Issues surrounding foreign workers have already been widely documented.
Low wages, unpaid salaries, job misclassification, disappearances, and opaque intermediary structures are all well known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In many discussions, these problems are explained as a consequence of \u201cinsufficient systems.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, this diagnosis misses the core issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem is not that systems are lacking. From this perspective, Japan\u2019s postwar labor legislation offers a crucial reference point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Japan\u2019s postwar labor policy was not merely an economic response. First, laws such as the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union Act established the minimum rights of workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only after this baseline was secured did the government develop labor market mechanisms\u2014 The structure is clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, define rights. Then, design the market.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This sequence reflected a fundamental principle: In contrast, Japan\u2019s current foreign labor policy follows the opposite order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Programs such as the Technical Intern Training Program and the Specified Skilled Worker Program were designed primarily to address labor shortages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This represents a clear inversion of the postwar model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This reversal is not accidental. It is structural.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, foreign workers have been treated primarily as subjects of immigration control rather than labor policy. Second, foreign labor operates within a bilateral labor market structure<\/strong>. Third, policy has been driven by numerical targets. These structural factors have fixed the reversed order in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Postwar labor policy offers concrete institutional lessons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, minimum standards must be paired with enforcement. In the context of foreign labor, this implies linking immigration screening with labor law compliance at the firm level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, matching mechanisms should be institutionalized. Today\u2019s reliance on private intermediaries in foreign labor migration reveals a gap that must be addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third, bargaining power must be embedded in the system. Foreign workers still lack sufficient institutional channels to voice concerns and negotiate conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fourth, labor policy must be connected to industrial policy. The same integrated perspective is required today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the perspective of the Balanced Coexistence Model, the conclusion is clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rights must be designed into the system from the outset, not added afterward.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Equally important is the integration of systems:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Labor markets, immigration systems, and social integration must not be treated as separate domains.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Postwar Japan achieved this integration domestically. What foreign labor policy requires is not an entirely new system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is needed is far simpler\u2014and more fundamental:<\/p>\n\n\n\n the restoration of the proper order of institutional design.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Postwar labor legislation has already provided a blueprint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue is that it has not been applied to the internationalization of labor policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Postwar labor law can be understood as an early form of what the Balanced Coexistence Model seeks to articulate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Current foreign labor policy, however, reflects a misordered attempt to extend that model beyond national borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The task, therefore, is not expansion, but reconstruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To restore the order.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Only from that starting point can sustainable coexistence emerge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is that the order in which systems are constructed has been fundamentally mistaken.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Postwar Principle: Order Matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It was built upon a clear normative sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
public employment services, vocational training, and policies to facilitate labor mobility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
labor is not merely a commodity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Reversal in Foreign Labor Policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nWhy Did the Order Reverse?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Status of residence governs their position, and management takes precedence over rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unlike postwar domestic migration, it involves both Japan and the sending country.
Yet policies rarely incorporate post-return employment or long-term career pathways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHow many workers to accept\u201d is prioritized over \u201chow they work and integrate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhat Should Be Learned from Postwar Legislation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The creation of labor inspection systems was as important as the laws themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Postwar Japan regulated private job placement and centered public employment services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Protection is not only individual but collective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Postwar Japan did not treat labor as a mere input but as part of a broader strategy of productivity and structural transformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nImplications for the Balanced Coexistence Model<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The challenge now is to reconstruct it across borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nRestoring the Proper Order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Japan\/World Immigration News<\/h2>\n\n\n