hankyoreh

As news emerged of Hongik University’s lawsuit claiming massive damages from cleaning workers that went on strike, a broadcasting segment production company announced it would not be accepting employment applications from graduates of the university. What did they learn from that kind of school? With all apologies to the students, such doubts are well founded.
The reason the cleaning workers held their sit-in protest was because of mass layoffs and excessively poor working conditions. And the outcome was nothing more than an eight-hour workday at 4,450 won ($4.18) per hour and cancellation of the layoff plans. School authorities filed their lawsuit with the argument that the school alone suffered damages from the sit-in, even though this is a matter to be worked out with the cleaning service agency that dispatched the workers as subcontractors. The claim was that its status as an employer could not be recognized. This is specious reasoning.
The place where these workers are sweeping, polishing, and standing guard is Hongik University, not the bathrooms or building of the cleaning service agency. It was also Hongik that caused the cleaning workers to lose their jobs after deciding to cancel its contract with the agency. The university merely hired them through an agency in order to cut down on costs and inconvenience. For all intents and purposes, Hongik University is the cleaning and security workers’ employer. Even if one grants that the university bears no legal responsibility because it did not establish a direct employment contract, as an educational institution it should at the very least have sought a solution based on the educational values of consideration, generosity, and principle. Yet Hongik targeted some of the most disadvantaged people in society -some of them student parents and elderly men and woman - and asked for damages that they could never pay back with a lifetime of hourly wages. Who could feign ignorance at this affront to human ethics?
Indeed, this university has already made a name for itself with numerous instances of anti-educational practices. Allegations of improper practices have surfaced with every entrance examination for its fine arts college. It is also famous for building up savings for unclear purposes rather than channeling tuition money into educational costs for the students. Last year, Hongik had the largest amount of tuition money diverted into savings, and by adding to its savings in this way year after year, it assumed second place in savings for three years running. In 2006, the university‘s Hongik Foundation used its savings when purchasing a plot of land near Seongmi Mountain. Such an application is inevitably going to lead to questions. Also, in violation of Private School Act stipulations, it has not installed any “openness director” to monitor for abuses of foundation authority.
Recently, Hongik announced plans to halve tuition rates for low-income students. This was a praiseworthy decision. But if such measures are taken while gagging the most poor and defenseless with the threat of litigation, then it is simply more deception. Before anything else, we hope to see this lawsuit withdrawn.
　　
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]