[Editorial] President Lee's Remark That 'Management Rights Deserve the Same Respect as Labor Rights' Draws Attention

On the 18th, President Lee Jae Myung said in connection with the labor dispute at Samsung Electronics, "Management rights should be respected just as much as labor rights." The remark appears to emphasize balance between labor and management. But coming right after Prime Minister Kim Min-seok raised the possibility of invoking emergency mediation powers the previous day, it also appears to underscore the need to protect management rights.
If the expansion of labor rights is a measure of democratic maturity, then the effective protection of management rights reflects the foundation of a market economy. Yet in South Korea, people often speak with resignation about how difficult it is to do business. Government regulation is one reason, but labor-management conflict is also seen as a major factor that hinders management. In fact, South Korea has ranked low in labor-management cooperation in national competitiveness assessments by major overseas institutions, including the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Companies are struggling with annual union strikes at home. Repeated walkouts at major manufacturing sites not only disrupt production but also erode the trust of foreign investors and weaken confidence in global supply chains. In some cases, they even infringe on management rights. There are also many instances in which disputes go beyond wages and collective bargaining terms and turn into ideological union activity by bringing political issues into the conflict. The unpredictable labor environment is also a major reason why Korean companies move production facilities overseas or hesitate to make new investments.
The Samsung Electronics union case is different from conventional labor actions. Raising concerns about the way performance bonuses are distributed cannot simply be dismissed as unjustified. But if it goes too far and crosses the line, neither companies nor the public can accept it. Still, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) criticized claims that emergency mediation powers should be invoked if the Samsung union goes on strike, calling them "highly inappropriate." The argument is that applying such powers solely because of the strike's economic impact would set a precedent for restricting the strike rights of large companies.
But is it really healthy social consensus to leave a strike with a significant impact on the broader economy unchecked by any public intervention? Someone must bear the costs that a strike imposes on the national economy, countless partner companies, and ordinary citizens. Demanding unlimited protection while ignoring the broader social harm caused by the exercise of rights amounts to abuse. Likewise, production disruptions at Samsung Electronics are directly tied to the sales and employment of hundreds of domestic suppliers.
Even if the dispute over Samsung Electronics' incentives is resolved, another problem remains. This episode is certain to keep the debate over performance bonus distribution alive. In the process, calls to protect management rights will inevitably be pushed to the sidelines.
This tilted playing field, which leans heavily toward protecting labor rights, must be corrected. In that sense, President Lee's remark on the 18th about "restricting basic rights for the public good" carries real significance. He made clear that labor rights cannot be protected unconditionally and must be exercised together with social responsibility.
From that perspective, the Samsung Electronics incentive dispute, regardless of how it ends, has left a major task for South Korea's labor market. If the rights of workers, often described as socially vulnerable, are protected without limit, management rights will inevitably become weaker. It is time to recognize that if companies cannot operate with confidence, the benefits available to workers will ultimately shrink as well.