[Last Mile Labor Union] "Delay social insurance by one month and make excuses" Examining CEO Makoto Watanabe's labor training

It has been revealed through a video provided to the labor union by current Last One Mile employees that Makoto Watanabe, Chairman and CEO of Last One Mile Co., Ltd., proposed a plan during a labor relations training session for employees to delay social insurance and employment insurance procedures by one month after their start date.

From the idea that there is no need to bear the procedural costs for employees who leave in a short period, we explain that the company will delay the enrollment procedures by creating administrative reasons for them later.

Apply one month after joining the company.

The topic of when to begin social insurance procedures for new employees came up during the training. When the person in charge explained that they might not immediately start the procedures for employees who seem likely to quit shortly, Makoto Watanabe proposed a system to delay the procedures for everyone, rather than making individual judgments.

"All social insurance procedures incur costs. Basically, you just need to decide as an internal administrative procedure when to apply. For example, applying one month after joining the company."

Many people quit after just 3 days or a week. You don't need to spend money on them. You can simply delay the enrollment in social insurance and employment insurance procedures by a month.

Social insurance is not a reward for an employee staying with the company for a long time. It is a system where eligibility arises from the day the joining requirements are met, and it is not a probationary service where the company decides whether to enroll you after observing for a month.

Only those who are ill can apply for a special exemption.

Makoto Watanabe also explains that only those who urgently need their health insurance cards can apply specifically.

If you urgently need your insurance card due to illness, please submit a special application. For company administrative procedures, it is acceptable to state that it takes one to one and a half months for the insurance card to be issued.

However, whether health insurance is necessary is not a matter to be decided by reporting an illness to the company after it occurs. It affects not only the employee but also their dependents' medical visits, childbirth, accidents, and ongoing treatments.

Furthermore, the timing of when your proof of eligibility, such as your insurance card, will be delivered is not the same as the deadline for submitting the application for eligibility acquisition. The fact that it takes time to receive your proof of eligibility does not mean that the company can delay the eligibility acquisition procedure itself.

After deciding to postpone, "make up a reason"

The biggest problem with this training is that, rather than designing the administrative workflow based on a review of the legally permitted deadlines, it starts with the conclusion to delay the process by one month and then requires participants to come up with justifications afterward.

"You have to come up with a reason, like 'we need to confirm something for administrative purposes.'"

"Just make sure you follow the proper procedures. Just make sure you don't violate the law."

Designing procedures to comply with laws and regulations is the exact opposite of creating a facade to conceal the actual purpose.

Even though the stated objective is “to reduce administrative costs associated with employees who resign after a short period of employment,” if the explanation given to the outside world is that “it took time to verify the documents,” is that explanation actually true? Or, as Makoto Watanabe himself suggests, is it a reason that was fabricated after the fact?

Are the company's administrative costs prioritized over employee rights?

It's true that social insurance and employment insurance procedures incur administrative costs. However, these are fundamental management costs that companies employing staff should bear.

Just as you cannot defer payroll to the next month because calculating it is bothersome, you cannot postpone social insurance procedures across the board simply because there's a possibility of short-term resignation.

Rather, if hiring and quitting are repeated frequently, it is the manager's role to confirm whether there are problems with the hiring methods, training methods, work environment, and working conditions, and why employees are quitting in a short period. The idea of postponing social insurance procedures because there are many retirees is not addressing the cause but merely infringing upon the employees' rights.

Public questions for Last One Mile, Inc.

1. Has the practice of delaying social insurance procedures for newly hired employees by one month in principle actually been implemented?
2. Was there a similar operational practice of not starting procedures for employment insurance for one month?
3. How many cases are there where more than one month has passed between the date of hire and the date of notification?
4. Does the reason "confirmation required for administrative procedures" mean that there were actually matters requiring confirmation for individual employees?
5. Were there any employees or dependents who received medical treatment during the period the procedure was delayed?
6. Did the board of directors, the audit and supervisory committee, and the labor and social security attorney understand the content of this training?
7. Are you still maintaining the same policy?

"Creating a facade to avoid violating the law" is not compliance.

If the operation is truly lawful, there is no need to fabricate a reason. All you need to do is simply explain the actual purpose, the actual processing date, and the actual legal basis.

Isn't management training that teaches employees to delay procedures to cut company costs, giving them a different reason, and then saying "just pretend to be compliant" essentially teaching them how to create the *appearance* of legal compliance, rather than teaching actual legal compliance?

Last One Mile Co., Ltd. should explain what it taught its employees and what specific procedures it actually followed, including the number of employees involved.