Current Kids Works employee counters labor exploitation claims

A current Kids Works employee has challenged allegations of labor exploitation by providing testimony that contradicts a former staff member's claims. The employee noted that the company proactively allowed them to take a month-long break in 2025 without using personal annual leave.

While kids creator Hey Jini (Kang Hye-jin) is embroiled in controversy following allegations of labor exploitation by a former employee, a current employee has now spoken out. In contrast to the former employee's claims of excessive workloads, deteriorating health, and conflicts during the industrial accident application process, the current employee offered a different perspective, describing the work environment and the CEO's consideration based on their long-term tenure. The controversy is becoming more complex as conflicting testimonies emerge regarding the same company.

Hey Jini and her agency, Kids Works, released a second official statement regarding the labor exploitation allegations through their official channels on the 3rd. Expressing her feelings directly, Hey Jini stated, "It is very regrettable and heartbreaking to face someone I once worked with in the same place after eight years. I want to believe that the time we spent together was not all difficult." She further expressed sadness, hoping the employee recovers their health and regains a peaceful daily life.

However, a lengthy comment from a netizen identifying themselves as a current Kids Works employee drew significant attention to the post. The author noted they were sharing their personal experiences and opinions cautiously, worrying that doing so might harm the company. Amid the ongoing revelations from the former employee, a current staff member has publicly disclosed their own experiences.

The employee explained that Kids Works was their first job and a place where they have continued to work for several years. They cited their colleagues as the reason they were able to stay with one company for so long. While working conditions such as salary and welfare are important, they emphasized that the people they work with have been a great source of strength, expressing affection for current colleagues as "invaluable beings who are always a great support."

The employee also noted the difference in tenure between themselves and the former employee. Stating that those who worked there for one to one and a half years likely had their own experiences and feelings during that time, the author highlighted the experiences they have accumulated from their initial entry to the present. While noting that one cannot judge which experience is more important based solely on tenure, they requested that their story from long-term employment also be heard.

Specifically, the employee described the considerations provided by the company following overtime and weekend filming. They claimed that if work was expected to run late, the CEO would notify them in advance, and if they finished excessively late, the company would arrange for a taxi or allow them to arrive late the following day. They explained that when there were evening or weekend shoots, the company would coordinate for them to rest on Monday or allow them to take a preferred day off in another week if the schedule permitted. The implication was that the work environment they experienced differs significantly from the former employee's allegations.

In particular, the employee drew attention by revealing an experience of taking a month-long break without using personal annual leave. The employee stated that as their tenure grew, there were moments of exhaustion where they wanted to rest, and in those instances, the company proactively suggested taking a break. "In fact, during a period in 2025 when I was personally very exhausted and struggling, the company was considerate enough to allow me to take a month-long break without using my personal annual leave," they said. This presents an experience contrary to the former employee's claim of difficulty in obtaining rest.

However, the author did not assert that their experience applied to all employees. They drew a line by stating, "I do not know everyone's situation, but I can at least say this regarding what I have experienced." They pointed out that everyone's timing, work environment, and memories of the company may differ, adding that it is regrettable that the current online discourse does not fully capture the image of the company they have experienced over a long period.

The current employee also expressed concern that colleagues might be hurt during the ongoing controversy. Noting that there are employees working hard in their respective positions, they explained that it is difficult to watch this situation with a comfortable mind and left the comment to share the work environment they experienced firsthand at the company. Rather than directly evaluating the former employee's claims, they presented another perspective on the controversy by disclosing their own work environment.

This conflict originated from the revelations of a former employee, identified as Person A, who stated they began working with Hey Jini in December 2016 after receiving a proposal to work on a Chinese-language channel. Person A claimed to have been solely responsible for the entire channel production and operation—from writing video scripts to editing and uploading—and alleged they suffered health issues, such as panic disorder, due to excessive workloads. They also raised issues suggesting the company interfered during the process of applying for industrial accident compensation after their resignation.

Hey Jini and Kids Works have maintained that Person A's claims are untrue. In their second official statement, the company explained, "In the process of handling this matter, we have most importantly carefully considered the health and stability of our colleague," while presenting employment contracts, salary payment records, work methods, and issues related to the industrial accident application.

As the claims of both sides clash and the testimony of the current employee is added, the controversy is expanding beyond a simple confrontation of positions into an issue surrounding actual working environments and labor conditions. However, the positive experience of the current employee cannot immediately serve as grounds to deny the former employee's claims of harm, nor can the former employee's revelations be used to define the entire company's work environment, as experiences can vary based on employment period, assigned tasks, and individual circumstances. Ultimately, the core of this controversy lies in verifying specific facts, including employment contracts, actual workload, guaranteed rest, wage payments, and the process of handling industrial accidents, beyond the conflicting testimonies.

Read the original (Korean)