Should SEALDs student activists worry about not getting hired?


Summer 2015 — 70 years since Japan’s defeat in World War II. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ruling coalition have rammed two security bills through the Lower House that overturn decades of interpretation of the Constitution by enabling Japan to engage in collective self-defense. Now he hopes to do the same in the Upper House.

Opposition to the government’s aggressive push to loosen restrictions on the use of military force is being heard from many corners. The beacon for students opposing the bills has been the Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, or SEALDs. Under the slogan of protecting “freedom, peace and democracy,” these students have loudly voiced their opposition to the government’s push for militarization at protests around the country.

SEALDs have put paid to two tired tropes that have been regularly trotted out over the years about Japan’s students: first, that they have no interest in politics, and second, that student social movements here are a thing of the past. Inspired by SEALDs, even high schoolers and mothers who had never before engaged in social activism have taken to the streets to demand that our country commit to never again waging war, and that our youths are never asked to kill those of other countries. Jumping on the bandwagon have been the elderly, under the collective banner of OLDs, and even the middle-aged, or MIDDLEs.

This resolute, relentless movement has already begun to have a clear impact on our society. The recent drop in support for the Abe government is at least in part a result of grass-roots movements such as SEALDs. One Liberal Democratic Party member of the Lower House tweeted: “SEALDs members just don’t want to go off to war, i.e., their actions are based on extreme selfishness.”

But if these youths were only thinking of themselves, would they really be engaged in a collective social movement like SEALDs? Also, the idea that not wanting to go off to war is “selfish” is itself a serious attack on individual thought and freedom of conscience. It reminds me of the totalitarianism that prevailed before the war, and I was shocked to hear a modern-day politician utter such a comment. I assumed he must be some old fogey, so when I discovered it was 36-year-old Takaya Muto, I was flabbergasted.

The fact that a lawmaker would use such extremist language perhaps offers some insight into the extent of panic within the LDP at SEALDs’ growing strength. The comment caused quite a stir. That and some alleged financial shenanigans led to Muto’s resignation from the LDP on Aug. 19.

For politicians chomping at the bit to deploy Japan’s forces overseas, SEALDs are apparently quite an irritant. An independent member of the Yukuhashi city assembly in Fukuoka Prefecture also stuck his foot firmly in his mouth when he riffed on a comment by one SEALDs member that “we tremble at the thought of going to war.” Shinya Kotsubo parodied it on his blog on July 26, titling his article “SEALDs members should tremble at the thought that they’ll never get a job.” He explained further, writing, “You are demonstrating now while you’re students, so don’t come crying when no one will hire you later on.”

When companies scout for students,” he elaborated, “they look at the name of the university. They don’t look at the students themselves. All the power lies in the side that selects. … Since the corporation is the one that selects, everything must follow the company’s rules and interests. This is reality.

“To give a specific example, say a sports club becomes involved in a rape scandal. The university’s reputation is damaged and it affects all students. The rapists’ reputations are of course damaged, but the university is also seen as ‘that kind of university.’ The fellow students who were unable to prevent such a scandal become tainted as people who would be likewise unable or unwilling to protect the reputation of the company. So there would be no reason to hire such a student.

“The university’s reputation was not built by the current student body. Since it was not acquired by current students, they have no right to protest. … This reputation was a gift given to current students from their seniors who have already graduated and gone out into the world, making a name for the university. If they damage the reputation of the university to which they belong, it’s obvious how things are going to play out. We should do everything possible to eliminate the risk of this. A corporation should not be asked to shoulder such a risk to its reputation.

“Careers begin with an offer from a corporation, but it’s already too late for that. The result is that they will all be shot down. Some students are at prestigious schools such as Waseda or Keio University. These students are probably OK since many famous politicians, police and bureaucrats are from there. Selection takes precedence in all cases, so the impact on these students will only be slight. However, students at universities with little power, history or tradition won’t be so lucky. They will not be selected and as a result, all will be eliminated. I have even heard of cases where the professors join the demos and egg on their students.”

To sum up, Kotsubo says: 1) Corporations have all the power over whether to hire; 2) when hiring, corporations place great weight on the reputation of an applicant’s university and don’t really look at the students themselves; 3) if the university’s brand name is hurt, all students attending that university lose credibility; 4) students engaged in social movements are damaging the brand value of their universities; 5) the risk for students at prestigious colleges like Waseda and Keio is slight, but students at less prestigious schools are a write-off (i.e., They will never get a job); and 6) I am saying all this for the benefit of students, but the most guilty are the professors who encourage students to protest without warning them of the risks.

Let’s examine Kotsubo’s rant from the perspective of labor law. I happen to agree with his first point: Employment contracts differ from other general commercial contracts in that management and labor do not have equal power; it is the worker who must make a living off wages, putting them in a weaker position vis a vis the employer. In effect, the worker has no choice but to accept the working conditions offered to them. Hugo Sinzheimer, the father of German labor law, called this the “subordination of the worker.” That is precisely why labor law was created: to redress the inherent inequality between employer and employee.

But labor law has its limits. “Labor law applies only to workers once they are hired and does not apply to employers at the stage of hiring,” declared the Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 1973, in the Mitsubishi Plastics case. The plaintiff had failed to declare his participation in a student movement at the interview stage, and his past activism was discovered during his probation period with the company. His hiring was terminated.

The top court ruled that the decision about whether or not to hire someone is entirely at the employer’s discretion, barring certain legal restrictions. The court said it was impossible to make it illegal for corporations to refuse to hire someone due to their particular beliefs or creed. The “legal restrictions” here refer to, for instance, refusing to hire someone due to their gender (Article 5 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act), the requirement to hire a certain percentage of workers with disabilities (Article 37 of the Act on the Promotion of the Employment of Disabled Persons of Japan); and the prohibition on telling a prospective employee not to join a labor union once they are hired (aka “yellow-dog contracts”) (Article 7 of the Trade Union Act).

So is it OK to refuse to hire someone due to their beliefs or creed? Article 3 of the Labor Standards Law prohibits discrimination based on creed, but the Supreme Court tells us that such a prohibition applies only after hiring, not before. Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and conscience, but this does not directly restrict private companies, which are legally individual persons themselves, and the court rejected the plaintiff’s suit.

So, you might think it would be legal for firms to refuse to hire students who participated in SEALDs. It appears that labor law allows companies to discriminate, at least at the hiring stage, against prospective employees based on their beliefs or creed. But freedom of thought and creed is a cornerstone of democracy. In a country that prides itself on being democratic, individual thought and creed should be protected to the maximum extent possible. Yet, in practice, firms’ freedom to hire appears to trump freedom of thought.

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare issued a directive in 1999 that classifies the following as private information about job candidates that companies are forbidden to collect: hometown, birthplace, family occupations/income, or any other item that could lead to social discrimination. Collecting information on an individual’s religion, philosophy of life, political party leanings, newspaper subscriptions, their history of involvement in student movements or labor unions, and any other information related to thought or creed, is also off-limits. These guidelines are supposed to discourage prospective employers from investigating a job candidate’s past in ways that discriminate or violate freedom of thought or creed. A directive is not a law, but any company that ignores this principle of equality when they hire needs to be called out for what it is: a “black company,” as firms with dubious ethics are known here.

For most of us, the value in proactively hiring women, foreigners and people with disabilities in order to enrich corporate diversity is a given. Kotsubo envisions corporations as a conformist collection of submissive workers who align their beliefs with authority, never utter a complaint and shun all individuality. Although he is 36 (the same age as Muto), Kotsubo’s beliefs are surprisingly closed-minded and old-fashioned. Are we witnessing the fogey-ization of our young politicians?

Muto says SEALDs members think only of themselves; Kotsubo says they think too little about their own futures. SEALDs can’t win.

Kotsubo claims companies look at the name of a student’s university, not the student themselves. Some Japanese firms may be like that, but not all. More companies these days are beginning to look instead at students’ individual qualities, regardless of their alma mater. And more are beginning to place greater importance on bold presentations during interviews, with some even choosing students from unknown schools over Ivy Leaguers.

What shocked me the most was that Kotsubo compared SEALDs activism to rape. More than the victim, he seems concerned about the rapists’ classmates, who must suffer damage to their university’s reputation. It’s incomprehensible to me why a rape scandal would damage students who had nothing to do with it.

Kotsubo seems to deny the independence of the individual. He loathes those individuals who question or challenge existing authorities such as the government or corporations — those who think with their brains and then take action. Kotsubo sees university students as nothing more than future corporate cogs. Cogs don’t need beliefs or a creed, so he declares that they are throwing away their careers. For a politician to try to instill such fear in students is beyond the pale.

In my experience, corporate hiring is akin to matchmaking. Both the prospective employee and employer are human beings. Even perfect interviews don’t guarantee employment. Getting hired is no evidence of personal success but rather of a good match. The whole process is more nebulous than the textbooks suggest. There is no need for us to suppress the beliefs or conscience of individual students during their precious college years.

Thinking about these politicians who hold the sword of Damocles of denial of employment over students’ heads in an attempt to muzzle them, I would love to send them a letter that simply reads, “We are sorry to inform you that we have decided not to hire you.”

Hifumi Okunuki teaches at Sagami Women’s University and serves as executive president of Tozen Union. She can be reached at tozen.okunuki@gmail.com. Labor Pains appears in print on the fourth Monday Community Page of the month. Your comments and story ideas: community@japantimes.co.jp

  • jcbinok

    Good article. Reminds me of that old Clash song that says,
    “You have the right to free speech/
    As long as you’re dumb enough/
    To actually try it.”

  • tisho

    No because they can just use the welfare benefits like most netouyos.

  • A.J. Sutter

    I teach undergraduates in the law & politics section of a university in the tier just below Waseda and Keio, nicknamed MARCH by the media, where students are especially vulnerable to shifts in hiring trends. One of the courses I teach is on the theory and practice of protest. Ironically, this year of SEALDS is the first year I’ve had to cancel the seminar: I had only 1 qualified applicant, instead of the usual 9-10.

    Not that I think the lack of interest is related to the fear of retaliation by employers — I think it’s the simple anxiety over getting a full-time job, period. Once or twice even an accepted student has dropped out after a week or two because they feel the reading load is too intense to maintain during their job search. The article is a little rosy about the prospects for students from such schools: many of my students do find jobs, but their search seems to take forever, measured in the number of classes they miss due to job-hunting.

    So the idea that employers look at the name of the university is still a reality for them. In fact, even websites for arranging appointments discriminate: students from national universities and Waseda-Keio get sent to a page with earlier sign-up dates for company information seminars, etc. than do MARCH students, to say nothing of students from lower-ranked universities. (Nonetheless, I would guess SEALDS is pretty active at one of the MARCH schools, Hosei — but that institution has a long history of having a more politicized student body.)

    I’m less shocked than the author of the piece about “Kotsubo sees university students as nothing more than future corporate cogs.” That’s precisely how companies see them: they have no hesitation to schedule interviews during a student’s class hours, and are inflexible to re-schedule even when the student is supposed to make a presentation. And it’s also how the Ministry of Education sees students: see the recent letter to national universities to eliminate humanities programs.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m entirely sympathetic to the author’s point of view in this piece. But I think that’s a bit of wishful thinking on both of our parts, despite the courage shown by the students who currently are protesting.

  • Magic Mike

    Most of these kids are from the rich elite universities and have nothing to lose. If protests and riots were really tied to university names, 70% of Japan’s management today would be different people. Super Free didn’t stop anyone from Todai, Keio, Waseda, Meiji, Hosei, Gakushin, Nihondai (all connected with the incident) getting jobs besides the named perpetrators. If you’re already going to a low-tier university, a bunch of loosely organized protesters is going to be the least of your shukatsu problems.

  • Toolonggone

    Don’t be surprised. A cynicism of tiny little ole’ dude doesn’t amount to anything that would discourage college graduates and young adults from expressing their thoughts and engagement. They are well aware of the problem deeply rooted in the heart of society.

  • sparkystiltskin

    Nothing like Oyaji logic to justify a pathological need

  • Paul Johnny Lynn

    Kotsubo’s offering amounts to nothing short of a thinly-veiled threat : toe the line, agree with your “beautiful” leader and shut up, or we will s**t on your future.

  • Oliver Mackie

    The fact that the law recognizes the reality that it is effectively impossible, barring the creation of a Big Brother state, to prevent companies from hiring people for many kinds of opaque reasons, shows that the law sensibly knows its limits. (There are other issues, such as gender, where facts can be more objectively defined, and there is more of role for the law or other forms of regulation to be effective.) When faced with such an issue, the one thing foolish people do is clamo(u)r for the law to be made stricter or more strictly enforced. They claim the moral high ground but are too lacking in wisdom to realize that it just increases state oppression and has no impact of the topic at hand. Oh, and it creates a lot of resentment.

    Give me the courage to change the things I can, the strength to accept the ones I can’t, and the wisdom to know the difference.

  • Max Erimo

    Japanese companies already do discriminate on the basis of beliefs.
    After 311 companies in a town very close to the Tomari nuclear reactor asked all applicants what they thought of nuclear power. Any one who answered negatively, did not get employed.
    Another thing being Japanese companies don’t want workers who think for themselves or express their opinions.

  • Chris Bartlett

    I very much doubt involvement will harm any careers. Any company worth working for would be only too delighted to employ students who have shown such self motivation and creativity regardless of what those employees’ political views might be. In any event it’s not like their views are actually opposed to those of most potential employers anyway.

  • Paul Martin

    Japan’s young with the voting age now lowered have the potential political POWER to transform Japan into a REAL democracy, eliminate corruption from the top down and elect those from among themselves who WILL make Japan a true international community place NOT just for a few rich, powerful, right wing Japanese old men !

    • zer0_0zor0

      What is your preoccupation with making Japan an “international community”?

      This is Japan, not the USA.

      • Paul Martin

        Japanese are welcomed as equal students, workers and business people in many countries especially America where there are Japanese communities everywhere, like little Tokyo in LA SFO and NY.In the US there are people of all races and nationalities in schools and jobs throughout the country. America is truly cosmopolitan and international whereas Japan is very nationalistic in these aspects. There are some 2 million gaijins (foreigners) in Japan and they SHOULD receive the same graciousness and fairness as Japanese !

      • zer0_0zor0

        Well, I agree that foreigners should be treated well, as you say.

        What I don’t agree with, and I’m an American, is that Japan should be forced to transform into a pluralistic society of the type that that USA is supposed to be.

        I suppose that holds true for other countries as well, but it is particularly noticeable in Japan due to the country’s development in relative isolation.

        America, incidentally, is becoming less diverse in places like San Francisco, for example, and the gap between the rich and poor is one of the most extreme anywhere, while public serves are probably the poorest of any developed country, and the infrastructure is collapsing.

        Meanwhile, the United States, as its name implies, was configured to be pluralistic by design, insofar as such terms can be applied to the 18th century. On the other hand, American society is on the verge of implosion; it is not a model that merits emulation at present. Countries with a higher degree of social cohesion facilitated by cultural mutual intelligibility and the like are demonstrating a higher degree of stability and greater balance between different factions.

        America is a unique society, not a model to be universally emulated. Culture is something that inheres in the nation state, and culture is something that we have to preserve, like biodiversity. Meanwhile, with respect to universal rights, for example, the USA is notably missing from the list of signatories of various treaties and has not signed on to international bodies that would challenge its perceived exceptionalism, including the UN Convention on Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, etc. There’s not much in the way of (Wilsonian) internationalism in that.

      • Paul Martin

        Your phraseology, although well written and logically correct in some aspects, is aimed at academics,etc and beyond the comprehension of the average person.

        American history defines that class distinction was and still is to a great extent status quo. At the time when the 13 States were part of the British empire and the pioneers who brutally deceived and annihilated the native Americans it was mostly anglos and irish who arrived on the east coast and manifested their ideas of the establishment. Savery was accepted as the norm as was geneology and wealth,etc.

        The reason I emphasize America in my comments and blog is having lived there some 25 years since the 60’s I understand and appreciate the uniqueness of the US syatem in it’s national simplicity and successes which have become the standard bearer and envy of developing countries!

        My criticisms of Japan are not to try and impose Americanisms or suggest that Japan should emulate other countries, but rather to imply that Japan in 2015 needs to JOIN the international community NOT continue it’s well known ALOOFNESS towards it !
        For centuries Japanese culture,- if it can be so described,- has
        DEMANDED BLIND obedience from the masses from emperors to shoguns and governments right up to WW2,etc
        Thus the Hi word is always spoken first and repeatedly throughout all conversations !

        Up to that last horrible war when millions of Japanese UNLEASHED havoc, carnage and merciless destruction of teh whole Asia Pacific their existed and still does to a great degree an unquestionable OBEDIENCE factor under the guise of culture among too many Japanese !

        In the seven years I have lived in Japan on and off and other parts of Asia, I noticed a strong distinction of cultural and nationalistic pride that goes to extremism among many especially older Japanese who regret surrendering to gaijin (foreigners) and prefer the O L D Japanese ways !

        The present attitudes and system in Japan is deliberately designed to S L O W the foreigner down, it is NOT reciprocal with America, Europe, Australia,etc where many Japanese are students and others have established communities there and prefer the liberalism (s) of the West to the O L D Japanese, dictatorial ways !

        I again assert until and unless Japan falls in line with the rest of the World in this day and age it risks being tagged as a pariah nation and prehaps even boycotted in many ways by Westerners who are tired of the discriminatory attitudes and rigidly prescribed suppressive laws !

        WE all breath the same air, live on the same Planet and are part of the same HUMAN race of which the Japanese are NOT different anthropology wise and therefore they need to adjust and behave in accordance with

        M O D E R N times !