Japan's unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent in June, setting the worst post-World War II record for two consecutive months. It is likely to go up higher still, as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's economic-reform plans received a solid mandate in the July 29 Upper House election. For one thing, bad-debt writeoffs by private banks are expected to put a great many people out of work.

Mr. Koizumi has said time and again that "there is no reform without pain." If pain is unavoidable, however, he must also see to it that unemployment is held to a minimum. He must also give the nation reasonable assurances that after the pain will come a better life, otherwise the people will not accept sacrifice. They will revolt against his reform program if it promises only pain and no gain.

The question is: What kinds of pain will "structural reforms without sacred cows" bring? And how long will the pain last? The answers are unclear because the reform program itself remains vague. But one thing seems certain: A considerable number of workers will lose their jobs. Indeed, unemployment will constitute the most severe form of pain.

In this sense, the Koizumi administration can be likened to a boat setting sail in rough waters. Just as the boat must be equipped with life jackets and lifeboats, the government must provide safety nets for the unemployed and minimize the pain of joblessness. This is probably the most important and urgent action the government must take as it prepares to implement its reform plans.

Bad-debt writeoffs by banks are bound to force many businesses to close or restructure in hard-hit sectors like real estate, construction and distribution. The Cabinet Office estimates that an additional 390,000 to 600,000 workers will be laid off if major lenders clean up 13 trillion yen worth of bad loans. The office estimates that 130,000 to 190,000 of these workers would remain unemployed for some time.

In contrast, private think tanks put the number of newly unemployed at 1.1 million to 1.5 million. Part of the reason for this is that private estimates of the sum of bad-debt writeoffs are invariably higher than the official figure. The government tends to make a conservative estimate for fear of arousing public anxiety. With the economic slump adding to bad loans, however, unemployment will likely exceed the official prediction.

Meanwhile, the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy expects that a comprehensive employment program now in the works will create 5.3 million jobs in the next five years. Its policy guidelines call for, among other things, hiring people on a temporary or part-time basis, supporting voluntary skill-development efforts and improving the vocational training system. However, these and other measures, though essential, are no guarantee that the estimated number of jobs will be created.

Japan's existing unemployment-insurance system also needs to be improved. One way to do so is to extend the period in which jobless benefits are available. Payments are currently available for 330 days, compared with about 960 days in Germany and 1,825 days in France. Japan should extend its maximum period to about two years, at least for the period in which the structural reform program is being implemented. But an extension should be granted only under specific conditions, such as while recipients are receiving vocational training or attending technical school.

All this will increase government spending, but the money will be well spent if, as expected, trainees end up finding new jobs. Cutbacks in public-works spending, some of which is considered to be nonessential and even wasteful, will free up a sizable amount of funds.

Only if better unemployment safety nets are put in place will people feel encouraged to meet the challenge of the brave new economic environment. But the safeguards are meant primarily for those who lose their jobs. The government should also consider steps to help workers stay in their jobs. On this score Japan can take cues from some other industrialized nations.

For example, the work-sharing system in the Netherlands merits consideration, as does a rule mandating nondiscrimination between full-time and part-time workers. Work sharing may involve some wage cuts, but it creates more jobs and thus reduces unemployment. It is not a perfect formula, but it is worth trying, particularly in difficult times such as these.

Part-time employees would be motivated to work harder if wage and other differences from full-time workers were eliminated or reduced. Such a change would provide many people -- who now feel obligated to remain full-time workers -- with more job options. Flexible employment would invigorate the labor market and take some of the pressure off unemployment.