A debate meant to prevent overwork among parcel delivery drivers looks set to change South Korea's nights. A revision to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, introduced last month by Rep. Park Hong-bae of the Democratic Party of Korea, would cap night work — defined as seven or more consecutive hours between midnight and 5 a.m. — at 10 hours a day, 48 hours a week and 12 times a month. It would apply to night workers and workers in special employment types at all workplaces, including parcel delivery. A separate revision to the Living Logistics Act would require night-shift premium pay and, in principle, bar duties other than pickup and delivery. Ahead of those bills, a Living Logistics Act revision introduced by Rep. Yeom Tae-young of the same party would require businesses to pay the full cost of employment and industrial accident insurance premiums for workers contracted with parcel delivery operators or late-night delivery operators above a certain size.
The health risks of night work cannot be denied. The question is the scope and the method of regulation. The best regulatory design is one that raises social benefits. Yet these bills use the risks found in one industry as grounds to reorganize all industries under the same standard, and they treat workers' right to health as the only benefit at stake. I propose that three other factors be weighed alongside it.
First, the benefits of the service itself. In the Korea Consumer Agency's 2024 Consumer Market Assessment Index, dawn delivery, used by 20 million people, ranked first among 40 markets for consumer orientation (71.8 points) and received the highest scores for reliability and price fairness. It has long since become living infrastructure that supports breakfast tables in dual-income households and grocery shopping for single-person households. If that value is not weighed as well, the debate strays from the substance.
Second, the preferences of those directly involved. According to a National Assembly Research Service report last December, 45.5% of late-night delivery drivers chose night delivery because of "higher income than daytime work." In a November survey by the Coupang Partners Association, 93% of 2,405 night drivers opposed time limits. The Federation of Korean Trade Unions and some unions opposed an outright ban on dawn delivery, and they differed with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions on the cap as well — 50 hours against 46. This issue is not a single contest of labor versus capital. Voluntary choice does not eliminate health risks, but rules built without regard for those preferences will struggle to earn legitimacy. The same applies to three-shift factory work and night nursing at hospitals.
Third, who ends up bearing the cost. If the bills pass, delivery fees will rise. The Occupational Safety and Health Act revision would force a simultaneous reset of labor costs at convenience stores, hospitals and factories, and the full coverage of social insurance premiums in Rep. Yeom's bill would add costs on top of that. Those costs can only come back as prices. In the end, the question is who bears how much of them. Yet there has been no real venue in which to discuss these three factors fully. The dialogue body included the government, the ruling party, parcel delivery companies, unions, delivery branch operators and some civic groups, but its center of gravity rested on the tripartite labor-management-government structure.
Public opinion should not directly set the pace and content of legislation. Laws carry force when they rest on thorough agreement. Fixing an unresolved issue in law, even from good intentions, sits far from the purpose of social dialogue. The right to health and the right to rest for night workers must be protected. But that does not require a method that shakes the tables of 20 million people and binds industries in different circumstances to a single standard. What should come first is a design that reflects the characteristics of each sector, transparent disclosure of where costs land, and a resumption of dialogue that seats every party involved. Consumer benefit and workers' right to health are not opposing propositions. Preserving useful services and infrastructure while dividing social costs reasonably is the direction policy should take now.
