ED Profit-linked pay demands spread

President Lee Jae Myung receives a briefing from HD Hyundai Chairman Chung Ki-sun, front row left, inside the cargo hold of a liquefied natural gas carrier at HD Hyundai Heavy Industries’ Ulsan shipyard, May 13. Yonhap

As Korea’s export-driven industries emerge from years of turbulence, a new labor conflict is spreading across the country’s corporate landscape: demands by unions for fixed shares of profits as performance bonuses. What began in the semiconductor sector has now expanded into shipbuilding, automobiles, biotechnology, telecommunications and information technology. Labor unions at some of the country’s largest companies are no longer asking merely for wage increases or discretionary bonuses; they are demanding that a set percentage of operating profit or net income be guaranteed to workers as a matter of institutional principle.

The trend reflects understandable frustrations. But if left unchecked, it risks undermining the very industrial competitiveness that made these companies successful in the first place.

At the center of the latest dispute is HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, Korea’s flagship shipbuilder. Its union recently proposed that at least 30 percent of the company’s operating profit be distributed to employees as performance-based compensation. Similar demands are appearing elsewhere. Samsung Electronics’ union has pushed for bonuses tied to 15 percent of operating profit, while Hyundai Motor’s labor union has repeatedly sought 30 percent of net profit. Unions at Samsung Biologics, LG Uplus and Kakao have also escalated calls for profit-linked compensation schemes.

The rationale behind these demands is not without merit. Many workers endured years of sacrifice during prolonged downturns. Shipbuilders, in particular, endured devastating contractions from the global shipping slump of the mid-2010s. Wage freezes, layoffs, early retirements and restructuring became routine. Workers accepted painful concessions to help companies survive.

Now that industries such as shipbuilding are benefiting from booming demand for liquefied natural gas carriers and eco-friendly vessels, labor unions argue that employees deserve a fair share of the recovery they helped sustain. They are correct to point out that industrial success is not generated by executives and shareholders alone. Skilled labor, accumulated expertise and difficult working conditions remain indispensable to manufacturing competitiveness.

Yet acknowledging labor’s contribution is not the same as endorsing rigid formulas that allocate fixed portions of corporate profits to compensation.

Industries such as semiconductors, automobiles and shipbuilding are among the most cyclical and capital-intensive sectors in the global economy. Their profitability can swing dramatically depending on geopolitical tensions, commodity prices, trade barriers and technological disruption. In such industries, today’s windfall profits are often tomorrow’s survival reserves.

Korea’s shipbuilders, for example, are only beginning to recover from nearly a decade of crisis. At the same time, they face enormous investment demands; automation, carbon-neutral technologies, smart shipyards and autonomous navigation systems all require substantial long-term capital commitments. Semiconductor companies face even fiercer pressures. Global competitors are investing aggressively in artificial intelligence chips, advanced foundries and next-generation memory technologies. Hyundai Motor is spending heavily to accelerate its transition to electric vehicles while navigating rising protectionism in the United States and intensifying Chinese competition.

Under these conditions, institutionalizing profit-sharing at levels approaching 20 or 30 percent of operating income could significantly weaken companies’ ability to reinvest in innovation and future growth. In some cases, the scale of labor’s demands rivals or even exceeds annual budgets for research and development. That is not a sustainable path for industries competing in brutally unforgiving global markets.

There is also a broader structural concern. Once performance bonuses become fixed, they effectively evolve into permanent labor costs. This weakens the original purpose of performance-based compensation and increases long-term financial burdens on companies, including pension and severance obligations. More troublingly, such arrangements may deepen Korea’s already severe labor-market dualism by further widening the gap between highly paid workers at major conglomerates and employees at small and medium-sized businesses or subcontractors.

The timing is especially delicate. Korea’s economy is already struggling with slowing growth, demographic decline and intensifying global competition. The country cannot afford industrial paralysis caused by escalating labor confrontations and increasingly rigid wage structures.

None of this means workers should simply accept corporate prosperity without fair compensation. On the contrary, companies must recognize that sustainable competitiveness depends on retaining skilled labor and maintaining trust on factory floors. Transparent and equitable compensation systems are essential — but so is strategic restraint.

The goal of labor-management relations should not be the short-term maximization of gains for either side. It should be the preservation of long-term industrial vitality, stable employment and national economic resilience. Profit-sharing can be part of that balance. Turning it into an inflexible entitlement, however, risks sacrificing the future for immediate rewards.

Korea’s unions and corporations alike now face a defining choice between pursuing confrontation and short-term gains, or forging a sustainable model of shared growth that protects both workers and the industries on which their livelihoods ultimately depend.