Deputy Minister Moon Shin-hak of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy emphasized that the transition to artificial intelligence in manufacturing is not optional but essential, stating, "If we fall behind in competition with companies from other countries, we will inevitably be eliminated." He acknowledged the ongoing strike movements by the unions at Samsung Biologics and Samsung Electronics, saying, "While it is not appropriate to comment directly on specific corporate issues, the impact on the domestic industry is significant," and added that both labor and management must engage in discussions with a shared understanding. The sense of crisis is evident. However, what is needed now is not just warnings but refined solutions.
Tensions in the field have already become a reality. The Samsung Biologics union has launched a full strike demanding wage increases, expanded performance bonuses, and fair personnel standards, while the Samsung Electronics union has announced a total strike, seeking performance bonuses linked to operating profits and the abolition of caps on bonuses. Although the specifics of their demands differ, the essence remains the same: how to share the productivity gains brought about by AI transition and automation, and how to ensure employment and future security in the process.
As Deputy Minister Moon diagnosed, the AI transition is an unavoidable trend. Global manufacturing is already being reshaped around data and algorithms, and automation and unmanned operations have become fundamental conditions for competitiveness. Falling behind in this trend could lead not only to losing market share but also to destabilizing the industrial foundation itself. Therefore, speed is crucial. However, speed alone is not sufficient. When speed overwhelms conflict, it can lead to fractures within the industry.
The current debate is not about 'speed versus distribution.' It is about whether we can design both speed and distribution simultaneously. Simply leaving this issue to labor-management negotiations is unrealistic. The existing wage-centered negotiation structure cannot accommodate the structural changes brought about by the AI transition. A new framework is necessary.
First, the AI transition should be approached with a phased strategy. Initially, it is important to maintain speed for competitiveness while simultaneously implementing measures to mitigate employment shocks. Without retraining, job transitions, and internal mobility programs, automation will quickly lead to conflict. The key is to create a structure that maintains speed while absorbing shocks.
Second, performance distribution should be approached not merely as profit-sharing but as a comprehensive issue of risk-reward structure. The AI transition requires substantial capital investment. Companies must bear losses in the event of failure. Demands to share only the gains without acknowledging this reality are unsustainable. Conversely, companies cannot justify avoiding distribution solely on the grounds of investment burdens. The solution is clear: a compensation system linked to medium- and long-term performance, along with a structure that shares some degree of volatility.
Third, the agenda for labor-management negotiations should be expanded to encompass industrial structure. Companies must transparently present their technology adoption plans, employment impacts, and investment directions, while labor should negotiate not to reject change but to adjust conditions and speeds. This is not easy, but it is an unavoidable direction. The AI transition is not merely a wage negotiation issue; it is a matter of redesigning the entire production system.
Fourth, the role of the government must also be clearly redefined. Deputy Minister Moon's emphasis on the necessity of industrial policy is valid. However, the costs and shocks of the transition should not be left solely to the private sector. At the same time, unconditional financial support could lead to moral hazard. Therefore, government intervention should be based on conditional principles. It is desirable to provide support for retraining, tax benefits, and partial subsidies for transition costs, while holding companies accountable for maintaining investments and job stability.
Ultimately, the question raised by this situation is clear: Is South Korea ready for the AI transition? The technology is already in place. What is lacking are the systems, agreements, and design capabilities. The strikes at Samsung Electronics and Samsung Biologics are not just issues for specific companies; they signal a structural transition affecting the entire South Korean industry.
Deputy Minister Moon's warning about "elimination" is valid. However, industries can also collapse when conflicts are not managed. What is needed now is to create a structure that can maintain speed while absorbing shocks. That is the true industrial competitiveness.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.