NGOs, trade unions, and employers' associations in contested terrain1
Dong-Hoon Seol
The year of 1987 is a turning point not only in the history of Korea’s democratization but also in its international labor migration history. Around this year, outflow of indigenous workers has significantly decreased, while migrant workers from abroad started flowing into Korea to work. Since then, the number of foreign migrant workers rapidly increased with more diversity in their country of origin. Furthermore, Roh Tae-woo government’s Nordpolitik (North-bound Policy) opened up economic and cultural exchanges with China and the USSR and, in the process, the government actively hosted ethnic Koreans’ visit to Korea. Since then, the number ethnic Koreans from China (Joseonjok) and the former Soviet Union including Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan (Goryeoin) increased in Korea. Whether they were ethnic Korean visitors from China and the former Soviet Union or tourists from the less developed countries in East, South and Southeast Asia, the visitors and tourists settled in Korea as migrant workers. As their numbers increased, Korea became one of the labor-importing countries.
The inflow of migrant workers was proof of success of the Korean government’s industrialization policy propelled since the 1960s. The labor market of Korea was suffering from labor shortage in manufacturing sectors. Citizens, having achieved a fast economic development, were no longer willing to take difficult, dirty and dangerous (so called “3-D”) jobs. Thus, small and medium size manufacturing firms and construction companies were experiencing chronic shortage of labor. Furthermore, when the Korean government eased restriction on Koreans traveling abroad, it equally allowed easy entrance to foreigners. As a result, Korea became a “country of opportunity,” where migrant workers could easily enter and find a job.
The government, however, did not take any significant action to manage this new phenomenon until 1990. There was no identification card for the foreign migrant workers to legally work in Korea. No single foreign manual worker could find an appropriate document under the Departures and Arrivals Control Act (DACA), thus becoming an undocumented worker. In the pretext of coping with the labor shortage, the government left the employment of undocumented migrant workers undisturbed until 1991 when it finally adopted the Industrial Technical Training Program (ITTP) for foreigners, which, however, imported “trainees” but not “workers.” ITTP was an expedient policy aimed at providing foreign labor to small and medium size business, while easing criticisms of the trade unions who opposed importation of a foreign labor force. ITTP was put into effect on November 1, 1991 and still exists today as the ITTP of Korean companies with foreign investments.
The government designated the period of June 10 to July 31, 1992 as “volun-tary self-report period for overstayers” and accepted applications to find out the situation of undocumented migrant workers in Korea. The number of undocumented migrant workers self-reported during that period was 61,126 and the number of employers was 10,796. The government extended the permitted overstay period until the end of that year. In addition, in September 1992, the government imported trainees and placed them in companies with no foreign investment records. Ten 3-D small and medium size manufacturing businesses which included dyeing, gliding, heat-treat, metal works, machinery, shoe manufacturing, glass-work, leather, electronics and electric work were permitted to employ a maximum of 10,000 industrial technical trainees with the recommendation from the Minister of Commerce and Industry. But this policy was suspended within a year since its start in April 1993 (Seol 1999: 118–119).
The government tried to replace every undocumented migrant worker with industrial technical trainees by establishing the “1992 Voluntary Self-Report Period.” The government (Ministry of Industry and Commerce) on January 4, 1994 appointed the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (KFSB, Junggihyeop) as the implementing body of ITTP to import industrial technical trainees. Afterwards, the Construction Association of Korea (CAK, Geonhyeop), the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (NFFC, Suhyeop) and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF, Nonghyup) were added as implementing agencies of ITTP to recruit and manage the industrial technical trainees designated to construction, fisheries, and corporate farming sectors and pasture industries.
Before the launch of the Employment Permit Program (EPP) for foreigners on August 17, 2004, ITTP was the key foreign labor policy of Korea. In most cases, “trainees” under the ITTP are not being trained for any specific jobs, but rather filling menial jobs that Koreans refuse to take. Since they are not classified as workers, they are denied the rights of regular workers in Korea, which includes unionizing, collective bargaining and collective action. Therefore, they are regarded as “disguised workers.”
Although the formal foreign labor policy of Korea was ITTP, the Korean employers utilized undocumented workers much more than trainees (Seol and Skrentny 2004). Before the regularization of undocumented workers in September 2003, only 16 percent of foreign workers residing in Korea were industrial technical trainees and post-training workers, while 78 percent were undocumented migrant workers. The remaining 6 percent are professionals or high-skilled workers. Undocumented migrant workers alleviated Korea’s labor shortage and contributed to its economic development, but suffered from unpaid or delayed wages, industrial accidents, occupational illnesses and unreasonable lay-off or dismissal because of their illegal status (JCMK 2001; HRSWM 2002).
The government’s foreign labor policy resulted in uncontrolled illegal overstays of migrant workers, human rights abuses and corruption in recruiting trainees (Seol et al. 2002). Migrant workers who worked in Korea during the late 1980s and early 1990s suffered from extreme wage delays or nonpayment, industrial accidents, physical assaults and sexual violence (see Yoo 1997; Hahm 1997; Seol and Han 2004).
Nevertheless, there also were individuals who took care of the migrant workers when they became victims of such human rights violations, by organizing social groups to assist migrant workers. They have also asked the government to abolish ITTP. The government has modified its foreign labor policy when faced with the criticisms by NGOs. The Act on Employment of Foreign Workers, Etc. was passed in the Korean Assembly on July 31, 2003, which was officially announced on August 16 after a one year preparation period, and was put into effect on August 17, 2004.
At the turning point of foreign labor policy, the objective of this chapter is to look into Korean citizens’ attitudes toward foreign migrant workers for the previous ten years. Koreans have formed their attitude toward migrant workers through direct encounters with them and have found solutions to the problems. The major actors of Korean society in this issue are small and medium size business owners or managers who employ migrant workers, fellow workers who interact with them in everyday life, trade union activists and human rights campaigners. I examine the responses of the different social groups to the influx of migrant workers in order to understand attitudes of accommodating migrant workers.
Small and medium size businesses, suffering from labor shortage, began hiring migrant workers around late 1980s. ITTP was one of the solutions to the manufacturing sector’s labor shortage since 1991. Abella et al. (1994: 75) conducted a survey which asked managers of small and medium size business to cite two solutions to labor shortage in the manufacturing sector. According to their survey, “improving wage level and working conditions” (59 percent), “extend-ing extra-work hours of the existing workers” (44 percent), “adopting laborsaving manufacturing technology” (36 percent) were followed by the “employment of foreign labor” (20 percent) as the fourth solution. They also showed preference in employing migrant workers over “hiring housewives or elderly” (8 percent), or “temporary or expeditionary workers” (5 percent).
An important fact found in this survey is that companies do not sorely rely on employing migrant workers to resolve labor shortage; they at the same time look for alternative solutions. Nonetheless, the labor shortage in the manufacturing sector cannot simply be resolved by the efforts listed above. Structural improvement of small and medium size companies and employment of migrant workers have to take place at the same time. As the labor market grows tighter, employers continue to seek workers from abroad. Employment of the elderly, increased labor force participation by women, and the application of technology to the service sector are expected to reduce the need for migrant workers.
It is important to notice that businesses cannot find a domestic labor force, and the wage level of migrant workers is low. The factors can be explained in two ways. First, the fundamental reason of being unable to find indigenous workers is not on the quantity of workers but on the quality of working life (Kang 1996). Three-D jobs became undesirable to indigenous workers, and thus became works for migrant workers (Abella et al. 1994). This means that even if the wage level slightly increases, 3-D jobs will not be attractive to indigenous workers. In other words, migrant workers do not compete with indigenous workers for the same jobs, but rather take undesirable jobs, forming a mutually beneficial relationship between the migrant workers and indigenous workers.
Second, businesses hire migrant workers because of their low wages. Migrant workers are hired with concentration in “marginal companies” or “sunset industries” (Lee et al. 1995). “Sunset industries” are suffering from chronic labor shortage; hence, it is rather correct to interpret low wages as an additional cause of hiring migrant workers. They hire migrant workers primarily because they cannot find indigenous workers, and are additionally beneficial because labor price of migrant workers is cheap. In particular, wage level of industrial technical trainees is much lower than unskilled indigenous workers and even undocumented migrant workers. Therefore, ITTP benefits marginal companies (Yoo et al. 2005).
Employers generally view migrant workers as “cheap and docile laborers who perform tasks not taken by Koreans” (Seol 1999: 389–390). Employers regard migrant workers as “servants,” “farmhands,” or “maids” of traditional Korean culture who can be hired with much lower wages (Seol and Han 2004: 49). Small and medium size businesses minimize the cost of employing migrant workers and strictly control their everyday life in order to secure cheap labor. Companies who hire industrial technical trainees often confine them and prohibit them from making outside contacts to prevent escape. Many companies hiring undocumented migrant workers delay wage payment and seize their passports for the same reason. Employers of migrant workers consider such discrimination as natural. The greater problem is that such discriminatory treatment is backed by the Korean government’s foreign labor policy – ITTP.
Although companies employing migrant workers show positive position on using foreign labor force, they do not show a unified opinion on the abolition of ITTP and adoption of the EPP. The position of the Korea Employers Federation (KEF ), the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) is that as far as companies suffering from labor shortage can secure supply of labor force, the kind of foreign labor programs does not matter: they are willing to accept the abolition of ITTP. However, KFSB, CAK, NACF and NFFC, all of which work as agencies recruiting industrial technical trainees, strongly oppose the abolition of ITTP.
ITTP not only provides benefits to each of these employers’ associations but also reflects the interests of each government body overseeing them, such as the Small and Medium Business Administration (SMBA) — KFSB, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT) — CAK, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF ) — NFFC, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF ) — NACF.
Indigenous workers’ attitudes toward migrant workers are closely related to their work experience with them. Those who have closely worked with migrant workers, their views have been influenced by their experience, while those who have not had much contact are maybe more accepting of the general attitudes of the society. The overall concept of general Koran workers toward migrant workers is close to the latter case. Most Korean workers have not had any meaningful interaction with migrant workers because of the small number of migrant workers, and are indifferent to the flow of migrant workers.
Migrant workers have been placed into jobs avoided by indigenous workers; therefore, conflict between the two groups on job opportunity and wages has not yet been an issue. However, because problems migrant workers face today is increasingly becoming a labor rights issue, and policy resolutions are being sought, it is necessary to understand indigenous workers’ understanding of the situation with migrant workers.
First, indigenous workers’ attitude toward employment of migrant workers in Korea is examined. When asked the question, “To what degree do you think employment of migrant workers can threaten indigenous workers’ job?” 29 percent answered “encroach seriously” and 54 percent answered “encroach a little” (Seol 1999: 393). In other words, 83 percent of indigenous workers saw migrant workers as a threat to their job security.
However, indigenous workers’ fear that migrant workers would take away their jobs comes from misunderstanding. As explained previously, the jobs migrant workers take are ones avoided by the Koreans, the sectors experiencing chronic labor shortage. Migrant workers are not “thieves” who snatched indigenous workers’ jobs, but rather should be seen as “rescue forces” who fill up vacancies in the labor market.
Another issue the employment of migrant workforce can produce is the level of wages. To find answer, I conducted a survey of indigenous workers to determine the influence of migrant workers on level of wages (Seol 1999: 394–395). In order to find the wage level of migrant workers they think is appropriate, they were asked to write down “the reasonable percentage” compared to novice indigenous workers, given that the real wage includes housing and meals. The reasonable average wage level indigenous workers thought appropriate according to migrant workers’ legal status and ethnic background was the following: ethnic Korean industrial technical trainees 69 percent of indigenous workers’ wage level, ethnic non-Korean industrial technical trainees 65 percent, ethnic Korean undocumented migrant workers 63 percent and ethnic non-Korean undocumented migrant workers 60 percent.
The responses imply several important facts. First, indigenous workers desire reform of the situation where industrial technical trainees receive lower income than undocumented migrant workers. Second, indigenous workers think that migrant workers with ethnic Korean background should receive higher wages than ethnic non-Korean migrant workers; nonetheless, ethnic Korean background cannot supersede legal status. Third, indigenous workers regard wage discrimination as natural and reasonable. It is clearly shown that wage level of even ethnic Korean industrial technical trainees, those with same ethnicity and a regular legal status has to be paid only 69 percent of indigenous workers’ wages. Hence, indigenous workers also clearly discriminate against ethnic Koreans.
Indigenous workers first consider the legal status of foreigners as the first priority, and then consider ethnic background. Undocumented migrant workers with Korean backgrounds do not have any better image than non-Korean industrial technical trainees. In other words, Koreans have similar stereotypes about ethnic Koreans from China and former Soviet Union countries with other foreign migrant workers.
Some migrant workers complain that Korean fellow workers discriminate against themselves more than supervisors (Seol and Han 2004: 48). According to the survey by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (Seol et al. 2002: 105), 51 percent of the migrant workers had experienced “verbal abuse and ridicule” at the workplace; 68 percent of the migrant workers answered that they had been abused by Korean fellow workers and 49 percent had experienced abuse by supervisors.
It is apparent that indigenous workers’ prejudice and discrimination of migrant workers reflects the general citizens’ attitude, and lack of experience of either interacting or working with foreigners. Because of their inexperience with foreigners, Koreans are largely unaware of a number of migrant worker issues (Seol and Skrentny 2004: 501).
But with globalization, a formation of global civil society became a reality, but Korean citizens still have attitudes formed in the isolationist past. In this sense, Koreans’ attitude toward migrant workers may be regarded as an indicator to measure Korean society’s level of globalization.
On the other hand, when indigenous workers come in contact with migrant workers at work, such stereotypes can either be destroyed or firmly settled. In the actual case studies, when indigenous workers and migrant workers work in a same place, conflict of interests develops and misunderstandings cumulate. Thus, without building informal personal relationships, relationships between the two groups with the flow of time can get worse. With the absence of better communication negative stereotypes tend to solidify.
Responses of trade unions should be examined in two different levels – company trade unions and their federations at the national level. Most company trade unions are affiliated with the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU). Looking at FKTU and KCTU separately, FKTU does not have an office solely responsible for migrant worker matters. They do provide individual counseling in regional headquarters or in each federation by industries; however, the actual matters are consigned to human rights organizations supporting migrant workers. On the other hand, KCTU prior to its establishment on November 11, 1995 showed deep interest in migrant workers and has participated in establishing measures. KCTU has a separate section dealing with issues of migrant workers. The two trade union federations have put efforts to establish policy directions of trade unions and to educate their member unions at company level. The two federations’ policies toward migrant workers are not that different. They are both adding voices to the abolition of ITTP and the implementation of EPP. Although they are against unlimited importation of a foreign labor force, the federations support equal treatment for migrant workers if the company has to import foreign labor due to labor shortage. By prohibiting discrimination against migrant workers, they also aim to block off additional benefits of the employers, and, thus, protect indigenous workers. And the two federations are strongly recommending their affiliated trade unions at company level to proactively accept migrant workers as members of unions. However, neither union group makes the migrant worker issue a priority.
Company trade unions in Korea are not largely against their companies’ employment of migrant workers. It is because the presence of migrant workers does not directly violate union members’ employment (Uh and Kwon 1995).
The majority of trade union officers, however, agree that rights of migrant workers also have to be protected by trade unions since migrant workers are also subjects of the unions (Seol 1999: 404–405). However, it is very difficult to organize migrant workers. Not only is it hard to unify opinions of union members, but also migrant workers consider the disadvantages they may receive from companies in case of participating in union activities. Industrial technical trainees do not have the right to join trade unions since they are “trainees” not “workers.” Undocumented migrant workers have worries of losing their job. Furthermore, companies put pressure to restrict migrant workers’ activities; in many cases, this is the major reason for such a small number of migrant workers wanting to join the unions. Nevertheless, domestic trade unions at company level were generally indifferent to the tasks of organizing migrant workers
Therefore, there have been very few significant efforts to improve the discriminatory situation of migrant workers from the trade union at each company level. The largest reason was on concentration of migrant workers in small and medium scale businesses. In particular, the majority of companies hiring undocumented migrant workers did not have trade unions. Normally, companies designated for industrial technical trainees have a trade union, but the managers tried to shut contacts among migrant workers. In particular, businesses in 3-D sectors have oppressed labor movement since they have had continuous difficulties with trade unions while the companies were facing labor shortage. In sum, each trade union of the companies has left migrant workers ignored.
The federations under their auspices established trade unions covering migrant workers. Under KCTU, the Equality Trade Union Migrants’ Branch in Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon Areas (ETU: Pryeongdeung nojo yiju jibu), covering undocumented migrant workers, was established in May 2001. ETU however has its focus on political activities rather than economic activities reflecting individual members’ interests. It began anew as the Migrants’ Trade Union on May 3, 2005.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision allowed the unemployed to organize unions, an official union centered on the unemployed and undocumented workers was established with the help of the federations at national level; its activities, however, are not yet significant.
Unlike the situation in many nations in Europe, where socialist parties have worked for migrant rights (see Jacobson 1996), Korean political parties generally have not taken the lead in immigration. Only some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have served as supporters of migrant workers’ human rights.
With increasing cases of human rights abuses, the new social movement to protect migrant workers was initiated by the civil society rather than the trade unions. A Filipino priest at Jayangdong Catholic Church in Seoul celebrated Mass in Tagalog in May 1992. Hundreds of Filipino workers started to gather on Sunday afternoons, and it received the media’s attention. At the same time, human rights abuses of migrant workers were revealed in the media. To many human rights campaigners interested in migrant workers, this became a starting point. They have established NGOs for supporting foreign migrant workers since 1992.
The growth of NGOs supporting foreign migrant workers associates with the influx of migrant workers. Before the financial crisis in 1997, the number of NGOs steadily increased. Since 1992, counseling centers for migrant workers were established starting from Seoul Metropolitan area spreading throughout the nation. Most of the organizations initially established were faith based — Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist and Muslim — with strong religious characteristic/background. Although the number was relatively small, NGOs with little religious color were also established, and some existing labor counseling centers started counseling services for migrant workers.
However, in 1997–1998 with the Korean economy suffering from the financial crisis, the situation changed. With the return of migrant workers to their home countries, the rate of increase in the number of NGOs supporting migrant workers also decreased. In 1999 with the improvement of the economy, the number of foreign migrant workers started to rise again.
These NGOs provide shelter for migrant workers, provide counseling services and try to resolve difficult situations such as industrial accidents and wage delay or nonpayment, and provide legal and medical services. They also conduct surveys on migrant workers with scholars, publicize the results to raise public awareness and suggest specific policy alternatives. Domestic NGOs supporting migrant workers have a strong character in advocating human rights protection. The major activities can be summarized as six categories: (1) Counseling Services, (2) Provision of Shelters and Medical Services, (3) Educational Services, (4) Research and Advocacy, (5) Religious Services and (6) Supporting the Associations of Migrant Workers (Seol 2003).
Apart from these ordinary everyday activities, the NGO groups have staged demonstrations for improving foreign labor policy (Seol 2003; Lim 2002, 2003). The Joint Committee of Migrant Workers in Korea (JCMK, Oinohyeop) was organized after the protest of Nepalese industrial technical trainees at Myeong-dong Catholic Cathedral in January 1995, has continuously requested abolition of ITTP and to put EPP into force. JCMK and the Solidarity for Migrant Workers’ Human Rights in Korea (SMHR, Yijuingwon yeondae) was established in January 2004, have enlightened the public to improve human rights conditions of migrant workers through protests, sit-ins and bringing in lawsuits. The NGOs’ way of struggle is the legacy of the democratization age in 1980–1990s. Rather than independently supporting migrant workers, they expanded activities to form broader solidarity with FKTU and KCTU as well as general civil society groups including the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), and Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ). They also have cooperated with NGOs supporting migrant workers in labor-sending countries including the Philippines and Indonesia as well as labor-importing countries including Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Germany. The enactment of EPP in 2003 may not have been possible without these NGOs’ activities.
It is generally understood in the public that discrimination against foreign migrant workers is the worst of all kinds of discrimination that exist in today’s Korean society. Migrant workers’ pitiful image in Korean citizens’ minds is raised by mass media (see Seol and Han 2004). The print media give the plight of foreign workers front-page treatment, and television coverage frequently includes disturbing videos on their abuse. The public is not friendly to rounding up and deporting “pitiful” undocumented workers.
In reality in Korea, discrimination against migrant workers still prevails. The main reason causing human rights problem is pointed out as uncontrolled number of undocumented migrant workers. The discrimination is based on some Korean citizens’ exclusive attitude toward migrant workers.
However, the matter should be carefully approached. Chung (2004: 4) shows that Koreans’ exclusionist sentiment against foreigners (including migrant workers) is not so serious in comparison with that of other countries. Analyzing the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) data on “national identity” conducted in 2003, she argues that Koreans have a strong nationalistic sentiment; however, this is not directly related to their exclusionist attitudes toward migrant workers. In the assessment of the positive attitude level toward migrant workers, Korea was placed on the fifth out of 24 countries.
Korean people’s general attitude toward migrant workers should be seen as “immature hospitality” shaped in a country with a relatively small number of foreign migrants concentrated in particular areas. While the attitude of citizens in traditional immigration countries is formed through direct contact with immigrants, Koreans’ attitude still remains imaginative, unproven by experience. The general attitude of the public is formed simply by accepting images shown in media. Therefore, whether the hospitality will be maintained in the future, when more real life experiences are made and shared, is still questionable.
In the meantime, new social movements to reform the human rights situation of migrant workers and improve their labor rights started to rise since 1992, and led to the establishment of various NGOs. These NGOs have provided shelters, counsel services on industrial accidents and nonpayment or delay of wage, provided medical and legal assistance, along with other services needed. Furthermore, they have disseminated the results to raise social awareness, provided alternative policies and cooperated with NGOs abroad supporting migrant workers. Such NGOs aim to remove discriminatory policies and ultimately root out discriminatory elements in Koreans’ socially accepted views.
Recently, far right groups with racially discriminatory characters have been organized in Korea. In addition, there are increasingly more people making antiforeigner comments on the internet. However, Korean society in general still remains on the side of civil movement making efforts to meet international norms of human rights (Jacobson 1996; Seol and Skrentny 2009). Human rights norms are already internalized by NGOs supporting migrant workers and apparently the wider Korean society, and their legitimacy and rectitude are self-evident. The NGOs, in solidarity with trade unions and other civic NGOs, continue to make efforts to improve the Korean government’s foreign labor policy, and further to awaken conscience of the citizens by actively taking a role of public education.
The Korean government established the National Human Rights Commission of Korea as an independent status body in 2001. The Commission checks the human rights of migrant workers, and made recommendations to the government to abolish ITTP and adopt EPP in 2003. NGO activists usually resort to the Commission to solve human rights violations. International norms serve as standards for Korean citizens to strive for as part of the nation’s development.
1 Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the International Studies Association. Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, HI, USA, March 2, 2005. The original title is “Korean Citizens’ Responses to the Inflow of Foreign Workers: Their Impacts on the Government’s Foreign Labor Policy.”
Abella, Manolo I., Young bum Park and W. Roger Böhning. 1994. Adjustments to Labor Shortages and Foreign Workers in the Republic of Korea. Geneva: International Labor Organization.
Chung, Kiseon. 2004. “Analysis of Korean Citizens’ Attitude toward Foreign Immigrants: A Comparison with the Cases of the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.” Paper presented at the Summer Meeting of the Korean Sociological Association. Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, June 18, 2004 (in Korean).
Hahm, Hanhee. 1997. “Foreign Workers’ Conflict and Adaptation: Challenges and Responses seen in a Culture facing Another Culture.” Journal of Labor Studies 13: 99–130 (in Korean).
HRSWM (Human Rights Solidarity for Women and Migrants in Korea). 2002. White Paper on the Human Rights of the Industrial Trainees in Korean Companies with Foreign Investments: A Field Report of Human Rights Violations. Anyang: HRSWM (in Korean).
Jacobson, David. 1996. Rights across Borders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
JCMK (Joint Committee of Migrant Workers in Korea). 2001. White Paper on the Human Rights of the Foreign Migrant Workers in Korea. Seoul: JCMK (in Korean).
Kang, Su Dol. 1996. Employment, Management, and Policy Alternatives for Foreign Workers in Korea: From the Standpoint of Comparison with Corporate and Social Rationality. Seoul: Korea Labor Institute (in Korean).
Lee, Bun Song, Moon Kyung Choi, Joo An Kwon, Joonmo Cho and Kyung Hee Shin. 1995. A Study of Foreign Workers in Seoul. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute (in Korean).
Lim, Timothy C. 2002. “The Changing Face of South Korea: The Emergence of Korea as a ‘Land of Immigration.’ ” Korea Society Quarterly 3(2/3): 16–21.
Lim, Timothy C. 2003. “Racing from the Bottom in South Korea: The Nexus between Civil Society and Transnational Migrants.” Asian Survey 43(3): 423–442.
Seol, Dong-Hoon. 1992. “International Labor Migration and Foreign Workers in Korea.” Society and History 37: 231–325 (in Korean).
Seol, Dong-Hoon. 1999. Foreign Workers in Korean Society, 1987–1998. Seoul: Seoul National University Press (in Korean).
Seol, Dong-Hoon. 2003. “New Social Movement for Foreign Migrant Workers in Korea, 1992–2002.” Pp. 76–99 in Politics of Struggle, Solidarity and Memory, Volume 2, edited by Jin-Kyoon Kim. Seoul: Munhwagwahaksa (in Korean).
Seol, Dong-Hoon, Hong-Yop Choi and Geon-Soo Han. 2002. Foreign Workers’ Human Rights in Korea. Seoul: National Human Rights Commission of Korea (in Korean).
Seol, Dong-Hoon and Geon-Soo Han. 2004. “Foreign Migrant Workers and Social Discrimination in Korea.” Harvard Asia Quarterly 8(1): 45–50.
Seol, Dong-Hoon and John D. Skrentny. 2004. “South Korea: Importing Undocumented Workers.” Pp. 475–513 in Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, 2nd Edition, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin and James F. Hollifield. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Seol, Dong-Hoon and John D. Skrentny. 2009. “Why Is There So Little Migrant Settlement in East Asia?” International Migration Review 43(3): 578–620.
Uh, Su Bong and Hye-Ja Kwon. 1995. Foreign Workers and Labor Policy. Seoul: Central Institute of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (in Korean).
Yoo, Kil-Sang, Kyu-Yong Lee, Young bum Park and Seong-Jae Park. 2005. Analysis of the Labor Market of Industrial Technical Trainees in Korean Companies with Foreign Investments. Seoul: Korea Labor Institute (in Korean).
Yoo, Myung-Ki. 1997. “Foreign Workers and Korean Culture.” Journal of Labor Studies 13: 69–98 (in Korean).