[dragonsh]

It’s not worker which is protected but the union which wields power and union leadership involved in negotiations.

Normally there should be a rule of law which balance the rights of company and worker and has to be reasonable. You turn it other way and it takes away the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest. If they are seen as criminals just if they do not agree with the provisions, they can show dissent only by closing business.

So the said worker whom this union is suppose to save don’t get a job, as entrepreneur will not takes risk of being put in jail, just because he did not agree to unreasonable demand of union. Also there are many other locations in Asia for multi-nationals. So the overall job market suffer if there isn’t a balance between company and worker demands.

Also it’s not really protection of workers, because workers need to work according to unions agenda, which are governed by leadership in those unions. If I am not wrong in Korea there are 2 unions.