[Editorial] Labor-Management Conflict Risks for the Export Powerhouses of Semiconductors and Automobiles

When Hyundai Motor Company’s labor union held a vote on industrial action on the 24th, an overwhelming 92% of voters supported a strike. A second consecutive year of strikes could become a reality after last year. More importantly, the 92% approval rate shows that labor-management conflict has reached a critical point.
The background to the strike vote includes demands for a monthly base-pay increase of 149,600 won, performance bonuses equal to 30% of net profit, and job security in the age of artificial intelligence. The union’s bargaining agenda also includes major demands such as raising bonuses from 750% to 800%, extending the retirement age to as late as 65, and hiring additional workers. These demands show that the union’s case for striking is not simply about higher wages. It goes beyond reflecting inflation in base pay or setting part of net profit as incentives.
At the center of the union’s agenda is the introduction of a full monthly salary system. The goal is to shift the current hourly wage-based pay structure toward a fixed-salary model. The union appears to believe this would prevent shorter working hours, caused by future AI adoption such as the humanoid robot Atlas, from leading directly to wage cuts. There is some logic to the union’s effort to respond in advance, since changes in the industrial landscape could threaten jobs. But automation and digital transformation are trends most global companies are pursuing. If a company falls behind in this transition, it will fail to build an efficient production structure and may be pushed out of global competition altogether. These issues must therefore be resolved through deep discussion and compromise between labor and management. They are not matters to be settled through strike pressure. Both the company and the union could end up destroying themselves if they try to force the issue through power and physical confrontation.
The timing of the growing strike risk at Hyundai Motor Company is also troubling. Just as the strike controversy surrounding Samsung Electronics’ labor union has not yet fully subsided, Hyundai Motor Company’s union is now also mired in strike-related disputes. South Korea’s two export pillars are semiconductors and automobiles. Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor Company, which play a dual leading role in exports, are being pulled into the vortex of labor unrest. Given the share these two industries account for in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and exports, this is not merely a labor issue. It is a risk that could shake the foundation of the national economy. Hyundai Motor Company, in particular, must overcome tariff uncertainty, especially in the U.S. market. On top of that, fierce competition from Chinese electric vehicle makers such as BYD is narrowing its global position. Hyundai Motor Company now faces a triple burden of a global slowdown, tariff pressure from Donald Trump, and the offensive of Chinese electric vehicles, only to be held back by internal strike disputes.
Workers’ right to collective action is guaranteed by the Constitution. But rights come with responsibility. Hyundai Motor Company’s union has influence on society that matches its size. One strike can cause production losses worth hundreds of billions of won, while suppliers and the wider local economy can suffer a chain reaction of damage.
It is obvious that a strike would hurt both labor and management. If Hyundai Motor Company and its union fail to avoid a second straight year of strikes, the problem will not be theirs alone. In the face of a massive industrial transformation, what South Korea’s entire industrial sector needs now is a precedent in which labor and management build trust and design the future together. Even now, the union should put dialogue ahead of force.