The Samsung Electronics Union, which recently achieved majority union status at Samsung Electronics for the first time, held a large-scale rally and resolution ceremony in front of the Pyeongtaek campus on the afternoon of the 23rd. [Photo=Yonhap News]

On the 28th, Hani Ilbo reported in an article titled "Samsung Electronics Strike Like a Well-Written Script… 'Creating a Political and Industrial Drama?'" that the announced strike at Samsung Electronics is unfolding beyond a simple labor-management conflict, resembling a political and industrial scenario.

Three scenes captured attention at the time.

These were the Samsung Electronics Union's demand for a 15% operating profit performance bonus, a counter-rally by small shareholders at the Pyeongtaek assembly site, and the statement by Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jeong-kwan, "Samsung Electronics' fruits are connected to its partner companies, small shareholders, and the National Pension."

Minister Kim stated at a press briefing at the Government Complex Sejong on April 27th that the issue of how Samsung Electronics' profits are distributed, whether solely among its internal members, warrants consideration.

Individually, these three scenes represent labor-management negotiations, shareholder backlash, and industrial policy remarks. However, when viewed chronologically, the flow changes. The performance bonus negotiations escalated into a debate over shareholder value, which then expanded into a justification for government intervention due to national industrial risk.

The problem doesn't end there. Another variable is superimposed on this flow: the timeline.

The Samsung Electronics Union has announced a total strike period from May 21st to June 7th. The announcement from the corporate union's Samsung Electronics chapter also specifies the total strike period as May 21st to June 7th.

However, May 21st is the official start date of the period for the 9th National Simultaneous Local Elections. According to the Central Election Commission's major office schedule, early voting will take place on May 29th-30th, and the main voting will be on June 3rd. The strike dates directly overlap with key dates of the local elections.

Therefore, the question in this article differs from that of Part 1.

While Part 1 asked, "Why does this flow appear like a well-crafted scene?", this article asks, "When does that scene actually transform into political and industrial variables?"

The answer is not May 21st. Nor is it June 7th, the scheduled end of the total strike. The first turning point where the government, Samsung, and the union will likely face pressure to make decisions will probably be May 26th.

May 26th is five days after the strike begins. It is also three days before the June 3rd local elections' early voting period.

By this time, if production disruptions, impact on partner companies, stock market reactions, movements of foreign investors, and government internal assessments have accumulated to a certain level, the Ministry of Employment and Labor will find it difficult to simply repeat the phrase "labor-management autonomy."

Of course, May 26th does not necessarily mean the day emergency mediation is invoked. It is closer to a benchmark date for judgment than a day for invocation. It signifies the first point in time when the government can no longer simply observe if mediation fails before the strike and production disruptions and market reactions are confirmed during the five days after the strike begins.

Pre-strike Mediation; If Failed, Emergency Mediation Considered

The first option the government can choose is not emergency mediation. It is intervention in pre-strike mediation.

The announced start date for the total strike by the Samsung Electronics Union is May 21st. To intervene with minimal political burden, the government is likely to summon both labor and management to engage in public or private mediation beforehand. Possible methods include a meeting with the Minister of Employment and Labor, joint messages with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, recommendations for re-mediation by the National Labor Relations Commission, and urging for a meeting of labor and management representatives.

In this case, the government can explain it as "mediation to manage risks to national key industries in advance" rather than "intervention to suppress labor rights." The union can also build leverage against the government before resorting to an immediate strike, and Samsung can secure room for negotiation between improving its performance bonus system and management decisions.

The problem arises when this mediation fails.

If pre-strike government mediation fails and the total strike begins on schedule on May 21st, the situation changes qualitatively. The government will have a record of having intervened once in mediation and failed. The union will increase pressure through the strike, and Samsung will enter a phase of minimizing production disruptions and supply chain impacts.

It is at this point that May 26th emerges as the first benchmark.

Five days after the strike begins, production disruptions, impacts on partner companies, stock price reactions, movements of foreign investors, and internal government reports can accumulate to a certain level. Simultaneously, as it is three days before early voting, the government may find it increasingly difficult to remain in a wait-and-see posture.

Ultimately, the timeline can be compressed into three stages.

Pre-strike mediation, failure of mediation and total strike, and consideration of emergency mediation around May 26th.

This flow also provides justification for the government. Before the strike, it acted as a mediator for voluntary compromise. After the mediation fails and actual national economic risks are confirmed, it can consider emergency mediation.

From the union's perspective, it can maximize its bargaining power through strike pressure. However, the greater the impact of the strike, the greater the justification for government intervention.

However, for May 26th to become a real turning point, visible signals such as production line impact, delays for partner companies, stock price and foreign investor flows, and public messages from government ministries must be confirmed. If these signals do not appear, May 26th may remain a benchmark for continued observation rather than a day for emergency mediation.

Emergency mediation is a system where the government refers a labor dispute that poses a significant risk to the national economy or people's lives to the National Labor Relations Commission. The image is a composite illustrating the labor-management mediation and the risks to the semiconductor industry. [Hani Ilbo Composite]

The Threshold for Emergency Mediation

Emergency mediation is not a card that can be played at any time.

Article 76 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates that the Minister of Employment and Labor may decide on emergency mediation when a labor dispute concerns a public utility business, or when its scale is large or its nature is special, posing a clear risk of harming the national economy or endangering the daily lives of the people. The minister must consult with the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission before deciding on emergency mediation.

The effect of emergency mediation is strong.

The National Archives describes emergency mediation as a system that temporarily suspends labor disputes that pose a risk to the national economy or people's lives and refers them to the mediation process of the National Labor Relations Commission. Once the decision for emergency mediation is published, the parties must immediately cease their labor dispute activities and cannot resume them for 30 days from the date of publication.

Samsung Electronics is not a public utility business in the traditional sense, such as railways, airlines, or hospitals. Therefore, to consider the possibility of emergency mediation, a simple strike notice or the general argument of being a strategic industry will not suffice. Actual production disruptions, damage to partner companies, export and stock market shocks, and other present risks to the national economy must be confirmed.

However, the fact that semiconductors are a national strategic industry can act as a background factor for the government in assessing that risk. Production disruptions at Samsung Electronics are linked to exports, partner companies, the National Pension, small shareholders, and domestic stock market sentiment.

Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jeong-kwan's remarks touched upon this point.

His statement, implying that Samsung Electronics' fruits are not solely for its internal members but are connected to partner companies, over 4 million small shareholders, and the National Pension, elevated the Samsung Electronics labor-management conflict from a dispute over performance bonuses within a private company to a national industrial risk.

At that moment, the government's options narrowed.

If it intervenes early, the labor movement could protest, calling it "pro-corporate intervention ahead of elections." Conversely, if it stands by and allows production disruptions and market instability to grow, the industry and investors could criticize it for "neglecting risks to a national strategic industry."

This is why May 26th is important.

It cannot be definitively stated that the day will be the date for invoking emergency mediation. However, if pre-strike mediation fails, it could be the first political and economic juncture where the government can present the justification of "no longer able to neglect it."

A Timeline Requiring Justification for Everyone

This timeline is dramatic because everyone can gain justification at each stage.

Before the strike, the government can appear as a mediator. It can establish justification for managing risks to national key industries in advance, rather than suppressing labor rights. If mediation fails and a strike becomes a reality, it can then consider emergency mediation based on actual damages and market reactions.

The union can increase pressure by highlighting its demand for a 15% operating profit performance bonus and improvements to the Overall Performance Incentive (OPI) system until the strike. Once the strike becomes a reality, its bargaining power increases. However, the strike's potential loss and production disruption possibilities, emphasized by the union, can be used as grounds for government intervention.

Samsung will also have to use May 26th as a defensive line. Until then, it must show that it is not yielding in negotiations with the union, and simultaneously accumulate data proving that production disruptions and supply chain instability have been minimized. Even if government intervention becomes a reality, an explanation is needed that "it has exceeded the company's manageable level and escalated into a national economic risk."

Therefore, the points to watch going forward are not whether the total strike will go to the end.

The key is whether the government emerges as a mediator before the strike begins on May 21st, and what scenes unfold around May 26th if that mediation fails.

We need to see if production disruptions actually occur, if shareholders and partner companies react again, what messages the Ministries of Trade, Industry and Energy and Employment and Labor send, and if the National Labor Relations Commission creates a trend towards re-mediation.

The Samsung Electronics strike has already moved beyond performance bonus negotiations. The formula for overall performance incentives, the demand for distributing 15% of operating profit, shareholder value, the National Pension, the semiconductor supply chain, and the local election schedule are all intertwined.

What Hani Ilbo focused on in Part 1, "Samsung Electronics Strike Like a Well-Written Script… 'Creating a Political and Industrial Drama?'", was the sophistication of the flow.

What to focus on this time is the pressure of the timeline.

The official scheduled end date for the Samsung Electronics strike is June 7th. However, the first political and economic benchmark is May 26th. From that day on, the government cannot remain in the audience. Not intervening is a choice, and intervening is also a choice.

Conversely, if the actual damage is limited, May 26th could become grounds for continued observation rather than justification for intervention. It is precisely for this reason that May 26th is the real D-day for the Samsung Electronics strike.

The stage for the Samsung Electronics strike has already been set.

If the timeline of pre-strike mediation, mediation failure, total strike, and consideration of emergency mediation materializes, May 26th is likely to be the day the government first comes into the spotlight.