"During the three years the director has been in the spotlight in front of the camera, the workload of the employees has definitely increased. But has the treatment of employees improved? Not at all."A employee from the Financial Supervisory Service,
Recently, employees of the Financial Supervisory Service said they feel boiling anger whenever they see Director Lee Bok-hyeon in the news. This is because the director frequently monitors external schedules and media exposure while ignoring the ‘household management.’ Inside and outside the FSS, there are evaluations that the chief deputy has taken on organizational management instead of the director. Although the director avoided a lame-duck scenario (loss of power) with ‘aggressive actions’ at the end of the term, dissatisfaction grows daily among employees due to the director's displays of ‘disconnection’ within the organization.
On 17th, the FSS union posted a statement on the internal intranet titled "Director Lee Bok-hyeon should immediately meet with the chairman of the FSS union directly." The statement claimed that the reason for the prolonged stagnation in wage negotiations between the FSS and the union for four months is due to the director. According to the union, negotiations started in December last year, but the director has only shown up once during the sessions. The union also stated that they requested several meetings with the director for behind-the-scenes negotiations, but claimed that the director's side consistently avoided these meetings. An employee pointed out, "The director is the highest decision-maker of the FSS, and should listen to the voices of the employees with a sense of responsibility."
The expression of disconnection regarding the director's organizational management by FSS members has not been a recent development. The director's characteristic surprise reshuffles have long fueled dissatisfaction among employees. On December 10, the FSS conducted a large-scale reshuffle, replacing 74 out of 75 department heads. This 99% replacement is the first in the history of the FSS. It is said that the director's original intention was to replace all department heads. However, considering the aftermath of the December 3 emergency martial law, only the director of the Financial Market Stabilization Bureau was retained.
At the time, FSS employees continued to work overnight, focusing on stabilizing the financial markets right after the emergency martial law was declared. In this environment, the unexpected large-scale reshuffle created confusion among employees. An anonymous employee lamented, "In the past, the personnel changes would have been hinted at to the parties involved a day or two in advance, but under the current director's system, it is common for even the involved parties to remain unaware until an official announcement is made." This employee added, "While the scale of personnel changes has increased, the criteria remain vague," and that "since the current director took office, every day feels like an emergency martial law for employees."
Recently, the employees' frustration has increased. This is because the director has been prioritizing external exposure while putting off organizational management just three months before the end of the term. When the ruling party suggested that Acting President Choi Sang-mok exercise veto power over the corporate law amendment, the director said on the 13th, "I oppose it even at the risk of my position." The director's candid remarks sparked controversy over 'overreach' and highlighted their presence amid the corporate law amendment issue.
Additionally, during a press meeting on the 19th, the director, conscious of the opposition from the business community regarding the corporate law amendment, stated, "I propose an open discussion to the Federation of Korean Industries." This was not just mere words. The FSS announced that on the 20th, it sent an official proposal for an open debate to the Federation of Korean Industries. This is the first time a sitting director of the Financial Supervisory Service has proposed a public debate to a private organization on matters outside their jurisdiction.
Employees unanimously agree that the director's active external activities have only increased the workload for the practical staff. This is because the director's actions do not simply end with solo statements. Before the director expresses a message, practical staff prepare various materials and report them. Responding to inquiries from the National Assembly and the media after the statements is also the responsibility of the practical staff. Another employee noted, "Regardless of the correctness of the director's external messages, among employees, there is a common sentiment that 'it makes our work difficult.'"