When people think of YouTube creators, many commonly picture a one-person operation where the creator films, edits, and uploads videos alone. However, behind channels with millions of subscribers, it is not uncommon for staff members to work together, sharing responsibilities such as scriptwriting, translation, editing, and casting. The recent exposé by a former employee of kids' creator Heijini is a controversy surrounding the working conditions of these "invisible staff.".
The controversy surrounding the Heijini channel, which boasts 4.13 million subscribers, is escalating after A, a former colleague, posted on the online community Bobaedream alleging unfair treatment. The issue is attracting significant public attention as specific figures and data regarding annual salary, working hours, and the process of recognizing industrial accidents are mentioned. From now on, we will summarize the key details and issues of this exposé in order.
Who started the revelations and in what way?
The starting point of this controversy is Bobaedream.
The incident came to light when A, a longtime friend and former employee of Heijini, posted on this community. A stated that they wrote the post not to criticize or attack specific individuals, but to raise awareness of the poor working conditions they experienced and the reality of the workers' compensation claim process.
What was the difference between your reason for joining and your actual work?
A joined the company in 2016 after receiving an offer to work as a Chinese language channel creator. However, A claims that in reality, they performed duties as a regular employee rather than as a performer. This explains that there was a significant gap between the role offered and the actual work assigned.
What were the levels of annual salary, working hours, and allowance payments?
According to the information disclosed by Mr. A, his initial annual salary was 20 million won, which was later increased to 21 million won. However, he reportedly worked up to 16 hours a day, and there were many days when he worked overtime until dawn. Mr. A's side claims that although he sometimes worked on weekends more than five times a month, no additional compensation was paid.
In response, the company stated that the employment was in the form of a comprehensive contract and that the working conditions were agreed upon through mutual consultation. As both parties offer differing explanations regarding working hours and allowances, it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion based solely on one side's claims.
How extensive was the scope of work that was handled alone?
The list of tasks disclosed by A is quite extensive. It includes everything from writing Korean scripts and translating into Chinese to native speaker review, casting voice actors, directing dubbing, extracting on-site sound, video editing, and managing comments. A claimed to have handled the entire process of operating the Chinese channel alone.
On the other hand, the company reportedly responded to the effect that while it is true translation and scriptwriting tasks were assigned, they do not agree with the assertion that the individual handled the overall channel operations alone. There is a clear difference in perspective between the two sides regarding the extent of the scope of duties.
How did your health deteriorate, and what process did you go through to get recognized as an industrial accident?
Mr. A stated that he was transported to the emergency room in November 2018 due to shortness of breath while working overtime. He explained that he was subsequently diagnosed with panic disorder, depression, and social anxiety. Furthermore, he disclosed the notice of decision regarding industrial accident insurance, stating that he was recognized as having suffered an industrial accident by the Korea Workers' Compensation Service in 2020.
The recognition of the industrial accident itself is accepted as a relatively confirmed fact given that official documents have been released. However, the two sides differ significantly in their explanations regarding the company's response during this process.
What are the key issues surrounding the company's response during the industrial accident claim process?
According to Mr. A's claims, the company initially showed an attitude of willing to help with the workers' compensation claim. However, Mr. A explains that the company later submitted documents to the Korea Workers' Compensation Service denying the claim and offered 4 million won on the condition that he give up the claim.
The company holds a different stance. It is reported that they denied ever obstructing the workers' compensation claim, stating instead that they actively supported the process by connecting the plaintiff with a labor lawyer. Essentially, the memories and interpretations of both sides regarding the same process are diverging to the point of being diametrically opposed.
Why do the images on broadcast and the revelations contrast?
What A mentioned as the decisive factor in her decision to expose the truth also stands out. She noted that the difficult time she was going through due to overwork and stress coincided with the period when Heijini was portrayed on broadcast as a “kind boss who doesn’t make employees work overtime.” It is said that this contrast in timing served as a significant background for A’s decision to expose the truth.
Who is Heijini, and what is her current situation?
Heijini, whose real name is Kang Hye-jin, is from Daejeon and graduated from the Department of Broadcasting and Entertainment at Dongduk Women's University's College of Performing Arts. From 2015 to 2017, she worked as the first "Carrie Unnie" at Carrie Soft, and in 2017, she co-founded Kids Works with her older brother and served as the CEO of Content. Later that same year, she started an independent broadcast with the character "Heijini" and has continued her activities to this day.
Heijini herself has not yet released an official statement regarding this controversy. It is reported that her agency, KidsWorks, has issued a rebuttal regarding certain points of contention, such as working conditions and the handling of industrial accidents, but no comprehensive clarification has been provided regarding all the claims raised by A.
How should we view this incident?
At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between the clear facts and the claims of both sides. While the recognition of the industrial accident itself is supported by official documents, Mr. A and the company's explanations regarding working hours, the scope of work, and the company's response during the accident processing stand in direct conflict.
Rather than concluding the full facts based solely on one side's claims, it seems necessary to adopt an attitude of observing additional statements from both parties and the results of future investigations. Furthermore, given the possibility that this incident could lead to issues regarding the working conditions of employees at one-person creator channels, it is worth noting whether this will expand into a discussion across the entire industry.
Q&A
What are the key points of the revelations made by the former Heijini employee?
The core of the argument is that the individual was recognized as having suffered an industrial accident due to deteriorating health caused by prolonged long working hours under low wages and handling channel operations alone. In this process, additional claims regarding the company's response were also raised.
What were the specific annual salary and working hours?
According to Mr. A's claims, his initial annual salary was increased from 20 million won to 21 million won, and he worked up to 16 hours a day and came to work on weekends more than five times a month. However, the company stated that this was a mutual agreement based on a comprehensive employment contract.
Did you actually receive workers' compensation approval?
Mr. A disclosed the Workers' Compensation Insurance Decision Notice, stating that he was recognized as having suffered an industrial accident by the Korea Workers' Compensation Service in 2020. This is accepted as a relatively confirmed fact given that an official document was presented.
Has an official statement been released by Heijini or her agency?
Heijini herself has not yet released an official statement. It is reported that her agency, KidsWorks, has issued a rebuttal regarding some contentious issues, such as salary increases, the possibility of working from home, and the handling of industrial accidents.
Which part of the claims from both sides differs the most?
The three areas where there is the most significant divergence are working hours, the method of paying allowances, the scope of work, and the company's response during the industrial accident claim process. Mr. A claims excessive workload and the company's lack of cooperation, whereas the company maintains that there was mutual consultation and active support.