Koreans work long hours. In the eyes of foreigners, Korea is a country of hard-working people, and an epitome of work ethic. A recent OECD survey says that Koreans work 2,193 hours a year, while the OECD average is only 1,749 hours. As “dynamic” as the country is in many different ways, there is simply too much work to be done with a streamlined workforce. On top of that, the general unwritten rule of the office is that people stay in the office at least until the boss of the section calls it a day and walks out the door. 

Having realized the toll taken on ordinary family lives and the importance of work-life balance from the socio-economic perspective, the government has been keen to change this part of the Korean culture. The 2004 introduction of a five-day workweek for schools and companies with more than 1,000 employees was a turning point.

Some agencies even adopt “Family Wednesdays,” when people are forced to go home on time, at least on certain designated Wednesdays, to spend more time with their families. Despite all this, long working hours and common overtime followed by after-work gatherings are deeply engrained in the Korean corporate and office culture.

Long working hours have traditionally shrunk vacation time to an absolute minimum. It is not uncommon that workers take only two to three days off during summer for a quick trip to a crammed beach. Although the average vacation time is now being extended to almost a week, one is still supposed to be discreet in planning and requesting a vacation.

These Korean workers may find that they have been shortchanged when they hear about a widely touted decision of last Thursday from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the highest court of the EU located in Luxembourg. After hearing a labor dispute between Spanish trade unions and employers, the highest court of Europe ruled on June 21 that a person should be entitled to more vacation days if he or she becomes sick during vacation.

The decision describes the purpose of a vacation as “to enable the worker to rest and enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure.” So, based on this rationale, if one was prevented from enjoying a vacation due to an illness, extra days should be given. In other words, an employee should be able to re-do a vacation if the previous one was ruined. As a decision from the highest court, this decision will bind all 27 member states.

Now, an interesting thing is to see how far this rationale of a perfect vacation can go. For instance, could the logic also apply, mutatis mutandis, to a situation where one’s rental car breaks down during vacation? Perhaps an argument could be made that as much as the vacation has been ruined, one should get extra vacation days to make up for it. What if you fall ill again during your second vacation? Should you have another vacation for a third time? The basic rationale of the decision seems to indicate that you may claim a third one (and a fourth one, if necessary) until you have achieved full “relaxation and leisure.”

This perfectionist approach of vacation in one part of the world and the minimalist approach of vacation in this country imply that there may be night-and-day differences when people talk about the same issue. Imagine the embarrassment managers from one region may feel when they discuss these mundane (but critical) topics with employees from another region in a global corporation. This may be another version of Martian-Venusian talking.

Well, you might want to put this well-timed decision on the table of your frowning boss when you discuss your summer vacation schedule. Brave, but the risk is all yours.

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at the School of Law, Hanyang University, in Seoul. Formerly he practiced law as an associate attorney with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. ― Ed.