User:Ziyiguosh/sandbox

History
Karoshi has a long-standing history in the Japanese society. The first case of karoshi could be traced back to 1969, but it wasn’t until the 1980s, when Japan entered the so-called “bubble economy” era, that karoshi became a nationally recognized social problem. Because of the recession, the economy urgently needed the labours to increase their productivity for economic recovery. In 1988, the Labor Force Survey reported that almost one fourth of the male working employees worked over 60 hours per week, which is 50% longer than a typical 40-hour weekly working schedule. Realizing the seriousness and widespread nature of this emerging problem, a group of lawyers and doctors set up “karoshi hotlines” that are nationally available, dedicating to help those who seek consultation on karoshi related issues.

Karoshi Hotline
In a 1988 report published by the Karoshi Hotline Network, the majority of the clients who consulted were not workers, but the wives of the workers who either passed away because of karoshi or had a high potential of.

The Karoshi Hotline received the highest number of calls when it was first established in 1998. From 1988 to 1998, there were a total number of 1806 calls received. From 1990 to 2007, the number of calls received per year decreased, but still maintained an average of 400 calls per year. Its availability is nationwide, ranging from Hokkaido(北海道) to Kanto(関東).

Government Policies
To provide a strategic plan on how to decreases the rate of karoshi, the National Institute of Health proposed the establishment of a comprehensive industrial health service program to reduce karoshi and other disease caused by work-related stress in its 2005 annual report. The program requires communal efforts from three different groups, the government, the labour unions and employers, and the employees. The government, as the policy maker, should promote shorter working hours, make health services readily accessible, encourage voluntary health examination and enhance the effectiveness of medical care. As the group that is more closely involved with the everyday health of employees, labour unions and employers should strive to implement and comply with government policies that focus on reducing work overtime and create a better work environment. The employees themselves should recognize their needs to take rests promptly and take preventative measures as needed.

As a formal response to this proposal, the Industry Safety and Health Act was revised in 2006. Under Chapter 3 Organization for Safety and Health Management, the Act established various terms that focus on work-related health issues, including mandatory heath checks and consultations with professional medical personnel for employees who work long hours and have a higher possibility of having work related illness. . It might seem to be an odd decision, speaking from an economic standpoint, to use government policy to force companies to reduce work hours. It seems to be counterproductive of the profit maximizing nature of market economy. This counterintuitive intervention, according to Yoshio Higuchi, is attributed to the several factors unique to the Japanese society. Traditionally, Japanese workers are very loyal employees. It is very common for someone to work for the same company from a freshly out of school graduate to a nearly retired man. The society also views those who constantly change jobs with skeptical eyes. Such discouragement directly caused the difficulty in moving into new jobs. Thus, companies usually have a much higher bargaining power when it comes to “exploiting” their employees. In order to cut costs, companies would usually demand their employees work for longer hours instead of hiring someone to take over part of the workload. Therefore, if the government does not intervene and mandate companies to reduce working time, no orders would be taken seriously.

The current Labor Standards Act is not effective if the majority of the representative employees agree with working over 40 hours per week, despite clauses in the Act prohibits such overtime. A study by the Cabinet Office of the Economic and Social Research Institute of Japan (the Cabinet Office) pointed out that refusing to consent with the ILO’s treaty on work time regulations could be a large contributing factor to the current state of the labor market.

REVIEW COMMENTS (Feel free to delete once read)

 * The topics written so far seem relevant, though the "History" section is already more fleshed out on the current Karoshi page so some of it may be redundant.
 * I have a slight issue with neutrality on the "Government Policies" section. In the first paragraph there are several sentences stating what the government/labour unions/employees should be doing, but using "should" in this scenario may seem like the author believes they should be acting this way. You could possibly replace "should" with something less advice-focused, like "may benefit from" or "has been advised to". Other than this there's no bias that I can find.
 * The Karoshi Hotline section should be expanded, possibly address whether it's been useful so far or if it has had any impact on society
 * All of the citations work fine for me, and seem to be from reputable sources
 * So far this is coming along well, it's written professionally and is an interesting topic. Good luck! - JaredR95

TambiSagar


 * Although the information seems unbiased, however the words used like "greedy corporate powers" is too general and you may target a specific corporate companies or employers related to the case. As cannot label everyone as negative.


 * You can talk about what the present Abe administration has done to take steps to solve or worsen this problem as it would be more bring or relevance and present clarity of the issue.


 * The last section about the food diet seems less important or even relevant to the "karoshi" subject, which is about overwork, if I'am not wrong.


 * You can elaborate more on the impact that the Karoshi hotline had on the Japanese people and about the fate of the hotline itself and also on the "harsh regulatory restrictions" you mentioned.


 * Name some of the companies who have taken steps to improve the work culture.