7% 68.7% 2003 2% 5% 2004 5% 5% 2004 2% 2% 2004 5% 2% 2004 1,000(A) 1,512,371 1,556,712 1,556,712 1,530,108 1,530,108 1,000(B) 2,537,281 2,562,355 2,599,967 2,562,355 2,599,967 (B-A) 1,024,910 1,005,643 1,043,255 1,032,247 1,069,859 (A/B)100 59.6% 60.8% 59.9% 59.7% 58.9% : =(++)+; %. :,(2003).
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 109. 5,.,, (, 2003),. 2004 5,. 2004. 2004 < 10>,.,,.,.
110 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 +.096 *** +.136 *** +.261 *** -0.29 *** +.009 ** -.136 *** -.240 ** -.339 ** -.118 ** -1.352 *** -.117 ** -.282 *** +.208 *** -1.584 ** -.402 *** +.223 ** +.429 *** +.745 *** +.156 *** +.133 *** +.248 *** -.250 *** +.318 *** +.397 *** -.249 *** -.146 *** -.265 *** -.561 *** -.209 *** -.302 *** +.361 *** -.485 *** +.400 *** -.234 *** -.122 *... 2004.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 111.,..,. 2004.,,.,.. 2004,,.
112 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호..,,,.,. < 11>,. < 12>. 300 2.9, 1,000 7.9,,. < 13>. 1,000 250,.,,.,.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 113. + 300(A) + 3001,000 (B) 1,000 (C) (A/C)100 (B/C)100 + + + + + 4.9 29 936 1,260 1,649 2.9 28.9 864 1,161 1,306 6.2 28.6 915 1,221 1,761 7.9 30.2 1,254 1,727 2,537 68.9 67.2 51.5 73.0 70.7 69.4 100 100 100 7.2 33.2 1,077 1,415 1,833 4.4 32 1,053 1,367 1,533 10.3 34.2 1,011 1,360 2,018 12.5 36.5 1,339 1,761 2,716 78.6 77.6 56.4 75.5 77.2 74.3 115.1 112.3 111.2 3.9 27.1 810 996 1,205 2.2 25.9 783 931 1,017 8.9 30.8 851 1,145 1,680 10.7 31.1 958 1,290 1,997 81.7 72.2 50.9 88.8 88.8 84.1 86.5 79.0 73.1 :,(2003),. 7.4 34.3 986 1,306 1,694 3.7 33.9 906 1,204 1,336 11.3 33.6 1,033 1,370 2,051 15.8 38.5 1,236 1,622 2,521 73.3 74.2 53.0 83.6 84.5 81.4 105.3 103.7 102.7 5.5 31.7 1,008 1,342 1,696 3.6 30.6 978 1,304 1,457 8.4 32.5 956 1,287 1,946 12 36.9 1,328 1,726 2,732 73.6 75.6 53.3 72.0 74.6 71.2 107.7 106.5 102.9 ( :,, ) 3.9 53 678 829 938 3.1 53.4 656 801 869 9.6 49.8 816 1,011 1,428 6.2 52.1 934 1,066 1,351 70.2 75.1 64.3 87.4 94.8 105.7 72.4 65.8 56.9 7.1 51.8 971 1,167 1,359 4.3 53.7 972 1,135 1,271 14.9 46 960 1,247 1,579 20.5 55.2 1,182 1,577 2,408 82.2 72.0 52.8 81.2 79.1 65.6 103.7 92.6 82.4
114 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호,., 10%. ( :, %) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1 13 36 69 912 1215 15 771,571 800,138 912,441 933,547 1,093,179 1,116,110 1,317,961 100 104 118 121 142 145 171 1,032,947 100 1,064,747 103 1,138,931 110 1,200,767 116 1,320,113 128 1,444,119 140 1,703,286 165 780,840 100 809,994 100 1,054,505 1,097,900 1,040,478 1,039,806 1,110,488 1,257,783 135 1,062,709 141 1,128,009 133 1,200,152 133 1,265,538 142 1,367,749 161 1,624,405 131 139 148 156 169 201 1 13 36 69 912 1215 1,020,208 1,066,826 1,182,510 1,291,888 1,455,006 1,592,643 100 105 116 127 143 156 1,264,632 1,345,280 1,772,094 1,641,767 1,997,283 1,890,833 100 106 140 130 158 150 1,117,139 1,307,198 1,416,135 1,414,085 1,358,869 1,462,264 100 117 127 127 122 131 991,321 1,312,915 1,408,940 1,561,223 1,646,472 1,789,303 100 132 142 157 166 180 15 1,830,208 179 2,339,122 185 1,685,077 151 2,198,560 222 1 1,036,837 100 1,356,386 100 1,147,971 100 1,112,945 100 + 13 36 69 1,307,052 1,546,017 1,791,358 126 149 173 2,059,842 152 2,497,059 184 2,427,322 179 1,500,887 131 1,917,821 172 1,683,854 147 2,214,925 199 1,828,103 159 2,481,602 223 912 1215 15 2,195,147 2,327,654 2,679,975 212 224 258 2,935,719 216 2,961,385 218 3,628,366 268 1,918,892 167 2,605,960 234 2,114,918 184 2,765,441 248 2,406,900 210 3,416,762 307 : 1 100. :,(2003),.
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 115 ( : ) 300 4.2 1,026,087 1,252,821 1,501,857 3001,000 6.4 940,669 1,233,449 1,806,401 1,000 7.9 1,253,707 1,727,497 2,537,281 300 2.3 783,523 1,115,127 1,209,975 3001,000 4.1 633,913 1,085,358 1,266,687 1,000 - - - - :,(2003),,..., (2003 6 24)... (2003)..,.. (2004)...., 2003 12 2.. 2004. (2004)...(2003 1 24)...., (2004 5 11)...9 2, pp.109 135. Rogers, Joel and Wolfgang Streeck. The Study of Works Coucils: Concepts and Problems in Joel Rogers and Wolfgang Streeck (eds.) Works
116 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1995). Thomas, Steven L., and Morris M. Kleiner. The Effect of Two-Tier Collective Bargaining Agreements on Shareholder Equity. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45 (2). (1992).
산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 117 abstract Evaluation of Collective Bargaining at the Industry-level: The Case of Korean Health and Medical Workers Union Established in 1998, the Korean Health and Medical Workers Union completed its first industry-level collective bargaining in 2004. Based on the Union's 2004 Survey, which contained about 4,000 union members responses to the questionnaire, I investigated the union members' evaluation of the industry-level bargaining in 2004. Overall, the union members were rather satisfied with the outcome of the industry-level agreement, but their responses differed on specific bargaining items, depending on their status within the Union, and on the characteristics of the hospitals to which they belong. The leaders of the Union were more satisfied with the framework agreement, and less satisfied with the agreement related to improving the working conditions of nonstandard workers, than rank-and-file members were. Compared to the workers in small private hospitals, those workers employed in more profitable public or private university hospitals with higher employers' ability to pay were less satisfied with the wage increase rate, which was lower than the usual due to the introduction of 5-day work. These findings of the paper point to the following two policy recommendations. First, the Union must improve the coordination and cooperation among its hospital locals. The process inevitably involves tightening control of the Union over its locals. Second, it order to secure safe landing of the industry-level bargaining,
118 ꌙ 노동정책연구 2005년 제5권 제2호 the existing wage gap and differences in working conditions between large hospitals and small and medium sized hospitals must be narrowed. Keywords: The Korean Health and Medical Workers' Union, industry-level collective bargaining, employers' ability to pay, industry-level agreement, nonstandard workers, wage gap