[ad_1]
“Regardless of the name, it is highly desirable that companies making money in the crown era have a voluntary movement to help victims, and that the government provides strong incentives for the movement.” (President Moon Jae-in, New Years reporter on January 18) Interview) President Moon Jae-in saved the flame of the profit sharing system that had been extinguished. On the day of the presidential press conference, Lee Nak-yeon, leader of the Democratic Party, said on Facebook that “the president evaluated the benefit-sharing system promoted by the Democratic Party at my suggestion” and emphasized the recognition of President Moon.
After the presidential amnesty, even the profit-sharing system was embroiled in controversy over the company’s effectiveness, and Lee, who faced declining approval ratings, took a breath. After President Moon’s remarks, discussions about the benefit-sharing system within the Democratic Party have accelerated. The plan is to reveal a specific roadmap starting in January.
Contrary to the movements of the ruling party, public opinion is negligible. Unusually, President Moon’s power does not work. Expectations are low even among the self-employed who are eligible for the benefit sharing system. Why can’t Corona’s profit sharing system capture public sentiment?
■ Profit sharing system, not profit sharing system
Before comments on Corona’s profit-sharing system, President Moon hinted that “ whatever the name is called. ” Prime Minister Jeong Sye-gyun also drew a line on the profit-sharing system, saying, “I don’t use the term,” in an interview with TBS radio. Why is it sensitive to the name of the profit sharing scheme?
Both the excess profit sharing system promoted by the Lee Myung-bak administration in 2011 and the cooperative profit sharing system of the Moon Jae-in administration in 2018 are a performance distribution method applied to ‘companies o groups doing joint ventures’. In other words, the objectives of the profit sharing system are limited to large corporations (head offices) that carry out joint projects and SMEs (subcontractors) that share market risk. For example, if the sales performance of a new car (final product) released by a finished car company exceeds the expected value, the concept is to share the excess profit with the partner company. It is difficult to see it as a fundamental solution to the entrenched problem of unfair outsourcing, but it is significant as a complementary measure to bridge the gap between subcontractors.
However, Corona’s profit sharing system is different from the existing profit sharing system. This policy cannot be explained by the framework of the existing benefit sharing system. It is also far from the idea of Hong Jang-pyo, a professor in the Department of Economics at Pukyong National University, who designed the cooperative profit-sharing system for the administration of Moon Jae-in (former president of Blue House Economics).
The Crown Victim Groups referenced in the Crown Profit Sharing System are SMEs and Small Business Owners. In contrast, the representative group that enjoyed the Corona 19 ‘special’ are IT companies and platforms such as Naver and People of Delivery. Financial sectors such as banking are also classified as beneficiary sectors. However, SMEs and small businesses affected by Corona 19 are separate groups that do not do joint business with platforms and banks. Since it is not an outsourcing relationship, you do not share the risk of failure. Nam Jong-seok, a researcher at the Kyungnam Research Institute, said: “The profit sharing system is based on applying it to groups that share commercial risks.” Researcher Nam added: “If the purpose of supporting the earnings of the group whose earnings have improved due to Corona 19 to the affected group, it is correct to create and promote a separate plan instead of a profit-sharing system.”
So why did Corona’s profit sharing system name it? The only thing in common between Corona’s benefit sharing system and the existing benefit sharing system is voluntary participation. However, this type of voluntary participation is one of the main causes of the failure of the existing profit-sharing system. At the time of the controversy over the introduction of the excess profit sharing system in 2011, the Office of Legislative Research of the National Assembly said: “Because large corporations decide whether to introduce the profit sharing system by complete and there is no mandatory system, the implementation of the system is questioned. It is necessary to actively seek a more feasible plan ”. (Limits and alternatives to the profit allocation system for cooperation with large and SMEs, Choong-Ryeol Park)
■ Limitations of the “Good Entrepreneur Movement”
The Corona Profit Sharing System, which emphasizes volunteering, has a strong campaign character like the Good Landlord Movement. Both policies have in common that they encourage participation through incentives based on voluntary participation. This is why Justice Party lawmaker Shim Sang-jeong criticized the crown’s profit-sharing system as a “good business move.”
Even among the self-employed, the response to Corona’s profit sharing system is cold. The self-employed are a group that has experienced the failure of the Good Tenant Movement. There were 4,2977 stores nationwide (as of October last year) that received rent reduction benefits, which is less than 1% of the 7 million small business owners nationwide. For this reason, the self-employed do not trust the system based on voluntary participation.
Byun In-seong (pseudonym, 41), who runs a restaurant in Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, said, “I know that the profit-sharing system is a good idea, so I don’t know how and when to support us “. I don’t seem to care. “Park Ji-ho, the general secretary of the Merchants Association, who wants to do business with ease, agrees. Secretary Park said,” People who do business already know that the participation method voluntary does not work in the field. ”“ We came up with the same policy as the failed policy, so the reaction was not good ”.
Still, why does the Democratic Party insist on the “profit sharing system”? Professor Sang-in Park (SNU Graduate School of Public Administration) sees the crown’s profit sharing system as a policy that shows the duality of the Democratic Party. On the premise of voluntary participation, responsibility was avoided and the symbolism of progressive politics borrowed under the name of profit sharing. Professor Park said, “Because we cannot implement sound fiscal policy that causes fiscal resistance before the elections, it is the crown profit-sharing system that we choose as a detour,” and said, “It’s like do nothing because it doesn’t. ” It does not work.
After President Moon announced that he was confident about the crown’s profit-sharing system, several implementation plans are underway within the Democratic Party. Confusion also arises in this process. On the 19th, when Hong Ik-pyo, chairman of the Democratic Party’s policy committee and the Democratic Party’s Policy Committee, revealed that interest in the banking sector should be limited, Lee Nak-yeon said, “ It should be very cautious that politicians should be involved in the interest rate. ” Sang-min Lee, principal investigator at the Nara Salim Research Institute, said: “In a disaster situation, only politically sophisticated support measures are emerging. It is desirable to come up with an effective plan that uses existing finances.”
