abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Cette page n’est pas disponible en Français et est affichée en English

Le contenu est également disponible dans les langues suivantes: English, 한국어

Article

23 Oct 2024

Auteur:
Jungnam Je, Labor today

S. Korea: Platform and freelance workers’ unemployment benefit uptake remains alarmingly low

“Unemployment benefit uptake among platform and freelance workers— ‘a mere 0.68%’”, 24 October 2024

…According to the recent report by the Worker's Citizen Research Institute and Union Centre, ‘Closing Gaps in Social Safety Nets for Precarious Workers Outside the System’, (….) ’ 18 specific roles within the realms of platform and freelance work are currently eligible for employment insurance, following the gradual expansion of coverage since 2021 when 12 job categories, including quick service and ride-hailing drivers.

…Analysis of data from the National Tax Service reveals that the number of self-employed individuals not classified as wage earners surged by 1.37 million between (…) 2020 and 2022. (…) Alarmingly, the uptake of unemployment benefits among those insured under employment insurance stands at just 0.68%.

The report notes, “Considering that the unemployment benefit uptake rate for wage workers, including permanent and casual employees, is approximately 6.24%, the rate for labour service providers is strikingly low. The high initial income threshold (monthly earnings of over 800,000 won) set for eligibility criteria has contributed to a significant loss of insurance qualification.”