Deregulation of dismissal restrictions is a policy frequently championed by the business leaders and management consultants (especially HR specialists) whom I have criticized in previous posts. While there are theoretical benefits to such deregulation, I believe the disadvantages far outweigh them, and the arguments put forward by its proponents are utterly unconvincing.
During the 2024 LDP presidential election, Shinjiro Koizumi—once the frontrunner—proposed easing dismissal restrictions, but the idea failed to gain traction and contributed to his defeat. His platform was a textbook example of typical deregulation rhetoric, making it worth analyzing. (Interestingly, according to the Tokyo Shimbun, his father, former PM Junichiro Koizumi, proposed a similar bill in 2003 that failed due to opposition.)
The Flawed Premise of “Freeing” Workers
Shinjiro Koizumi’s argument was as follows: “We will change the current system, where workers are tied to underperforming companies or uncomfortable workplaces, into one that supports them in thriving in new growth sectors or workplaces that suit them better. Currently, companies are obligated to seek voluntary retirement or attempt internal reassignments before resorting to dismissal. We will abolish this requirement for large corporations and instead mandate reskilling and outplacement support.”
The flaw in this premise is immediately obvious: workers are not legally tied to their companies. Under current law, employees can resign whenever they choose. While I recognize that some corporate cultures make it socially difficult to leave, workers have a 100% legal right to quit—they can even use “resignation agency services” if necessary. If someone stays at a company, they are doing so of their own will; it has nothing to do with dismissal restrictions.
It seems Koizumi was fed a “plausible-sounding” story by CEOs or consultants and failed to notice the contradiction himself. In essence, the proposal boils down to: “Give companies the license to fire people as long as they provide a few English lessons and an introduction to a headhunter.” When people’s livelihoods are at stake, such a shallow proposal is out of the question.
The Detachment of the Political Elite
A politician’s job should be to devise ways for the vast majority of workers to find happiness, not to cater solely to the CEOs of large corporations. However, a second-generation politician—whose high income is guaranteed simply because of his lineage—is likely incapable of understanding the pain of the common citizen.
If the government truly wants to utilize “surplus labor” from large firms, they should leave it to the market. If reskilling actually led to guaranteed high salaries, workers would study on their own without government prompting. It’s a simple matter of offering higher wages; no one chooses a low-paying job out of spite.
If the cost of education is the problem, the solution is to expand the “Educational Training Benefits” under employment insurance. Easing dismissal restrictions is nothing more than meddling where it isn’t wanted.
コメント