Emotional Labor Protection · Customer-Service Workers
Protection of Emotional Labor Workers
What is emotional labor protection?
- Both preventive and follow-up measures are employer obligations
- Works only if workers are given the authority to stop an interaction
- No retaliation for requesting protective measures
What this system really changes is who has the authority to end an interaction. In the past, agents on the floor could not end a call before the customer did, and even when they had no choice but to hang up, the responsibility for that judgment fell on the individual agent. The Occupational Safety and Health Act shifts that responsibility to the employer’s safety and health duty. Stopping an interaction during verbal abuse is not a matter of individual nerve but a measure the company must design in advance, and a health impairment that occurs without such a design is treated as a management failure by the company.
The scope goes well beyond call center agents. Any job that deals directly with customers to sell goods or provide services is covered, whether in person, by phone, or by chat: retail sales staff, hospital admissions desks, public service counters, even building management offices. Employers must post notices or play voice announcements discouraging abusive language, and provide a handling manual and training. When an incident occurs, they must temporarily suspend or reassign the work, extend rest time, support treatment and counseling, and help the worker file complaints or criminal charges. Failing to take follow-up measures carries a fine of up to KRW 10 (≈ US$1) million, and treating a worker unfavorably for requesting such measures carries up to 1 year in prison or a fine of up to KRW 10 million (≈ US$7,480). When the offender is someone inside the company, the case falls under workplace harassment in the Labor Standards Act, not this provision.
In practice, records decide the outcome. Adjustment disorder and depressive episodes caused by customer abuse are included in the criteria for recognizing occupational disease, so whether the call recording, counseling history, and the company’s response are on file will shape any later judgment. Three lines written right after the incident are the strongest evidence: what was said and when, who ended the call, and how many minutes of rest the agent got afterward. If you leave record-keeping to individual agents, most incidents disappear unreported.
The most common misconception is that granting the authority to stop means the job is done. If the rules say terminate after three warnings, but the scorecard still counts call-termination rate and call-handling volume, agents are trapped in a structure where using the authority cuts their performance score. Adverse treatment is not limited to dismissal. A lower rating, reduced incentives, a night-shift assignment, or a manager’s remark like "you just have to put up with that" can all be a problem. If you do not remove abuse-terminated calls from the evaluation formula and simply roll out a manual, the paperwork will be complete while people burn out. Details may change, so check the current law.
Anna ChoExpert in organizational culture, coaching, emotion management, and customer service consulting
Jihye ChoiExpert in design thinking, new-hire onboarding, and train-the-trainer programsThe Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to prevent customer-service workers from being harmed by customers’ abusive language and similar conduct. When incidents occur, it requires follow-up measures such as suspending or reassigning work, extending rest time, and supporting treatment and counseling. It also prohibits retaliation against workers who request such measures.
This is the story of Company A, which operates outsourced call centers for home shopping and rental services (420 employees, 260 of them agents). Over the past six months it received more than 30 reports of verbal abuse and sexual harassment per month, and turnover among agents with less than a year of tenure climbed to 48%. A manual already existed, yet agents ended a call first in only 4 cases in six months. (Hypothetical example)
- The center director opened the QA scorecard first, not the manual. "Terminated calls are excluded from evaluation," they said firmly, and revised the formulas so that calls ended because of abusive language no longer count toward call-handling totals or incentives.
- We simplified the criteria to three steps. On the first instance of abusive language, the agent gives a warning. On the second, the agent says "I will now end this call." On the third, the agent hangs up immediately. We removed the team leader approval step entirely.
- The operations manager changed the system so that pressing the end-call button automatically grants a 15-minute break, and trained all 12 managers to ask “Are you okay?” first when an agent returns to their seat, rather than “Why did you hang up?”
- HR contracted an outside counseling provider and made one counseling session the default within 3 days of any incident. Seven agents who had been repeatedly targeted were moved to chat support for two weeks. For 3 threatening calls, the company filed criminal complaints in its own name.
- Six months later, the number of calls agents ended first rose from 4 to 137, and repeat abuse from the same customers fell by more than half. Turnover among agents with under a year of tenure dropped from 48% to 29%.