A survey has shown that about 9 out of 10 members of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) support the push for tripartite social negotiations between labor, management, and the government. A majority of respondents said, “It’s already too late, so we must move forward as quickly as possible.”
The KCTU announced the results of a member survey on the promotion of social negotiations on September 29. At its 9th Regular Central Executive Committee meeting this year, the KCTU decided to pursue social negotiations in order to proactively respond to major industrial transformations, such as the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI), and conducted the survey from August 21 to September 11 to gauge members’ opinions on the matter. A total of 4,863 union members participated.
In response to a question asking for their views on pursuing social negotiations, 51.5% (2,503 people) said they “strongly support” it, and 36.3% (1,767 people) said they “support” it, bringing the total percentage of supportive responses to 87.8%. Those who “disagreed” (3.4%) and “strongly disagreed” (1.9%) accounted for a combined total of just 5.3%.
Regarding the timing of implementation, the most common response was “It should be implemented as quickly as possible” at 51.7%. “Treat it as a medium- to long-term task and prioritize sufficient discussion” accounted for 24.2%, “Proceed after sufficient preparation, taking into account the administration’s stance,” accounted for 18.9%, and “Oppose proceeding until social conditions are in place” accounted for 3.6%.
The two most frequently cited limitations of the existing tripartite social negotiation body—the Economic, Social, and Labor Council—were “the lack of binding force in social agreements and limitations on their implementation” (26.8%) and “the labor sector being reduced to a mere figurehead due to the government’s unilateral approach” (25.3%), with both receiving similar levels of support. This was followed by “the lack of influence by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions” (16.0%), “insufficient representation of the demands of non-regular workers, special employment workers, platform workers, and workplaces with fewer than five employees” (14.3%), “structural limitations of an operational system based on majority rule” (11.5%), and “lack of guaranteed participation by industry-wide unions” (5.0%).
Nevertheless, regarding the reasons why social bargaining is necessary (multiple responses allowed), the most common response—at 56.7%—was that “it is effective to pursue both negotiation and struggle by securing the KCTU’s influence over labor policy.” This was followed by “It can serve as a new alternative for labor-management relations and a system that demonstrates the collective power of workers” (42.9%) and “It overcomes the company-based union system and represents the will of the industry and all workers” (35.2%).
As for reasons for opposition, the greatest concern—cited by 37.8%—was that “it will ultimately serve as a mere figurehead to enforce government policy.” This was followed by “the KCTU will become isolated by attacks from capital and the media and be forced to make concessions” (26.5%), “It will succumb to the government’s strategy of control, intervention, and co-optation, leading to the reformist transformation of the labor movement” (26.5%), and “Its capacity for struggle will be further weakened” (13.6%).
Among the guiding principles established by the Central Executive Committee, “changing the operating method from voting to a consensus-based system” (42.1%) was ranked as the top priority, followed by “guaranteeing direct participation by industry-wide unions” (37.0%), “changing the name of the social bargaining body” (19.1%) followed.
Regarding the most important agenda items to be addressed by the social negotiation body (multiple responses allowed), “worker participation and the protection of employment and labor rights in the context of AI and industrial transformation” received an overwhelming 60.6% of the responses. This was followed by “resolving inequality and polarization” (40.2%), “developing solutions for non-regular employment issues” (37.9%), “guaranteeing union activities (e.g., expanding time-off for union activities)” (24.7%), “strengthening the social safety net” (22.5%), “Establishing models for industry-wide and inter-company collective bargaining” (17.3%), and “Responding to the climate crisis” (6.8%).
