Early morning delivery has become a vital part of our society's infrastructure. Households with dual incomes, single-person households, and even the elderly regularly use the service to receive essential goods ordered at night by the next morning. Established during the COVID-19 pandemic, this service has evolved beyond a mere marketing tool for companies, becoming a key component that enhances consumer convenience and boosts the competitiveness of the distribution industry.
In this context, the ruling party is pushing for a revision of the logistics law to legally limit the working hours of delivery drivers for early morning deliveries. The intention to protect the health rights of delivery drivers is commendable. Reducing long working hours and creating a safe working environment is undoubtedly a challenge that society must address together.
However, the method raises concerns. The proposed amendment seeks to legally establish a key issue while social dialogue is still ongoing, which could undermine the significance of such discussions. If legislation is enacted without sufficient consensus, it may exacerbate conflicts rather than resolve them.
Moreover, the voices of the drivers who actually perform early morning deliveries are not reflected in the legislation. A survey conducted by the Coupang Partners Union in January found that 91.5% of 2,098 drivers opposed a limit of 40 to 46 hours per week. Additionally, 92.2% indicated that if delivery hours were reduced, they would need to seek other jobs to make ends meet. A separate survey of 2,405 night drivers in November 2025 revealed that 93% opposed restrictions on late-night deliveries.
As these surveys indicate, a significant number of delivery drivers oppose limits on working hours, citing income loss as the primary reason. Early morning deliveries typically offer higher earnings, making them a voluntary choice for many drivers. Reducing working hours could force them to find additional jobs to cover living expenses, which could ironically harm their health rights. Policies aimed at protecting health rights should not lead to a paradoxical outcome of worsening livelihoods.
Consumer burden cannot be overlooked either. To compensate for the reduced workforce and maintain drivers' incomes due to the working hour limits, substantial additional costs will inevitably arise. The industry anticipates an increase in costs amounting to billions of won annually and a rise in transportation fees per delivery. Since companies cannot absorb all these costs, it is likely to result in increased delivery fees or product prices, ultimately raising the cost of living for consumers.
While the health of delivery drivers must be protected, limiting working hours uniformly is not the only solution. Various alternatives should be considered, such as expanding automation in sorting, ensuring appropriate delivery volume distribution, guaranteeing rest periods, enhancing safety management, and improving autonomous working systems. Above all, it is essential to design a system through social consensus that all stakeholders, including labor, the delivery industry, the government, and consumers, can accept.
Good policy does not satisfy only one side. A sustainable system can be achieved when the health rights and livelihoods of delivery drivers, consumer convenience, and industry competitiveness are balanced. The revision of the logistics law should also be pursued cautiously, following ample social dialogue and objective impact analysis. Hasty legislation could lead to unforeseen side effects, such as increased delivery fees and consumer inconvenience, without satisfying anyone. It is ironic that while discussions are underway to lift outdated regulations on early morning deliveries introduced 14 years ago, another regulation limiting early morning delivery hours is being proposed.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.