Calculated Nationalism in Contemp S Korea 8

 8 Standing against Workplace Bullying (Gapjil)

Case Studies

Abstract

Unfair treatment of workers at nearly all workplaces has been a prevalent concern in Korean society for decades and represents the unequal human relationship deeply embedded in the structural and cultural properties of Korean society, especially in the neoliberal economic context, which is discussed in Chapter 8. Under the emergent structural and cultural properties, individual agents of Korean society realize that their perception and capacity of the Korean nation-state have changed and should be reflected in their workplace accordingly. So are they engaging in social movements for better and fairer treatment of workers?

Keywords: workers’ rights, workplace bullying, the Korean Air Nut Rage, “Workplace Bullying 119”

Introduction

Following Korea’s unprecedented economic and democratic development since the Second World War, recent Korean governments have been paying a great deal of attention to improving the grassroots’ quality of life in response to the grassroots’ desires expressed over recent decades. This is along the line of the international movement, as reflected in the World Happiness Report measuring eight topic areas, which ranked Korea in 59th place in the world in its 2002 report.1 The OECD Better Life Index, measuring eleven topic areas, ranked Korea 29th in 2017 (Park 2019). Long working hours, the gender wage gap, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying (gapjil) have 

1 https://worldhappiness.report/

 

Han, G.-S., Calculated Nationalism in Contemporary South Korea. Movements for Political and Economic Democratization in the 21st Century. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2023 doi: 10.5117/9789463723657_ch08

been of particular concern to Korean workers, significantly impacting their quality of life. Of these lingering concerns, workplace bullying has become a topic of public interest only in recent years (Mun et al. 2017: 3–5). Gapjil is a relatively new term in Korea. The appearance of this new term in Korean could be evidence of either more bullying in recent years or, more likely, greater awareness that such bullying is not acceptable.

Koreans are well aware that Korean society has been hierarchical like other countries, as well as in a particular way, and power abuse in human relations has been common for decades. The features of hierarchy in practice differ from one era to another, even within a country. The abuse of bureaucratic power, especially during the military regimes, was not uncommon in public as well as private sectors. The legacies of Japanese colonialism cannot be downplayed. Most Koreans with no resources to resort to have experienced many forms of bullying. Potential victims of workplace bullying have been willing to take it for granted that in the culture of a growth-oriented economy, a degree of bullying is unavoidable. There have been many media reports on incidents of workplace bullying, and the public has now come to express explicitly that it is unacceptable. Yet workplace bullying continues in the ever transitional and more prosperous Korean society. This chapter is centred on the following questions: why has there been a sudden increase in the number of reports on workplace bullying? What are the socio-economic and cultural causes of workplace bullying in contemporary Korea? With reference to the book’s aims, the focus of this chapter is to demonstrate the workplace is a very contentious battleground in the transitional Korean society, as workers have become more willing to protest against workplace bullying than ever before. Dominant groups, such as the owners of a corporation and its managers/superiors, continue to hold on to the authoritarian structure and culture, which may be conducive to and legitimize bullying, whereas most workers wish to see workplace bullying eliminated.

“Work” has been a way to bridge between individual agents’ ultimate life concerns and modi vivendi in modern Korea, thus, the significance of work and working life cannot be overstated. People not only construct their personal identities through “work” but also ensure their social and economic positions through their work activities. Moreover, work “holds even the potential of being an emancipatory life strategy in mediating SEPs/ CEPs” (structural and cultural emergent properties) (Wimalasena 2017: 396–398). In this respect, experiencing workplace harassment had not been something that the victims could easily protest against in the context of a growth-oriented Korean economy in the 1970s and 1980s. However, Koreans in the 2000s have developed their own emergent properties in terms of what they want from work and how they respond to workplace bullying.

Literature Review

Research on workplace bullying commenced in the west in the mid-1990s, and in Korea since the 2000s. Workplace bullying is a broad concept referring to actions such as vexing, rudeness, social exclusion, deliberately and negatively impacting on others’ work, depriving one of information, publicly disrespecting others (Einarsen and Mikkelsen 2003; Djurkovic, McCormack, and Casimir 2008; cited in Mun et al. 2017: 6). Others have used the terms “counterproductive workplace behaviours” (CWBs), concerning “harmful behaviours at work” (Fox and Spector 2004; Spector and Fox 2010; cited in Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 69). A synthesized definition of workplace bullying notes that it refers to “repeated unwelcomed negative act or acts (physical, verbal, or psychological intimidation)” (Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 71), which may start with incivility, involve bullying, and become workplace violence (Namie 2003).

In their survey of the literature on workplace bullying, Bartlett and Bartlett (2011: 72) found that there are three overarching types: “work-related, personal, and physical/threatening.” “Positional power” was identified as a common issue involving workplace bullying since the power discrepancy prompts “opportunities for the bully to exert power over the target” (p. 73). First, the forms of work-related bullying include giving heavy workloads, disallowing leave, taking away responsibilities, allocating menial tasks, “setting up individuals to fail in their job,” unfair evaluation, and unnecessary monitoring (Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 73). Second, there are direct and indirect methods of personal/ psychological bullying. Indirect personal bullying includes exclusion, isolation, and ignoring, such as not returning phone calls or emails, and false accusations (p. 74). Direct personal bullying involves “verbal harassment, belittling remarks, yelling, and interrupting others … intentional demeaning, personal jokes, negative eye contact, and humiliation” (Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 74). Third, more aggressive types of bullying include “intimidation, manipulation, and threats” (Von Bergen, Zavaletta, and Soper 2006; MacIntosh 2005; cited in Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 75). These three broad types of bullying in the west are closely shared with those in other places, including Korea (Mun et al. 2017).

Workplace bullying causes severe personal and organizational impacts. Organizational impacts include decreased productivity, litigation costs, health care costs, and high staff turnover (Ayoko, Callan, and Hartel 2003; Von Bergen, Zavaletta, and Soper 2006; cited in Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 75). Personal impacts consist of “worker safety, job satisfaction, humiliation, fear, decreased group cohesiveness, job loss, and reduced performance,” in addition to physical and emotional health (Ayoko, Callan, and Hartel 2003; Parkins, Fishbein, and Ritchey 2006; cited in Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 77).

In regard to the causes of workplace bullying across different societies, Mun et al. (2017) undertook an informative review of past studies, and they suggested the causes in three broad areas: individuals, workplaces, and the broader socio-cultural and economic context. First, individuals (both instigators and targets) may be exposed to work-related stress or specific jobs that are prone to high-level stress, which can then contribute to workplace bullying (Neuman and Baron 2003; Felson and Tedeschi 1993; cited in Park and Choi 2007; Bowling and Beehr 2006). Gender, age, education, length of employment, and types of employment (temporary, contingent, continuing) lead to power imbalance, the level of vulnerability, access to information, and social capital, thus contributing to workplace bullying, either positively or negatively (Seo and Yi 2016a; Song and Kim 2017: 43). Second, other studies looked directly into organizational structure and culture as the sources leading to bullying. They pointed out that conflicting or ambiguous roles, time pressure, and lack of challenges can contribute to bullying or mobbing (Cooper and Payne 1978; Einarsen and Raknes 1997; Park and Choi 2007; cited in Mun et al. 2017). Rigid hierarchy, authoritarian milieu, lack of communications, and severely competitive work environment can also lead to mobbing (Björkqvist, Österman, and Lagerspetz 1994; Vartia 1996; cited in Mun et al. 2017). Song and Kim (2017), in their research in the Korean context, identified that bullying is more likely to occur due to long working hours, pressure on deadlines, organizational restructuring, and employment types with uncertain prospects, whereas bullying is less likely to occur with supportive supervisors and constructive human networks within an organization (Yoo 2015).

Third, the broader socio-economic context facing the industries has also been influential, for example, continuing growth of service industries, reduced profit, and higher workload in the context of globalization, a decline of unionization of workers and their lack of negotiating power, diversification of the workforce joined by workers and migrants, excessive supervision of workers, and increased reliance on contingent workers (Yamada 2000; Mun et al. 2017). Researching the impact of these socio-economic contexts on workplace bullying is limited.

Research on bullying in Korea has been centred on specific service professionals and industries such as hospital nurses, airplane stewards, restaurant employees, and factory workers (e.g., Yoo 2015). Korean-based research heavily utilizes the insights learned from past research findings and analyses undertaken in North America and Europe, especially with reference to the instigators/targets and workplace organizations. Korean research findings broadly share how socio-economic and cultural factors influence workplace bullying. However, empirical research in this area is scarce. A small number of local research findings available are limited in illustrating the impact of socio-economic and cultural factors in the local context (e.g., Song and Kim 2017; Seo 2013; Gu et al. 2015; Seo and Yi 2016b; Seo and Yi 2016a; Song 2016). A Korean-specific finding from Gu et al. (2015: 120) was that Korean men tend to regard working life as an extension of their national military service, thus, it is taken for granted that some degree of workplace bullying is inevitable, which supports the culture of hierarchy and bullying. Another influential factor specific to Korean society is long working hours (Song 2016). Notably, Seo (2016) reported that her study participants perceive individual instigators as the key sources of bullying, whereas western studies point to organizational factors as key sources. Local studies increasingly point out that organizational work culture and strong hierarchical power structures are influential causes of workplace bullying (Park and Choi 2007; Kang and Ko 2014; Yoo 2015; Seo and Yi 2016b; Song 2016; Jo and Han 2019). In particular, Yoo (2015: 252) identifies organizational cultures to be crucial factors, which include an ongoing culture of organizational restructuring, performance-oriented management, and an overly competitive environment, which reflect the neoliberal economic climate of contemporary Korean society.

Undoubtedly, individual workers and workplaces are the necessary foci to investigate in ascertaining the causes of bullying. However, the workers and workplaces in turn closely reflect the given cultural and socio-economic factors as well recognized by Yamada (2000) and Einarsen et al. (2011). For example, there will be some differences in how workplace bullying is instigated in the west, where a merit-based professional reward is better established and in other nation-states where, in addition to one’s merit, indigenous cultures and traditions such as chronological seniority and birth backgrounds have roles in workplaces. Every workplace is subject to the given labour market, socio-economic environment, legal jurisdiction, and relevant administrative protocols of a specific nation-state. This implies that there are often variations between the provinces within a nation-state. The 1997 IMF’s economic intervention in the Korean economy and the 2008 global financial crisis affected Korean industries in terms of a wage gap between the workers at conglomerates and those at small/middle-sized companies, increased number of contingent workers, and increased performance-based wages (Mun et al. 2017: 24).

I have reviewed the literature on workplace bullying regarding the changing structure and culture, as well as the impact on the component members as an instigator or targets. The general focus of this book is political and economic democratization, justice, human rights, and fraternity. Examining the topic of workplace bullying, and the relationship between the work environment, bullying, and mobbing in the workplace (e.g., Choi and Park 2010), the focus of this chapter is to demonstrate how workers protest against bullying and reclaim “respect,” human dignity in the workplace, and quality of working life. I contend that the following two dimensions are broadly missing in the literature. First, past studies recognize the intersectionality among the instigator/target, organizational characteristics, and the broader socio-economic environment. However, the dynamics of these elements have not been fully incorporated into the analysis. Intersectionality between structure/culture and agency needs to be better considered since individual agents’ (both the instigator and target) actions do not occur in a social vacuum. Second, taking the action of bullying is not a result of a simple decision, thus, it should be noted that it is related to individual reflexivity, referring to the agency of the agents. Individual agents are required to make up their minds and present their creative but varied reflexive responses to best mediate structural and cultural emergent properties through internal conversation (Archer 2007), i.e., a thought process based on the given complex situations of the workplace and broader society.

A Morphogenetic Approach

In the last several decades, Korean social structure and culture have been rapidly changing, thus, the agents, especially the grassroots, have been changing their anticipations as to how they should be treated in workplaces. However, most of those in dominant positions are slow to realize the changes in the surrounding structure and culture. They are preoccupied with the pre-existing culture of domination amongst them and ignore the new culture of protesting, which results in supporting the continuation of workplace harassment. Space, place, and time in a given context enable and constrain the characteristics of human interactions (Edwards and Brehm 

2015: 275). The nature of space, place, and time constantly changes, and this affects human interactions. One’s lack of understanding of the emergent properties of the given space, place, and time can lead to conflicting human relations. In brief, what is acceptable or not in human interaction changes over space, place, and time. These can be best understood by examining the interplay between structure, culture, and agents (Archer 2010: 274). As Korean society has undergone rapid changes but is still under a dual system of traditionally oppressive and modern features, those who hold dominant power will often face a tension between the status quo and the change in their human interactions (Edwards and Brehm 2015: 287). Agents’ everyday work activities generally involve appropriate coordination of their personal emergent properties in the given context of space and time—i.e., what Margaret Archer calls reflexivity.

When the individuals fail to conduct their interactions appropriately or are out of the social norms, in particular structural and cultural contexts, they can pay a heavy price, and their personal emergent properties (i.e., the actions they can take) cannot be reduced to social contexts (Wimalasena 2017: 398). Deploying Archer’s structural, cultural, and people’s emergent properties, I analyse news reportages with reference to the socio-economic environment and labour market (structure), relevant regulations and administrative protocols subject to the government’s control, and relevant policies and responses within each company (culture), and primary agents and actors.

Research Methods

News reportages or audio-visual reports are valuable as they often represent current affairs. What affairs are news-worthy is determined by editors and reporters, yet significantly represent the public or grassroots’ interests and concerns. Thus, an analysis of the media narratives demonstrates much of emergent structural, cultural, and component members’ properties. The readers’ comments on news reportages also represent grassroots’ responses to the phenomena and incidents under report. Yet, they are relatively limited in their scope, mostly agreeing or disagreeing with the news reportages.

In this chapter, I have analysed media reportages and investigated structural and cultural emergent properties that demonstrate the prevalent social contexts as morphogenetic preconditioning and the current contexts that enable and constrain component members of Korean society. I have also analysed the personal emergent properties of the victims and the instigators in their human interactions at their workplace. Workplace bullying was not publicly exposed in Korea until the 2000s. Increasingly concerned with workplace bullying, a recent Yonhap News TV reported “those [five] bullying incidents that wrathed us.”2 In addition to those five bullying incidents, I shall add two cases that I recall particularly vividly. The selected reportages have been covered heavily throughout the Korean media outlets. There is little discrepancy across these diverse outlets in terms of their reporting of the facts. I have consulted different media outlets to diversify the sources of reportage, and best represent each incident in terms of workplace bullying.

Findings

I report the seven cases in brief as to what happened and provide my analysis of each case based on the identification of relevant structural, cultural, and agential emergent properties, followed by the common features of workplace bullying in contemporary Korea. Those seven cases under analysis occurred between 2014 and 2020. My key aim in analysing the following empirical cases is not only to demonstrate the common features of bullying, but more importantly to demonstrate the bullying targets’ responses to their experiences, which are increasingly becoming outspoken rather than being silent. Those cases have widely been reported in the legacy media and many types of social media, including Facebook, YouTube, and internet café. The cases will theoretically illustrate the intertwined relations between the structural, cultural, and individual components’ properties. Following the presentation and analysis of the seven cases, I shall also present Workplace Bullying 119 as a case of the grassroots movement taking a stance against workplace bullying.

Case 1: Bullying Incidents within Namyang Dairy Products3

In January 2013, many distributing agencies of Namyang Dairy Products complained that the company dumped unwanted products at the agencies’ stores. The goods were close to use-by-date or in low demand. The 

2 Yonhap News TV. 2020. “우리를 분노하게 했던 ‘갑질’ 사건들” (The Bullying Incidents  accessed 

That Angered Us). May 21, https://www.yna.co.kr/view/MYH20200521015300640, September 30, 2020.

3 Media SR. 2018. “남양유업의http://www.mediasr.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=46560 ‘슈퍼 갑질’ 연대기” (A Series of Super Bullying by Namyang , 

Dairy Products). January 9, accessed October 5, 2020.

company denied the allegation and sued the agencies. However, in May 2013, a salesperson from Namyang Dairy Products again dumped a good amount of unwanted products at one of its distributing agencies. The agent refused to accept them, and produced the salesperson’s recorded messages of bullying as follows:

Can’t accept them? You can please yourself. I’m gonna kill you. You can distribute them quickly, or I can be cruel to you. Keep your mobile phone turned on, or else. I don’t care if your business collapses.4

Korean Fair Trade Commission investigated Namyang Dairy Products and found the company guilty of forcibly dumping the unwanted products at all the stores of its distributing agencies. Within a few days, another salesperson of the company was caught, taking a bribe from an agent, which was evidenced by a recorded message and money transmission. The company representatives soon held a press conference to apologize to the nation. Moreover, the company’s female employees, who held permanent jobs, were categorized as contract workers upon their marriage, with a 10 per cent reduction of the wage and removal of some allowances. They were then forced to quit their jobs upon pregnancy. Some women tried to control the timing of pregnancy as they wanted to stay at work as long as possible. Namyang Dairy Products then redressed the female workers’ rights, which had been routinely forfeited till then. YTN News reported that Namyang Co. had been the most preferred company for baby food and had its catchphrase—“We are together with mothers’ minds,”—but bullying the future mothers.5

Furthermore, one of Namyang’s distributing agencies was involved in bullying its own employee who delivered the products to its customers’ homes. The part-time worker (a university student) delivered milk to eighty homes and earned $320 per month. When the student acquired an internship opportunity at a corporation and informed the distributing agency of his departure, he was told to find another deliverer, or he would be charged $4,000 (i.e., $50 per household). The student managed to find another worker and avoided the penalty. There was public anger in response to this, and a large number of consumers boycotted Namyang Dairy Products. The brand 

45  “남양유업의. 2013. “‘ ‘슈퍼임신하면 갑질’ 연대기 퇴사” (A Series of Super Bullying by Namyang Dairy Products).’ … 남양유업 횡포 (Jobs Taken Away After Pregnancy).” , accessed October 5, 2020.

YTN News

June 27, https://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201306271807234902

image was damaged, and its share price fell; its share price peaked at $1,175 on May 3, 2013, and it continued to fall to $259 on October 5, 2020.6

Namyang displayed a chain of bullying within the operation of the company and its agencies. Those working for the company headquarters seemed to feel empowered to bully those running the distributing agencies due to uneven relations of authority and economic power. The distributors then mistreated their own employees. The news reportage indicated bribes as an element in the process of bullying. The company’s mistreatment of its female workers was outdated and no less than bullying. Indeed, unfair treatment of women has been deeply enculturated in Korean workplaces (Kim and Cho 2017). Recategorizing the female workers into less secure positions exposed them to an easy lay-off (Yoon 2020). What is apparent is that an exploitative relationship is intransitive and common through the hierarchical chain, based on the economic structure and relationship between the employer and employee. The culture of exploitation must have been prolonged, and those who were “higher” in the hierarchy were reluctant to change. However, some agents were reluctant to persevere anymore, and the consumers would not tolerate the bullying they observed.

The emergent social climate has become increasingly anti-bullying, and the agents’ proactive protest against the bullying has started to make a difference. Women’s equal opportunity has a long way to go, but it is slowly changing. Newly emergent structure and culture are initiated for articulation by the component members of workplaces. In other words, potential victims and social actors actively stand against the mistreatment at work and attempt to modify the unfriendly structure and culture.

Case 2: CEO’s Hacking His Employees’ Mobile Phones and Bashing 

Them

Korea Future Technology is a promising corporation which develops industrial robots and employs 160 workers.7 Of several items under court proceedings as of November 2020, Mr. Yang Jin-Ho, the company’s CEO, was accused of hacking his employees’ mobile phones and viewing 60,000 private messages between 2012 and 2013. The workers were told to install 

6 http://www.dailyimpact.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=46560; https://www.google. com/search?client=firefox-b--d&q=남양유업의+주가, accessed October 5, 2020.

7 JobKorea. Korea Future Technology, http://www.jobkorea.co.kr/Recruit/Co_Read/C/ miraetech1976, accessed October 5, 2020.

“Hitalk” on their mobile phones and the tailor-made application allowed Mr. Yang to access all the activities made through mobile phones—photos, phone calls, messages, location, banking transmission, and all other private matters. Mr. Yang boasted his awareness of personal information and at times intervened in the employees’ private activities.8 Mr. Yang came across a former employee’s five critical comments on the company’s bulletin board. Yang brought the employee to the company’s shared office in a big open space and slapped in the face of the former employee indiscriminately. When a video clip was released, the incident raised public anger throughout the nation.9

Segye Ilbo reported there have been many other violent attacks in other companies, where company CEOs with unequivocal authority and economic power have been violent against their workers, e.g., a CEO bashing one-man protestor with a baseball bat in front of spectators. The newspaper cited Professor Yun Sang-Cheol saying that those CEOs take it for granted that they live a life remote from ordinary people and they think they deserve extreme privileges, and that their egoism is fostered in their limited sphere of control. Yun also argued that those CEOs’ violent bullying is “a combined result of their attitude to rule over others and the power of money.”10 Thus, human relationship predominantly based on economic structure reproduces a culture of exploitation, leading to bullying. Yun’s analysis applies to the case of Yang, too. Moreover, the Confucian culture of respecting older persons often puts the younger persons in a vulnerable situation. Korean men’s embodiment of the military culture of commanding and obeying also contributes to bullying and authoritarianism in the workplace (cf., Janelli 1993; Graham 1991).11

놀던데co.kr/bizlife/sk_index.html?art_id=201811091259003&sec_id=560101&utm_source=msn&utm8 Kyunghyang Sinmun?’” (Yang Jin-Ho, Hacking All the Phones of the Employees). November 9,. 2018. “양진호, 직원 전체 휴대전화 해킹…여직원에 http://sports.khan ‘어제 클럽에서 잘_. 

medium=referral, accessed October 5, 2020;

9 Dong-a Ilbo. 2020. “‘갑질폭행’양진호, 징역 7년 불복…항소https://www.donga.com/news 제기” (Bullying and Bashing, /

Mr. Yang, Appealed Against Seven-Year in Prison). June 2, 

Society/article/all/20200602/101320090/1, accessed October 5, 2020; Yonhap News. 2018. Jin-Ho, Indiscriminately Bashing a Former Employee). October 30,“한국미래기술 양진호 회장, 전직 직원 무차별 폭행” (Korea Future Technology’s CEO, Yang  https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ZTW7wBlx0O4, accessed October 5, 2020.

10 Segye Ilbo. 2018. “돈·권력으로 갑질·군림… ‘法도 있는 자 편’ 처벌 약해” (Bullying with 

Money and Power … The Law Stands on the Side of the Haves and the Punishment Is Light).” November 4, http://www.segye.com/newsView/20181104002007, accessed October 6, 2020.

11 Maeil Kyongje. 2018. “직장에서도 법대로 합시다Gapjil Based on Authoritarianism).” January 1, …권위주의 갑질 ‘그만’” (Let’s Practise What Is Legal at Workplace as Well … No More https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/view/2018/01/422/, accessed October 17, 2020.

Case 3: An Army General and His Spouse: Abusing Power

General Park Chan-Ju of the Korean Army, his spouse, and a son lived in an independent house provided by the government and the couple was supported by two soldiers assisting with home duties. In recent years the couple, especially Mrs. Park, developed a notorious reputation.12 The couple have been accused of numerous mistreatments of the soldiers on duty, which has attracted much media attention and raised public anger. First, General Park’s residence is a two-storey house (529m2) and there is a remote-control bell on each storey to call the soldier, who wears an electronic bracelet that rings upon the operation of the remote control. The bell is used to request menial tasks such as “bring a cup of water.” When the soldier took more time than Mrs. Park wanted, she threw the remote at the soldier or threatened to send him to jail. Second, the serving soldier was told to stay late until the older son returns home and the son is served a night snack. When their younger son, serving in the Airforce, returned home for a vacation, the serving soldier prepared a private barbeque party.13 Third, while the younger son was home for a vacation, the serving soldier had to wash the son’s underpants.

Fourth, Mrs. Park asked the serving soldier to give her son a plate of pancakes, which the soldier forgot. Mrs. Park threw the pancakes at the soldier’s face. Yet just as the couple’s son was serving in the Airforce, so is the assaulted soldier engaged in the national service. The soldier is also a precious son in a family. He is not a servant and is not supposed to be put to work undertaking “private” tasks of General Park’s family. Fifth, those who worked as a chef or as an assistant at Park’s home followed diverse religions, including Buddhism. However, those soldiers working at Park’s home were all “taken” to the church with no choice. Sixth, one day, a serving soldier could not bear Mrs. Park’s bullying behaviour and had to stay outside the home. General Park came to learn this and accused the soldier, “If you leave this home, it is desertion. My wife is much like a Brigadier General and you must be courteous to her!” The national service is mandatory for Korean men and is a matter of interest for all Korean households. Thus the bullying of a soldier attracted nationwide attention.

Spouse: Bullying). Last updated October 2, 2020, , accessed October 6, 2020.

1213갑질2017져  ,Namu WikiHankyoreh Shinmun http://m.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/805191.html#cb,. 2020. “박찬주. 2017. “‘박찬주 육군 대장 대장  부부부부 https://namu.wiki/w,  갑질전자팔찌 사건 채워” (General Park Chan-Ju and His  수시로 accessed October 7, 2020./박찬주 호출 ’ 육군추가  대장제보  부부쏟아 

” (General Park Chan-Ju Couple, Use of Electronic Bracelet to Call the Serving Soldier). August 2, 

The compulsory national service for men comes with a considerable cost for them and the nation but is required for national security. The management of soldiers has been democratized over the years. Military personnel’s rank is particularly crucial and is the only criterion that determines who the seniors or juniors are. The culture of power abuse was common in the past. Unfortunately, some senior officers, in particular, see the soldiers’ hierarchical ranks marked on their caps, but are unable to see the real values of every individual soldier as a human. In this case, the hierarchical ranks dominate human relationships in the military community, which is what happened in General Park’s household. Hierarchical ranks are common in any part of human history. However, assistant soldiers should not be regarded as enslaved people, but should be treated fairly. General Park and Mrs. Park seemed to have ignored the emergent cultural properties, and they paid a high cost. The media reportage of the case has been possible in part due to the emergent structural and cultural properties in the Army and the victims’ reluctance (i.e., personal emergent properties) to tolerate abuse.

Case 4: The Korean Air CEO’s Family and the Nut Rage

At 0:50 am, December 5, 2014, Korean Air Flight KE086 was heading to a runway at the JFK Airport. Instead of proceeding to take off, the flight returned to the terminal and dropped off the chief steward, Mr. Park ChangJin. What happened? Ms. Cho Hyun-A, then vice-president of Korean Air, was travelling in the first-class cabin and was served a packet of macadamia nuts. Cho accused the serving steward of not following the manual for serving the snack and called in the chief steward, who argued that no mistake was made in the way the snack was served. Cho did not back down and had the serving and chief stewards kneel on the floor. Cho shouted at Park and said, “Go and tell the pilot to stop the flight!” Park responded that “the flight is soon to take off, and it cannot be stopped.” Cho said, “Don’t you dare go against what I say?” Using the serving manual file, Cho hit Park’s hands and also pushed Park on his shoulder.14 Returning the moving flight to the terminal was highly controversial in regard to safety. Three years and four months after the incident, Cho took up the role of CEO of a hotel within Hanjin Conglomerate, of which Korean Air is a branch, whereas Park had 

14 Yonhap News. 2015. “재벌 딸 갑질로 시작된 ‘땅콩회항’ 사건 전말 169https://www.yna.co.kr일” (A Conglomerate / Daughter and Her Bullying: 169 Days of the Nut Rage). May 22, 2015, view/AKR20150522123700004, accessed October 9, 2020.

an operation to remove a tumor at the back of his head, which he developed as a result of extreme stress from the incident.15

Also notorious for bullying was Ms. Lee Myung-Hee, who is Cho’s mother and the spouse of the President of Hanjin Conglomerate. Of the endless list of accusations about her behaviour, here are some. Once her chauffeur-driven vehicle arrived later than the agreed time; getting in the vehicle, she spat on the face of the driver and shouted at him to pull over the vehicle. On another occasion, Lee asked her driver to speed up, but he could not respond to her request. She then threw a plastic cup filled with water at the driver’s head. Another time, when the driver had to make an abrupt stop, Lee kicked the back of the driver’s seat and said, “How dare you attempt to kill me?” Lee was also accused of throwing other dangerous items at workers, including books, a ruler, a scotch tape dispenser, scissors, a bunch of keys, and a pot plant. One worker was standing on a ladder three metres above the ground while completing a task. Lee was not happy with the worker’s performance and kicked away the ladder, making him fall to the ground.16

Cho Hyun-A’s privilege to travel in the first-class cabin may be considered a given privilege, but she went far beyond what others consider acceptable. Returning the moving flight on a busy runway was risky, and suggests there was nothing beyond her commandment. What distinguishes Cho most from others is her economic wealth as a daughter of a conglomerate president. Does this entitle her to harass her diligent workers? Cho’s mother, Lee Myung-Hee, was at the centre of media attention for her completely erratic and violent behaviours against her employees. In fact, Cho’s sister, former deputy CEO of Jin Air, was accused of violent behaviour against two subcontractors. The public developed unfavourable views of the Cho family. From the viewpoints of the Cho family, they may consider their harassment of workers justified because of their advantageous economically exploitative positions of power. The public increasingly thinks otherwise and is reluctant to tolerate the harassment directly and indirectly.

15 JTBC News.02018. “조현아 복귀, 박창진은 종양 수술… ‘땅콩 회항’ 엇갈린 삶” (Cho Hyun-A  https://

Returns, Park Chang-Jin Goes to a Surgery … Their Contrasting Features). March 29, 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvUN2IkyWzM, accessed October 9, 2020.

16(Spatting on the Face, Throwing a Water Cup: Reality of Lee Myung-Hee’s Bullying). January 30,  Hankyoreh Shinmun. 2019. “얼굴에 침 뱉고 물컵 던지고…한진그룹 이명희 ‘갑질폭행’실상” 

2019, http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/880454.html#csidx5e14f8fda563a4b9 a225fd579949a4d, accessed October 9, 2020.

Case 5: An Apartment Guard

Along with urbanization and industrialization since the 1960s, a large number of the rural Korean population moved to the cities. More than a quarter of the Korean population, or more than ten million people, live in the Seoul metropolitan area, where the construction of the “apartment forest” heavily began in the 1980s. It is common that a few to several apartment buildings form a gated community, and a gatekeeper or apartment guard is employed. Three-day professional education is required to qualify for the job, and the job entails general protection of and services to the residents. The job is popular for those in their 50s or 60s and pays about $2,000 per month, which is a relatively low wage in Korea.17 On May 10, 2020, Mr. Choi Hee-Seok, an apartment guard in Wooidong, Seoul, took his life after suffering from a series of bullying by an apartment resident involving physical and verbal assaults. The victim left a note saying, “I am mortified.”18 The bullying started on April 21, 2020 when Choi moved along a resident’s (Mr. Shim) double-parked car to facilitate other vehicles’ moving in and out of the crowded car park, which is a common practice for these guards. Several days later, on April 27, Shim assaulted Choi and broke his nose, because of the car parking incident, in the toilet attached to the guard’s office, causing injury requiring three weeks of treatment. Recognizing Choi’s injury, some residents held an urgent meeting to provide support. Choi sued Shim for the damages. Shim soon counter-sued Choi for defamation and put Choi under pressure, producing a medical certificate (which was later found irrelevant to the incident). Shim’s misdeeds were broadly reported in the media and tremendously angered the Korean public. As of May 19, 2020, more than 400,000 people signed a petition to have the incident properly addressed. Shim was imprisoned on May 22, 2020, and the court case was still under consideration as of October 13, 2020.19 The Korean Supreme Court sentenced the suspect to five years imprisonment, and Shim will be released on May 19, 

2025. Following the incident, more space for the car park has been created, 

17 Naver Blog. 2019. “아파트 경비원에 (KBS Institute to Train the Apartment Guard 대해서 알아보자” (Information About the Job of ). November 29, 

Apartment Guard, KBS 경비교육원 accessed 

2019, http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=namjw0323&logNo=221721864073, October 13, 2020.

18아파트19  Namu Wiki“우이동경비원 아파트 . 2020. “갑질Namu Wiki  사망경비원우이동 사건 갑질. 아파트, accessed October 13, 2020. Namu Wiki사망 경비원 사건” (Death of an Apartment Guard in Wooidong: A , September 9, 2020, 갑질 사망 사건” (Death of an Apartment Guard  https://namu.wiki/w/우이동 in Wooidong: A Case of Bullying). 

 

Case of Bullying).” 

and the apartment provided the guards with a better staffroom.20 From January 2021, Security Guard Harassment Prevention Act has been enforced.

Aside from Shim’s other misbehaviours and bullying behaviours reported in the media, apartment residents’ bullying of apartment guards is common. For example, since the death of Choi, Seoul Police Station provided an opportunity for people to report any bullying against the apartment guard. During May 2020, thirty-three incidents were reported, from which fourteen cases were handed over to the Prosecution Office and sixteen cases were still under investigation.21 The residents of an apartment building share a significant amount of space and facilities. Most of the residents may be financially better off than their gatekeepers, which for a small number of people is a justifying reason to look down upon the gatekeepers and mistreat them. The case under analysis is not one of few such incidents but one of many. This culture of harassment against gatekeepers is underpinned by the long-lasting structural properties that are still prevalent in materialistic Korean society, and which some Korean scholars consider the most neoliberal in the world as displayed in the internationally popular TV series, Squid Game.22 Nonetheless, many residents of apartments have found the harassment unacceptable and raised concerns against the instigator and this issue more broadly.

Case 6: VIP Customers and the Department Store Parking Attendants

A bullying incident occurred between two VIP customers (mother and daughter) and three parking attendants in the car park of Hyundai Department Store in Bucheon City on December 27, 2014. Late December is always busy at the department stores and their car parks. A VIP customer occupied two parking spaces rather than one, and a parking attendant requested the customer move the vehicle. The customer responded her daughter had not arrived yet and she “would move the car later.” Departing to attend to other drivers, the parking attendant was moving his arms like a boxer, which 

20 JTBC. 2021. “경비노동자 죽음 내몬 주민 징역 5년 확정, 그리고…” (The Resident Sentenced to 5 Years Imprisonment for Causing the Death of an Apartment Guard, and…). August 29, 2021, https://n.news.naver.com/article/437/0000274878?cds=news_edit, accessed December 10, 2021. 21 Petition to the Blue House. “청원답변” (Response to a Petition to the Blue House). https:// www1.president.go.kr/petitions/588752, accessed October 13, 2020.

22 International popularity of the Squid Game is not due to the worldwide interest about Korean economy, but its similarity to the prevalent and exploitative economy in operation throughout the world. The episodes have brilliantly illustrated the common features of the neoliberal economy.

seemed to be for the young man to keep his body moving and physically active. The attendant’s arms movement may have been considered a threat to the customer, which then ignited a quarrel leading to bullying.23 The customer had the parking attendant kneel on the floor. Three other attendants came along and tried to have the kneeling attendant stand up. However, the customer also had the three attendants (university students) forced on their knees on the cold floor of the car park, of which a photo was disclosed. The young attendants were required to continue kneeling for more than an hour, or close to two hours.24 The VIP customer later visited the department store and said she was mortified. She then lay on the floor and had a tantrum, shouting, “I am spending my own money. Why should I be humiliated by the parking attendant and be treated badly?” An ambulance took her to an emergency room in a hospital to help her calm down. The parking attendant was preoccupied with how to earn his university tuition, which made him obey the customer and kneel. A witness later repeated the VIP customer’s shouting at the parking attendant, “Don’t you see this expensive vehicle? Do you see it as a hoopty? I have had many other powerful persons kneel in front of me. My husband’s words can easily sack all of you.”25

A controversial issue has been that kneeling is a serious form of submission in Korean culture and no longer common especially for young people with pride. The public raised the question, “Is it a serious enough issue to make those proud young men kneel?” The bullying woman argued that “the reason to have the parking attendant on his knees was that she couldn’t bash him up, thus having them on their knees was for the sake of social justice.”26 An informed TV discussion of the incident noted that the customer spent $6,000 on the day of the incident.27 Media commentator, Professor Choi Chang-Ryeol argued that the repetition of similar cases at 

https://namu.wiki/w/갑과. 2015. “ Hankyoreh Shinmun

2324Mother and Daughter at the Department Store, Keeping the 3 Attendants on Their Kneeling).   Namu Wiki. 2020. “갑과%20 을” (A and B or the Dominant and the Dominated). October 10, 2020, 을백화점?from= 갑질갑질 모녀, accessed October 14, 2020., 알바생 3명 2시간동안 무릎 꿇려” (Bullying 

January 15, 2015, http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/672124.html, accessed October 14, 2020.

25 Mydaily. 2015. “그것이 알고싶다, 백화점 모녀 “ http://www.mydaily.co.kr/new_yk/html을의 횡포…마녀사냥이다” 주장” (The / Customer Argues She Is the Victim). January 11, 2015, read.php?newsid=201501111119421111, accessed October 14, 2020.

2627  “Channel A News그것이 알고싶다. 2015. “, 백화점백화점 모녀 모녀 “을의 갑질 횡포 사건의…마녀사냥이다 진실은? 주차요원” 주장.” 인터뷰 공개” (Bullying 

Mother and Daughter at the Department Store, What Is Truth? Revealing an Interview with the Parking Attendant). January 8, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vudo_W4ZnGo, accessed October 14, 2020.

department stores indicates that Korean society is preoccupied with the power of money.28 That is, human relationships are centred on the power of money. In a consumeristic society, the power to spend large amounts of money at a department store must be something that the “haves” enjoy showing off. The bullying customer seems to think the parking attendant who earns little has no right to humiliate the wealthy customer under any circumstances. Is an expensive vehicle worth more than the worker’s rights? Similar to General Park’s family, the bullying customer seems to ride on the back of her rich and powerful spouse and boasts a history of making others kneel in front of her. As she resorted to her economic and structural properties, her definition of “social justice” differs from that of most others who are increasingly exposed to, and become aware of, the changing and emergent cultural and personal properties. Indeed, more Koreans are now empowered by the emergent cultural properties and willing to stand against injustices.

Case 7: A Hollow Death of a Prosecutor

Kim Hong-Yeong, a junior prosecutor (33 years old), took his own life at his home on June 19, 2016 after experiencing a long period of psychological suffering resulting from verbal assaults and pubic humiliations from his senior chief prosecutor (Kim Dae-Hyun). The victim’s father claimed that the chief prosecutor was responsible for his son’s death. The victim’s colleagues had witnessed the chief prosecutor’s bullying behaviours of physical and verbal assaults against his many junior colleagues.29 It was later discovered that the chief prosecutor asked the victim to find and book a private room for group drinking, which the victim could not secure, which then angered the chief prosecutor. The victim also requested personal leave based on a family matter, which the senior refused to approve. In connection with past crimes on seventeen occasions, the bullying senior prosecutor (Kim Dae-Hyun) was fired. Kim appealed against the court decision but this eventually failed in March 2019. Three years after the loss of his senior prosecutor’s job, he applied to register as a lawyer. The death of the junior prosecutor caused some degree of self-reflection amongst the prosecutors’ community in Korea; however, 

28 “백화점 모녀 갑질 사건의

29 Joongang Ilbo. 2020. “아들 , 진실은부장검사? 주차요원 https://news.joins.com/article/20224040폭언에  인터뷰힘들어했다 공개.”” (My Son Suffered from Chief , accessed 

Prosecutor’s Verbal Abuse). June 27, 2016, October 14, 2020.

it is known that the culture of bullying has been and remains prevalent in the Korean legal community.30

Prosecutors have uncompromisingly been one of the most elite professionals in Korea ever since the time of Japanese colonialism. They also make a group in which a rigid hierarchical structure is in place, of which the network operates within and beyond the prosecution office. The hierarchy works much like that in the Army. When a junior prosecutor surpasses the rank of his/her current senior who passed the qualifying exam ahead of the junior, the senior often resigns from the job. Thus being a senior holds power over their juniors professionally and personally. Prosecutors, as the ones to keep justice and fairness, are one thing, but how their human relationships operate within the profession seems to be another (Yi Y 2020). Ms. Ihm Eun-Jeong, who has been a prosecutor for sixteen years, confirms that she has experienced several senior prosecutors misbehaving and harassing and the culture of harassment within her profession is real (see Yi Y 2020). She says, “the prosecutor’s death is hollow.”31 A well-known problem with the prosecutors’ harassment is that prosecutors are responsible for their colleagues’ misdeeds and the culprits are rarely brought to justice.32 However, the privileged structural properties become the goals of the aspiring university students to pursue and their professional and cultural properties become embedded in the lives of prosecutors as a group of agents (Veblen 2016; Kim 2021: 241) who are likely to pursue the status quo of their professional culture, which has offered the professionals many material benefits for decades. On the list of Moon Jae-In regime’s rooting out deep-rooted corruption since 2017, the Prosecution Service is one. The public has been made aware that the Office is not prepared to reform its current structure and create a new structure and culture. In general, the Office is neither prepared to self-reform 

Professionals). September 30, 2020,

30October 14, 2020; “30 Namu Wiki. 2020. “대 검사검사 (자살에법조인 https://namu.wiki/w )법조계/사건 사고 자성의” (Incidents to Do with Prosecutors and Legal 목소리YTN News/검사” (Self-Reflection in the Prosecutors’ (법조인, June 27, 2016, )/사건%20사고https://www, accessed .

 

Community after the Death of the Junior Prosecutor). youtube.com/watch?v=XQMN7j-ZXQ4, accessed October 14, 2020.

31ecutor Ihm Eun-Jeong, A Hollow Death of a Prosecutor Requires Collecting the Colleagues’ Views).  Kyunghyang Sinmun. 2016. “임은정 검사 ‘남부지검 검사 허무한 죽음, 연판장 돌려야’” (Pros-

June 27, 2016, http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201606270900001, accessed October 19, 2020.

32 One of the current related efforts is to reduce the rights of Prosecution Office so that this kind of injustice can be addressed. Korean Prosecution Office’s rights are unusually more than the norm by any standards, and the prosecutors are vehemently resisting a national call to have the rights reduced along the line of other advanced countries, during the Moon Jae-In government (2017–2022).

nor willing to come along with external intervention for change, which is against the newly emergent structural and cultural context of the Korean society. It is a standpattist attitude, which halts the continuing process of Korea’s democratic and economic development.

A Grassroots Movement Against Workplace Bullying: “Workplace Bullying 119”

The seven empirical cases illustrated and briefly analysed above closely entail the three overarching types of bullying, i.e., “work-related, personal, and physical/threatening” (Bartlett and Bartlett 2011: 72), which were discussed earlier. Moreover, the general causes of workplace bullying identified in different societies also apply to workplace bullying in Korea. That is, it is caused by specific individuals, workplaces, and the broader socio-cultural and economic context (Mun et al. 2017). Taking a specific interest in the grassroots movement and perceptions of workplace bullying in contemporary Korea, I contend the workers’ increasing reluctance to accept bullying and the related support organizations are crucial in understanding the changing responses to workplace bullying, i.e., the emergent personal properties.

“Workplace Bullying 119” (WB-119, 직장갑질119) is a civic non-profit organization established for the public interest on November 1, 2017. The organization is supported by 241 volunteers, including citizens, Certified Public Labour Attorneys, lawyers, and labour experts. Support and counseling are available through social media, such as dedicated open KaKaoTalk dialogues, Facebook, Blog, and YouTube. Anybody can raise their personal concerns about inappropriate treatment or bullying at the workplace. NewsTapa, an investigative media agency, reported the activities of “Workplace Bullying 119” as follows. Within a week of opening the KaKaoTalk-based social media, 1,055 contacted the service to seek advice on their bullying cases. Unlike past unsuccessful efforts for the same purpose, KaKaotalk’s easy access and the availability of experts made the non-profit organization successful. WB-119 has paid particular attention to the contract employees with little job security and protection in the small to medium-sized corporations.33

Park Jeom-Kyu, a WB-119 staff member, recalled a reason for the founding of the organization was that on a Saturday night Candlelight Rally in 

33 NewsTapa. 2017. “뉴스타파 목격자들—직장갑질119: 1부, 5,634명 눈물의 오픈채팅” (NewsTapa 

Eyewitnesses—Workplace Bullying-119: Part 1, 5,634 Carryout Open Chatting with Tears). 

December 12, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1tTmQSLCsY, accessed October 28, 2020.

December 2016, he saw a large number of workers in their 20s and 30s rushing to the rally, holding candlelights, around 9 pm and 10 pm after finishing their long Saturday working hours. Park was aware that the young workers had a passion to change and to overturn the “wrong” regime, and dreamt of the possibility of improving their workplaces with much better conditions and job security, removing anything inappropriate, including bullying at their workplaces.

From November 1 to November 30, 2017, 5,634 persons joined in the KaKaoTalk chat, and 2,021 bullying cases were reported via chats and emails. The cases included no payment of wages, harassment/mobbing, forced overwork after hours, being fired for no reason. According to 2016 statistics by the Ministry of Employment and Labour, of the corporations employing fewer than 100 workers, only 3.5 per cent of the corporations had workers’ unions. Fifty per cent of the corporations employing fewer than 100 had full-time jobs with “fair” remuneration, and 50 per cent contract jobs with little security. These contexts expose workers to easy dismissal. Prior to engaging in his support for those seeking help through WB-119, Park Jeom-Kyu considered himself knowledgeable about workplace bullying in general. However, Mr. Park was shocked to learn about the inappropriate treatment of workers and bullying in practice, which was well beyond his comprehension. Mr. Oh Jin-Ho, a coordinator at WB-119, noted that one of its achievements is that the communications through KaKaoTalk help the workers realize that they have been bullied without their knowledge because many bullying behaviours have been taken for granted.

There was a case in that a female worker contemplated quitting her job after suffering from long-term verbal and sexual harassment. The company also appropriated her health insurance premium, which left her without any insurance benefit. The worker got in touch with WB-119 to seek professional advice. The worker took up the legal advice and returned to the former employer, raising her complaints. Consequently, the company’s deputy CEO has sincerely apologized, and the worker accepted the apologies and stayed on her job. Park Jeom-Kyu has observed numerous similar cases in that the workers can cope with a financial loss, but are unable to accept workplace bullying, which undermines their human worth.34 WB-119 wondered why the bullying victims preferred to approach WB-119 to report issues rather than the Ministry of Employment and Labour. According to their survey results, the participants (n: 351) responded as given in Table 8.1 with reference to the Ministry.

34 “뉴스타파 목격자들—직장갑질119: 1부, 5,634명 눈물의 accessed October 28, 2020. 오픈채팅.” NewsTapa, December 12, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1tTmQSLCsY,

Table 8.1 Why People Bypass the Ministry of Employment and Labour (A Survey  by WB-119)35

Very much helpful A little helpful Not much helpful Not helpful 

at all Became more anxious 

or rather disadvantaged Made the case worse

n: 36 

(10.3%) n: 43  

(12.3%) n: 133  (38.0%) n: 66  

(18.9%) n: 70  

(20%) n: 3  

(0.6%)

* percentile is the figure released in the media. N: 351 and other figures (n) are estimates based on the published figures, 272 participants being equivalent to 77.5 per cent of the participants.

According to WB-119, one of the key problems with the service for the bullying victims provided by the Ministry is that the service does not ensure anonymity. This is a risk for the victims in terms of employment loss when the employer is informed about the reporting. Moreover, 272 participants (or 77.5 per cent, see Table 8.1) found their report to the Ministry of Employment and Labour “not helpful,” indicating that the Ministry seems to have little understanding or interest in the severity and impact of workplace bullying. This may suggest that workplace bullying has been deeply rooted within the structure and culture of the workplaces, and the government organizations have not been proactive enough to address the problem. The prevalent structures conducive to bullying have created the widespread culture of bullying, so that potential instigators and targets took for granted many potentially bullying behaviours, and have only started to recognize these as inappropriate in recent years. Notably, the significance of the emergence of WB-119 is that within a month, 2,021 bullying cases were reported, indicating people are no longer willing to accept the prevalent structure and culture of workplace bullying. They have learned that “when the victims are in solidarity, they can protest against the bullying company.”36 Thanks to WB-119, the workers within a corporation or the workers engaged in similar professions have established their own social media platforms to provide each other with practical support. Park Jeom-Kyu from WB-119 found that the workers’ staying informed of each other empowers them and provides 

35 “뉴스타파 목격자들—직장갑질119: 1부, 5,634명 눈물의 오픈채팅.” NewsTapa, December 12, 

2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1tTmQSLCsY, accessed October 28, 2020.”

36 NewsTapa. 2017. “뉴스타파 목격자들—직장갑질119: 1부, 5,634명 눈물의 오픈채팅.” 

December 12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1tTmQSLCsY, accessed October 28, 2020.

greater protection against workplace bullying.37 WB-119 social media effectively made the victims aware of the kinds of employment structure and culture, under which they lived, and allowed them to deliberate on the new structure and culture that they desire. These are the emergent personal properties to stimulate the movement to bring about a new structure, which then leads to new workplace culture. WB-119 clearly facilitated the workers to support each other, thus turning them into social actors for change. Further, their engagement in the process of changing the structure enabled double morphogenesis.

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

In the post-Fordist and prevalently neo-liberal Korean context, employment stability has notably decreased, which has made employees more cautious of leaving their current employment to seek work elsewhere, regardless of any conflicts they may experience in their workplace; and it makes the workers reluctant to stand against bullying (Jo 2019: 280). Bullying at workplaces in Korea has surfaced in recent years and appears to be quite prevalent. The experts argue that it has been a chronic problem and is deeply embedded in Korean society.38 From a critical realist viewpoint, bullying is a relatively unchanging phenomenon (i.e., intransitive), and often results from uneven power relationships or economic structure. However, in the context of the emergent cultural properties, people’s perceptions and ideas about bullying are open to change, i.e., transitive. This is what ignites the component members of a society to stand against the bullying, whereas they might have more readily accepted it in the past. The social agents’ action is limited by the given structural and cultural contexts, but the emergent cultural properties enable and ignite reformative actions to bring about changes to the structure.

Analysis of the empirical cases suggests that there is overlap as to why and how bullying occurs in workplaces in Korea and other countries. From a critical realist viewpoint, there were particular structural and cultural properties that supported the environments conducive for bullying, for example, during the rapid urbanization and industrialization in the 1970s 

37 Ibid.

38 Maeil Kyongje. 2018. “직장에서도 법대로 합시다Gapjil Based on Authoritarianism).” January 1. …권위주의 갑질 ‘그만’” (Let’s Practise What Is Legal at Workplace As Well … No More https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/view/2018/01/422/, accessed October 17, 2020.

and 1980s. Korea has taken its particular developmental stages in the process of achieving socio-economic development for decades, exploiting the broader international trade buttressed by domestic manufacturing sectors. The logic of exploitative capitalism and some features of Korean traditional cultures (e.g., respecting the older persons) were influential factors shaping human relationships in the workplace. In the context of a growth-oriented economy, gender discrimination, unfair dismissal, exploitation and other types of workplace bullying were apparent (Gu et al. 2015; Kim and Cho 2017; Seo and Yi 2016a). I argue that with the arrival of new information communication technologies (ICTs) there would be added features to workplace bullying, e.g., keeping the employees in easy contact, sending abusive texts. These technologies have also offered channels to address the bullying issue too, allowing people to see the magnitude of the problem and seek help in new ways. However, I offer the following potential elements that may exacerbate and characterize bullying in contemporary Korea. First, Confucian values such as respecting seniors were much more significant until a few decades ago. Such values are not always valued at workplaces anymore, and can cause some degree of grievances and even act as a cause of conflict, leading to workplace bullying. The death of the above-discussed prosecutor is related to this. Younger workers are increasingly standing against those who display workplace bullying behaviours because of their senior age.

Second, Korean men’s mandatory service in the Army likely influences and supports the rigid hierarchy in workplaces, including government offices, legal communities, private sectors, and everyday interactions.39 Third, the Korean culture of commonly observing rigid hierarchy in everyday life takes a role in the hierarchical relations at the workplace (Jo 2019: 278). The sense of hierarchy is so deeply embedded in human relationships that a person’s more or less privileged backgrounds (e.g., birth, region, and education) affect her/his life opportunities as well as their relations with colleagues in the workplace. This can operate as a culture of discrimination to aggravate workplace bullying (Han 2016). Similarly, Professor Song Jae-Ryong has noted that Koreans enculturate their thought processes and behaviours under the influence of the hierarchically organized Korean society. He argues that individuals occupy different roles in the organizational units, and this should not be the basis for any discrimination or bullying, which, 

39 “직장 내 괴롭힘 금지법 시행 1년, 병원 내 괴롭힘 여전” (One Year After the Legislation of Cheongnyeon Uisa, July 16, 2020, Workplace Anti-Bullying Law, Still Common in the Hospitals). 

http://www.docdocdoc.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2000938, accessed October 20, 2020.

Song argues, is a principle that should be taught and learned in the family unit.40

Fourth, I argue that the most influential factor is the neoliberal context that has swept through the Korean economy especially since the IMF’s structural management at the time of the 1997 Asian economic crisis. A significant proportion of “regular” jobs have been turned into “irregular and unstable” jobs with lesser remuneration packages, which makes it easier for the employer to dismiss the workforce. Devaluing the workforce is an emergent cultural property and puts all the workers in a vulnerable position. Voluntary redundancies when people are in their fifties are common and many people are working part-time but seeking full-time employment. These emergent structural properties expose a large proportion of workers to vulnerable conditions ripe for workplace bullying. Fifth, Korean society has gone through rapid changes, and different generations have been exposed to different structural and cultural contexts, especially during their youth. Therefore, it is to be expected that there may be generational differences regarding their views on bullying, although this does not necessarily mean that Korean society is steadily moving towards a bullying-free society.

On the surface level, there appear to be relatively limited changes occurring to the structure and culture regarding bullying in the workplace. It goes without saying that structural contexts, such as working conditions for the workers, continue to evolve. However, whether or not the working conditions improve in terms of reducing workplace bullying in the market-driven context is not evident. In this respect, whether the employers or the potential instigators, who generally hold power, are increasingly rejecting the culture of bullying is also not evident. However, there seem to have been apparent changes to the agents’ emergent properties. As noted earlier, a significant increase in public concern over workplace bullying since the 2000s is mainly due to people protesting against the bullying and an increase in reporting the incidents, which eventually brought about the legislation of the Workplace Anti-Bullying Law in 2019. This legislation to prevent workplace bullying has been a remarkable achievement. According to a recent survey of 1,183 nurses working in eight different hospitals, undertaken twelve months after the 2019 legislation, 39 per cent responded “the legislation had no impact” and others felt more positive.41 The survey suggests some changes are taking place 

40 Kuki News. 2016. “‘돈이면 다냐?’ 갑갑한 대한민국, 갑(甲)질 공통점 살펴보니” (Money is  http://

Everything? The Bullying Republic of Korea, Common Features of Bullying). April 5, 2016,

news.kukinews.com/newsView/kuk201604050260, accessed October 30, 2020.

41 “직장 내 괴롭힘 금지법 시행 1년, 병원 내 괴롭힘 여전.”

thanks to the legislation. A nursing professor Kang Kyeong-Hwa contends that to prevent bullying in the hospital, the hospital owner and managers should have a clear will to address bullying, provide adequate human and material resources, and run the organization appropriately (Jo 2019: 281).42 The proper operation of the organization includes adequate remuneration for the workers and procedural fairness within the company, leading to job satisfaction (Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997; Lee and Lee 2012; Ryu and Ryu-Kisang 2018). The structure and culture based on credibility, respect, and fairness are much more effective than introducing a particular protocol to prevent bullying (Levering 2000; Pate and Beaumont 2010; cited in Yoo 2015: 251).

New forms of controlling others and bullying continue to arise, which then raises the call for the new rules to prevent bullying (Jo 2019: 288). However, a culture of credibility, respect, and fairness is likely to suppress or reduce bullying effectively in the first place. The structure and culture within the workplace can greatly vary, and the owner and managers of a company can make a difference in building a workplace that is conducive to minimizing bullying. Apart from the above-discussed socio-cultural factors specific to Korean society, the role of ubiquitous media in raising public awareness of workplace bullying cannot be underestimated. All of the empirical cases discussed here have had extensive media coverage in Korea via print and online news reports, radio, TV, YouTube, and blogs.

Both the instigators and targets are component members of Korean society. The instigators are inclined to resort to the prevalent structure and culture, whereas potential targets hope for fair treatment by the dominant group who has control over the present structure and culture (Jo 2019: 282). Potential targets may hope to occupy positions with power and authority so that they can avoid being bullied. Professor Chun Sang-Jin contends that Korean human relationships are based on authoritarian culture, in that senior/superior is distinct from junior/inferior and relationships in general entail close control of the juniors, and commandment, and submission. Chun goes on to argue that people in dominant positions tend to absorb any benefits themselves and pass on responsibilities to the inferior, which encourages in turn the latter to look forward to moving to the dominant positions.43

42What is Legal at Workplace as Well … No More  “직장 내 괴롭힘. 2018. “ 금지법직장에서도 시행 1년, 병원 법대로 내 괴롭힘 합시다Gapjil  Based on Authoritarianism). January 1, …여전권위주의.” 갑질 ‘그만’” (Let’s Practise 

43 Maeil Kyongje

2018, https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/view/2018/01/422/, accessed October 17, 2020.

A significant increase in the number of reports of workplace harassment cases may not necessarily indicate an abrupt surge of harassment in recent years, but the victims are not willing to tolerate workplace harassment in the context of emergent structural and cultural properties conducive to the victims’ raising voices. The component members, i.e., the workers, desperately need to engage in employment, just as their counterparts in the past. When the workers lose their employment, their opportunity cost is greater than that of the employer (Bowles, Edwards, and Roosevelt 2009: 385; Jo 2019: 280). However, contemporary workers are generally better educated and anticipate that the relationships between the employer and the employee should not be exploitative in the democratic, as well as economically affluent, Korean society. The workers expect better treatment at work and are unwilling to accept mistreatment; they seek professional advice, as illustrated by “Workplace Bullying 119.” This is part of the broader trend to stand against any types of unfounded discrimination and misbehaviour (e.g., Kim 2019; Kim 2021: 857; Cho 2016).

References

Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, Margaret S. 2010. “Routine, Reflexivity and Realism.” Sociological Theory 28 (3): 272–303.

Ayoko, Olurem B., Victor J. Callan, and Charmine E. J. Hartel. 2003. “Workplace Conflict, Bullying, and Counterproductive Behaviors.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 11: 283–301.

Bartlett, James E., and Michelle E. Bartlett. 2011. “Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Literature Review.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 13 (1): 69–84.

Björkqvist, Kaj, Karin Österman, and Kirsti M. J. Lagerspetz. 1994. “Sex Differences in Covert Aggression among Adults.” Aggressive Behavior 20 (1): 27–33.

Bowles, Samuel, Richard Edwards, and Frank Roosevelt. 2009. Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change (자본주의이해하기 ), Trans. 

Cho Jeong-Kyu, Choi-Min-Sik, Yi Kang-Guk. Seoul: Humanitas.

Bowling, A. Nathan, and Terry Beehr. 2006. “Workplace Harassment from the Victim’s Perspective: A Theoretical Model and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (5): 998–1012.

Cho, Nam-Ju. 2016. 관계 82년생김지영 (Kim Ji-Young, Born 1982심리적중심으로작업환경과). Seoul: MinumsaBooks.직장내따돌림의

Choi, Hang-Sok, and Hae-Sang Park. 2010. “     : 조직구성원의 불안정성의 조절효과를 ” (Relationship between Psychological Work Environment and Mobbing at the Workplace: Investigation on Moderating Effect Of Neuroticism).서비스경영학회지  (Journal of Korea 

Service Management Society) 11 (2): 209–233.

Cooper, Cary L., and Roy Payne. 1978. Stress at Work. John Wiley & Sons.

Cropanzano, Russell, and Jerald Greenberg. 1997. “Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling through the Maze.” International Review of Industrial & Organizational Psychology 12: 317–372.

Djurkovic, Nikola, Darcy McCormack, and Gian Casimir. 2008. “Workplace Bullying and Intention to Leave: The Moderating Effect of Perceived Organisational Support.” Human Resource Management Journal 18 (4): 405–422.

Edwards, D. Brent, and William C. Brehm. 2015. “The Emergence of Cambodian Civil Society within Global Educational Governance: A Morphogenetic Approach to Agency and Structure.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (2): 275–293.

Einarsen, Ståle, and Bjørn Inge Raknes. 1997. “Harassment in the Workplace and the Victimization of Men.” Violence and Victims 12 (3): 247–263.

Einarsen, Ståle Valvatne, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, Eds. 2011. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Second Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Einarsen, Ståle Valvatne, and Eva Gemzoe Mikkelsen. 2003. “Individual Effects of Exposure to Bullying at Work.” In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, 127–144. London: Taylor & Francis.

Felson, Richard B., and James T. Tedeschi, Eds. 1993. Aggression and Violence: Social Interactionist Perspectives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Fox, Suzy, and Paul E. Spector, Eds. 2004. Counterproductive Work Behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Graham, Norman A. 1991. “The Role of the Military in the Political and Economic Development of the Republic of Korea.” Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol XXVI (1–2): 114–131.

Gu, Miyoung, Jaeyoung Cheon, Yoojeong Nadine Seo, and Sulgi Jeong. 2015. 근로자에대한직장내괴롭힘의실태와보호방안 여성

       (Prevention of Workplace Bullying among Women Workers: Survey Analysis and Policy Suggestions). Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute.

Han, Gil-Soo. 2016. Nouveau-Riche Nationalism and Multiculturalism in Korea: A Media Narrative Analysis. London: Routledge.

Janelli, Roger. 1993. Making Capitalism: The Social and Cultural Construction of a 

South Korean Conglomerate. Standford: Stanford University Press.

Jo, EunJung, and TaeYoung Han. 2019. “한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직” (The Ef-

fect of Team Factors on Workplace Bullying in Team: Interaction Effects of Power Imbalance in a Team).한국심리학회지 :산업 및 조직  (Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology) 32 (2): 241–263.

Jo, Gye-Won. 2019. “직장 내 괴롭힘 방지와 일터 민주주의: 공화주의적 시각” 

(Prevention of Workplace Harassment and Workplace Democracy: A Republican 

Perspective).민주주의와 인권 (Journal of Democracy and Human Rights) 19 (2): 265–294.

Kang, Je-Sang, and Dae-Yu Ko. 2014. “영향에 대한 경험적 연구: 해양경찰조직을공공조직 내 중심으로 침묵현상이” (An Empirical Study on  이직의도에 미치는 

the Effects of Public Organizational Silence for the Bullying Victims to Leave: Focusing on the Korean Coast Guard).한국행정연구  (The Korean Journal of Public Administration) 23 (2): 243–274.

Kim, Ji-Hye. 2019. Kim, Min-Gil, and Min-Hyo Cho. 2017. “여성의 경력단절로선량한 인한차별주의자 차별을  (Good Discrinators한국의 남녀임금격차). Paju: Changbi Publisher. 추세 및 원인 분석: 중심으로” (Analyzing the Trends and Cause 

of the Gender Wage Gap in Korea: Focusing on Women’s Career Discontinuity). 한국행정논집 (Korean Public Administration Quarterly

Kim, Sang-Jun. 2021. 붕새의날개 :문명의 진로 (The Wings of Pengniao the Legend-) 29 (4): 659–692.

ary Bird: The Roads of Civilization). Paju: Akanet.

Lee, Cheol-Gi, and Dong-Jin Lee. 2012. “관계: 직무소진의 조절효과” (An Empirical Study on Relationships between 조직공정성과 이직의도 및 정서몰입의 

Organizational Justice and Employee’s Attitude: Investigating a Moderation Effect of Job Burnout).대한경영학회지  (Korean Journal of Business Administration) 25 (8): 3375–3395.

Levering, Robert. 2000. A Great Place to Work: What Makes Some Employers So Good and Most So Bad. San Francisco, CA: Great Place to Work Institute.

MacIntosh, Judith. 2005. “Experiences of Workplace Bullying in a Rural Area.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing 26: 893–910.

Mun, Gang-Bun, Su-Yeon Yi, Myeong-Hwan Kim, Yeong-Hui Yi, and Eun-Jeong Cho. 

2017. 직장내 괴롭힘 대책 마련을 위한 실태조사 (Policies to Address Workplace 

Bullying: A Survey). Seoul: Ministry of Employment and Labor.

Namie, Gary. 2003. “Workplace Bullying: Escalated Incivility.” Ivey Business Journal: Improving the Practice of Management 68 (2): 1–6.

Neuman, Joel H., and Robert A. Baron. 2003. “Social Antecedents of Bullying. A Social Interactionist Perspective.” In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, edited by Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L. Cooper. London: Taylor and Francis.

Park, Kyung-Kyu, and Hang-Sok Choi. 2007. “의 선행요인과 결과에 관한 ” (A Study on Determinants and Outcomes 직장 내 집단 따돌림 (Mobbing) 연구

of Mobbing at Workplace: Investigation on Mediating Effect of Mobbing at the Workplace).경상논총  (Koreanische Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften) 25 (4): 43–70.

Park, Sung-Hyun. 2019. “방향Indicators and Improvement Directions).” (The Quality of Life of Korean People, Its Current Status by Statistical 한국인의 삶의 질학술원논문집 , 통계적 지표에:자연과학편  의한 현황과 (Journal  개선 

of Korean Academy: Natural Sciences) 58 (1): 89–109.

Parkins, Irina Sumajin, Harold D. Fishbein, and P. Neal Ritchey. 2006. “The Influence of Personality on Workplace Bullying and Discrimination.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36: 2554–2577.

Pate, Judy, and Phillip Beaumont. 2010. “Bullying and Harassment: A Case of Success?” Employee Relations 32 (2): 171–183.

Ryu, Hyungseo, and Ryu-Kisang. 2018. “치는 영향 조직공정성의 조절효과를외식업체중심으로 상사의” (Influence of Supervisor’s  ‘갑질’이 결과변수에 미

:  

‘Gapjil’ (Abusive Supervision) in the Foodservice Industry on Outcome Variables: Testing Moderation Effect of Organizational Justice).호텔경영학연구  (Korean 

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism) 27 (1): 91–107.

Seo, Yoojeong. 2013. “직장에서의 따돌림 실태” (Workplace Mobbing in Korea). 

KRIVET (Korea Research Institute for Education & Training) Issue Brief 20, 

January 30.

Seo, Yoojeong. 2016. “기업 생산력을 떨어뜨리는 직장 괴롭힘” (Workplace Bullying 

Reduces Industrial Productivity). The HRD Review (July): 46–65.

Seo, Yoojeong, and Ji-Eun Yi. 2016a. 연구 (An Analysis of Workplace Bullying in Korea and the Ways to Address It국내직장 괴롭힘의 실태 분석 및 대응방안 ).  

Sejong: Hanguk Neungryeok Gaebalwon.

Seo, Yoojeong, and Jieun Yi. 2016b. “국내 15개 산업분야의 직장 괴롭힘 실태” 

(Workplace Bullying in 15 Industries in Korea). KRIVET (Korea Research Institute for Education & Training) Issue Brief (October 30): 1–4.

Song, Minsu. 2016. “Song, Minsu, and Jungwoo Kim. 2017. “and Working Environment).영향in Korea).심으로” (The Effects of Work Environment Characteristics on Workplace Bullying ” (Influential Factors for Workplace Bullying: The Victims, the Company 분쟁해결연구 직장내 괴롭힘 (Dispute Resolution Studies Review노동리뷰 영향요인근로환경 (Review of Labour: 피해자 특성이, 사업체 직장),   10 (October): 근로환경내) 괴롭힘에 15 (2): 37–71. 특성을 미치는67–86. 중 

Spector, Paul E., and Suzy Fox. 2010. “Theorizing about the Deviant Citizen: An Attributional Explanation of the Interplay of Organizational Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behavior.” Human Resource Management Review 20: 132–143.

Vartia, Maarit. 1996. “The Sources of Bullying—Psychological Work Environment and Organizational Climate.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5 (2): 203–214.

Veblen, Thorstein. 2016. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Open Road Media.

Von Bergen, C. W., J. A. Zavaletta, and B. Soper. 2006. “Legal Remedies for Workplace Bullying: Grabbing the Bully of the Horns.” Employee Relations Law Journal 32 (3): 14–40.

Wimalasena, Lakshman. 2017. “Reflexivity and Women’s Agency: A Critical Realist Morphogenetic Exploration of the Life Experience of Sri Lankan Women.” Journal of Critical Realism 16 (4): 383–401.

Yamada, David C. 2000. “The Phenomenon of Workplace Bullying and the Need for 

Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection.” Georgetown Law Journal 88 (3): 475–536.

Yi, Yeon-Ju. 2020. 내가검찰을 떠난 이유 :검찰 부패를 국민에게 고발하다 (The 

Reason I Left Prosecution Office: Reporting the Corrupted Prosecutors to the People). Seoul: Poreuche.

Yoo, Gye-Sook. 2015. “돌림 효과 직장의료･교육･금융서비스업 내 집단따돌림에 영향을 종사자를 미치는 중심으로 조직문화와” (Effects of  반 따 대처의 : 

Organizational Cultures and Anti-Bullying Initiatives on Workplace Bullying 

Yoon, Jayoung. 2020. “보건사회연구among Workers in the Healthcare, Education, and Banking Service Industries).업Discrimination in the Workplace). 특성과 고용형태를 (Health and Social Welfare Review여성 임금 중심으로 근로자의” (Female Workers’ Perceptions of Gender 페미니즘 직장 내연구  성차별) 35 (4): 245–277. (Issues in Feminism 인식에 관한 연구) 20 (1): —기 

37–81.