[Gangnam Perspective] Is the ‘regularization of non-regular workers’ fair?

The debate over the “regularization of non-regular workers” has flared up again after POSCO recently announced that it would directly hire about 7,000 employees from its partner companies. The issue is not new. Similar conflicts arose in the past at Incheon International Airport Corporation (IIAC), and each time society split sharply over the question of what is fair. The fact that the same debate keeps returning over time shows that this issue goes beyond a simple policy matter. It is deeply tied to how our society defines fairness and the standards it applies.
The backlash from regular workers is understandable. Many of them reached their current positions after fierce competition and invested considerable time and effort along the way. For them, seeing partner-company employees reach the same status through a different path can feel like their own achievements are being devalued. This reaction should not be dismissed as mere selfishness. It is a natural response rooted in a sense of fairness.
That said, one question needs to be asked here. Is the position they hold today really the result of personal effort and ability alone?
Economist Robert H. Frank, author of Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, argues that the society we live in relies too heavily on meritocracy. We tend to believe that our achievements are the result of our own effort, but in reality, differences in starting points, educational environments, family backgrounds, social conditions, and sometimes sheer luck also have a major impact on outcomes. Even people with the same ability may face very different opportunities. Because these differences arise in areas individuals cannot fully control, there are limits to explaining success through personal effort alone.
Seen from this perspective, the way we view non-regular workers may change somewhat. Among those currently working in non-regular positions, some may not lack ability at all. Rather, they may have had no choice but to take other paths because they were never given enough opportunity. Structural constraints in the labor market, uneven hiring opportunities, and differences in access to information have all limited individual choices. That is why we need to ask again whether giving them new opportunities is really unfair.
From this perspective, the regularization of non-regular workers is not about denying someone else’s effort. It is about how to redesign opportunities that have not been distributed evenly. In particular, the reality that wages, benefits, and job security vary greatly depending on employment status, even when workers perform the same or similar tasks, has long been pointed out as a structural problem. We also need to look again at the practice of outsourcing dangerous work and dispersing responsibility.
Of course, not every conversion to regular employment can be justified. Ensuring fairness in procedure and equity with existing employees remains important. If the criteria for conversion are unclear, or if the policy is pushed forward without sufficient explanation and consultation, conflict could become even worse. Therefore, measures such as phased conversion, clear standards, and enough communication among stakeholders need to be put in place.
In the end, the core of this debate is not about determining who worked harder. It is about what standards we accept as fair. We should reconsider whether respecting the achievements of those who have already passed through the opportunity pipeline and opening new paths for those who have not had sufficient access to those opportunities are necessarily conflicting values. Fairness may not be a single fixed standard, but a concept that must be constantly adjusted and redefined in light of circumstances and context.
The debate over the regularization of non-regular workers goes beyond a simple clash of interests. It asks how our society defines fairness. At this point, we need to think about whether there is a way to preserve the value of effort while also easing inequality in opportunity, and how that balance can be achieved.
padet80@fnnews.com Reporter