On the 12th, RENGO announced its stance on NIKKEIREN's (Japan Federation of Employers Associations) "Labor Problem Inquiry Committee Report 2001." RENGO seeks to establish specific measures and conditions so that NIKKEIREN's ideal of a "Market Economy with a Human Face " does not end as a mere ideal.

1. The Basic Idea Behind the "Labor Problem Inquiry Report"

This year's NIKKEIREN "Labor Problem Inquiry Report" (hereafter the Report) laid out its "Market Economy with a Human Face" as a continuation of last year's ideal. That is, to bring such mid to long-term issues as "globalization, the information technology (IT) revolution, environment problems, lower birthrates and aging population" into view for the 21st century. RENGO fundamentally agrees with this policy of "Market Economy with a Human Face." Yet, we feel that setting in place several specific policies and conditions are necessary to keep this ideal from ending up as a mere ideal.

First is a state of management that emphasizes "human heart."
The Report mentions that "job creation and maintenance are the fundamental duties of business and corporate executives." Yet in reality, personnel cutbacks have not stopped under business's "choice and focus," and management continues to push ahead prioritizing "international competitiveness" and "downsizing personnel costs." RENGO believes that business ethics with visible "human heart" should be clarified so that worker employment/lifestyle are recognized and linked to a real "elimination of anxiety."

Second is the preparation of a social safety net.
RENGO has no qualms with the Report's concept of a "balance among private, mutual, and public aid" regarding social security. Yet we cannot agree with its emphasis on "complete self-reliance" and also the pivotal idea is biased on how the burden should suffered. What is needed now is the preparation of a social safety net as well as "relief benefits" through the restructuring of the system by generational solidarity.

Third is the establishment of work rules.
The Report submits "novel ways of working" (i.e. shortened labor unstipulated in the employment period, working at home, etc.) as "alternative options" for mid-to-long term working styles.
However, as the Report links the "expansion of choice" with "downsizing personnel costs," in reality, "choices favorable to employers" that place priority on cost management are expanding. "Polarization" not "diversification" develops. To improve the treatment of part-time and dispatched workers, it is imminently important and unavoidable to establish the principle of "equal value labor for equal work conditions." Failure to do so would make "expansion of choice" unattainable. Seeking only the "relaxation/abolition of various regulations in labor legislation" is one-sided.

Fourth is "management with mid-long term vision."
The Report emphasizes this point, however, the problem is that the notion of "management with human respect" gets buried in the debate over "international competitiveness" and "downsizing personnel costs." NIKKEIREN should display leadership as a management organization.

2. Fundamental Recognition of Japan's Current Economic Conditions

Japan's current economic conditions or economic policies.
One of the characteristics of this year's Report is the fact that it fairly ignores any analysis of What is necessary now in Japan is not only "ideals" but specific, effective macro policies. At least the Report should have emphasized the importance of "expanding domestic demand" and "increasing disposable income" for economic recovery. Unfortunately, we must conclude that this year's Report utterly lacks a macro point of view.
This change in stance is also apparent in alterations within NIKKEIREN's own unique theory "productivity standard principle." What was supposed to be a "basic ideal on the macro level regarding wage decisions," has regressed into "mere control over wage increases on the micro level."
What we most fear now is that individual business negotiations will go too far toward the micro level resulting in an overall shrink in the economy even if negotiations individually appear to be rational. Such a "compound error" would overshadow the economic world of Japan. What we want from NIKKEIREN is that they raise issues and offer guidance from the wider view of the macro level.

3. Responses to the Upcoming Labor-Management Negotiations

The Report criticizes labor's arguments for the "recovery of consumption and business by pay hikes" in the upcoming labor-management negotiations. We are not making the assertion that business improvement is possible only by "pay hikes." Admittedly, it is not a "sufficient condition" but undoubtedly it is a "necessary condition." For the sake of "recovery of consumption and business" both "employment" and "pay hikes" are essential.
Further, the Report stated that since Japan's wage standards and labor share rates are in the highest class among developed nations "it is difficult to raise wage standards any further from the point of maintaining international competitiveness." However, even according to NIKKEIREN's logic, wage increases should still be decided according to each individual business's ability to pay. Of course "uniform wage restraint" is unnecessary for workers and individual business managers.
Behind the "wage restraint argument" is the consistent notion of the need to "strengthen international competitiveness." But the era when the clincher of improving competitiveness was to "cut personnel costs" is, in a word, "over." "Value Added Productivity" stressed in the Report cannot be attained only by reducing personnel costs. Even more questionable is that handling the "results" of such productivity improvement, the Report states that "it is reasonable to use profits most of all to maintain and stabilize employment, and then allocate them as a bonus payment." If the Report asserts "deciding wages based on productivity" on a micro-level, that portion gained from improved productivity should also be "reasonably passed on" in the form of a wage hike according to the original "Productivity Standard Principle."
The Report also stated that the "salary raise system" was one of the "distributing rules of financial resources of wages." But let us point out that this is a completely different notion from the "distribution of financial resources" since "periodic wage increases" would be calculated based on payroll tables (or order).

4. The State of the Spring Struggle and Forming Social Consensus

The Report values the "Spring Struggle Method" as "significant." Yet at the same time it also calls on labor unions to form social consensus.
On this point, RENGO has emphasized the importance of forming a social consensus for some time and seeks to positively address to this matter. When we deal with it, what is especially important is the thoroughness of labor-management consultations in "various areas" including the "business/industry/region" also indicated in the Report.
Furthermore, it is important to spread matters that were decided at the labor-management consultations even to workplaces that have not yet organized into unions as well as institutionalize those matters through forming a social consensus by government, labor, and management. Management should also play a role toward the goal of building a new "labor-management consensus system" in Japan.
This year's RENGO principles are to settle the priority issues of wages, shorter working hours, and employment extension to develop an "agreement struggle for unified issues." RENGO will for the first time raise the issue of "pay hikes for part-time workers" to make the first step toward "innovation."
RENGO has been raising a demanding wage standard of more than 1% in net pay increase after ensuring the "maintenance of wage curve." Nothing but our "strength and action" can break through management's "micro logic." We are determined to face upcoming negotiations with an awareness that we are burdened with the grave responsibility for this Spring Struggle.