[Edaily Editorial Director Lee Jeong-hoon] Just as the labor-management dispute over performance bonuses at Samsung Electronics—sparked by massive profits generated by an unprecedented semiconductor boom—has been resolved, discussions on the social redistribution of corporate excess profits, initiated by the government, appear poised to emerge as another pressing issue in the near future.

During a meeting with reporters late last month, Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon stated, “In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors have already become a public good,” and and announced, “I will launch an urgent public debate to explore the possibility of a ‘Korean-style social solidarity wage’ regarding how to socially redistribute the excess profits of large corporations.” This served as the initial spark, and the discussion gained momentum after the Blue House responded by saying, “We hope there will be various opportunities for public discourse at the forum.”

Although the forum, originally scheduled for the 1st of this month, has been tentatively postponed, it is expected to be rescheduled soon given the government’s determination. When opposition parties, the business community, and academia voiced objections to this proposal, Minister Kim countered, “This is not simply about cutting open the goose’s belly, but about creating a bigger goose—or another goose.” He expressed his determination, stating, “Since it is the will of the sovereign people that we must not simply stand by and watch the widening gap between primary and subcontracted workers, I will listen and engage in dialogue with unwavering passion.”

The social solidarity wage proposed by Minister Kim is a system originally introduced by Sweden in 1951. Designed to reduce the wage gap between workers at large corporations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through social dialogue involving large corporations and their labor unions, the system was ultimately scrapped due to backlash from large-corporation workers whose wage increases were curbed, as well as an economic downturn. Since it was a system created as a product of social dialogue under the European model, where industry-wide unions function effectively, it did show some potential for initial success.

In contrast, looking at the case of Samsung Electronics alone, the Samsung Electronics union—which claimed to be a cross-company union—was nothing more or less than an extreme struggle in which 70,000 regular employees banded together to demand 15% of the company’s profits as their share. Furthermore, the unionization rate among workers at domestic SMEs barely exceeds 10%. It is virtually impossible to expect a Swedish-style model, where large-company unions voluntarily participate by willingly reducing their own share to benefit SME and non-regular workers covered by industry-wide unions.

In particular, as the entire nation witnessed during the recent Samsung Electronics strike crisis, we have reached a point where the unions’ extreme self-interest—which is willing to hold even strike losses amounting to as much as 100 trillion won hostage—cannot be restrained by moral or ethical norms. From this perspective, while the government’s argument that the dual structure within the labor market must be resolved is one that everyone agrees with, the idea of relying on the goodwill of large-company unions is inevitably too idealistic and unrealistic.

Above all, the key point being overlooked in this discussion—which began with the concept of excess profits in large corporations—is what the company, the union, and the government will do to ensure that the company can continue to generate excess profits. Everyone is focusing solely on “distribution”—how to divide the pie of excess profits generated by the industrial boom.

If, as they claim, labor unions are truly a pillar of corporate management, then before getting carried away with discussions on the distribution of past profits, they must work together to consider how to build a “growth” system that enables the company to generate sustainable profits and a profitable business structure in the future. The government’s role is no different. It must act as a “nudge” to shift the focus of the discussion from distribution to growth. Only then can we avoid the mistake Minister Kim Young-hoon himself warned against—that of “slicing open the goose’s belly right away, blinded by gold.”