An increasing number of Specified Skilled Workers are effectively being “abandoned” after entry into Japan, receiving insufficient support from their accepting organizations.
They lose their jobs, their living foundations become unstable, and they are left drifting at the margins of the system.
But how does the system respond in such situations?
In reality, these individuals are often assessed as having an “unstable residence status” when applying for an extension of stay or a change of status, which significantly raises the likelihood of denial.
In other words, the party that should bear responsibility and the party that actually suffers disadvantage are reversed.
Where Responsibility Lies in the System
Under the Specified Skilled Worker system, legal responsibility under immigration law is clearly placed on the accepting organization.
This includes:
- Proper execution of employment contracts
- Securing appropriate remuneration
- Implementation of support plans
- Submission of required notifications
All of these are obligations borne by the accepting organization—not by the foreign worker.
The obligations imposed on the foreign worker are limited: engaging in activities consistent with their status of residence and making certain notifications.
In principle, the foreign worker is not the guarantor of the system, but rather its protected subject.
The Reality of “Drift”
Nevertheless, even when accepting organizations fail to fulfill their responsibilities, such failures are not always promptly corrected.
Support may not be provided, employment relationships may dissolve, and without a new workplace, the worker can no longer maintain the activities that form the basis of their residence status.
At this point, the system focuses on the “residence situation” of the individual and issues a denial based on its instability.
What emerges is a clear structural distortion:
- Original responsible party: Accepting organization
- Actual bearer of disadvantage: Foreign worker
Responsibility and risk are separated.
The Problem of Asymmetric Assurance
This is not merely an operational issue.
It is a structural problem embedded in the system itself—an asymmetry of assurance.
Even if the accepting organization fails to fulfill its obligations,
the resulting instability in residence is treated as a problem of the foreign worker.
As a result, the integrity of the system is, in effect, guaranteed by the most vulnerable party.
From the perspective of the Balanced Coexistence Model, this is nothing less than a failure in the design of trust infrastructure.
Why Does This Structure Arise?
The reason is clear.
While the system is strictly designed at the point of entry,
mechanisms for monitoring and correcting compliance after entry are insufficient.
Violations by accepting organizations are not visualized in real time,
and foreign workers have limited means to correct them.
Problems accumulate and eventually surface as “instability in residence status.”
By that stage, however, responsibility is no longer examined—only the outcome is judged.
The Question We Should Be Asking
It is important to reconsider how we frame the issue.
Is the language ability sufficient?
Is the job content appropriate?
Is the residence status stable?
These are important questions—but they are not enough.
What must be examined is the process through which that condition emerged:
- Did the accepting organization fulfill its obligations?
- Was support actually provided?
- Could the system detect deviations at an early stage?
Unless these questions are addressed,
the system will remain one that imposes outcome-based responsibility solely on individuals.
Toward Redesign as Trust Infrastructure
What the Balanced Coexistence Model calls for is bridging this gap between system and reality.
What is needed is not simply stronger regulation.
Rather:
- Continuous visualization of the accepting organization’s compliance
- Mechanisms for early correction when deviations occur
- A structure that allows institutional intervention before the foreign worker suffers disadvantage
Those who bear responsibility must fulfill it,
and that fulfillment must be verifiable.
That is the foundation of trust.
Conclusion
The Specified Skilled Worker system is not only a framework for accepting foreign labor;
it is also a system that supports the lives and futures of those individuals.
If, within that system, the bearer of responsibility and the bearer of disadvantage do not coincide,
then the system must be considered incomplete.
What is being questioned is not the suitability of the foreign worker,
but the suitability of the system itself.
*This post is positioned as a chapter that makes up the table of contents in the Balanced Coexistence Model.