[Edaily Reporter Im Jeong-yo] #Samsung Biologics’ Win-Win Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as the Win-Win Union) is facing controversy after its executive board proposed a revision to the union bylaws. The proposed changes, made in the process of withdrawing from the inter-company labor union and transitioning to an independent union, include a large number of “poison pill” clauses designed to neutralize the financial oversight authority of the delegates’ council and union members while strengthening the executive board’s vested interests. Critics argue that this attempt to amend the bylaws so that executive officers monopolize financial decision-making authority undermines union democracy and prioritizes the executive board’s private interests.

The executive board of the Win-Win Union recently announced in a notice that it will hold a general assembly for three days, from the 16th to the 18th. While the main agenda item for this assembly is “withdrawal from the inter-company union and transition to an independent union,” voices among union members are growing louder, urging greater attention to the poison pill clauses hidden within the “bylaw amendment” proposal, which is overshadowed by the withdrawal motion.

The key point of contention in this amendment is the “living expense support” clause, which undermines the transparency of union dues usage. Typically, when determining the use of union dues or funds, labor unions generally seek deliberation from a representative assembly—a decision-making body—or gather opinions from all members to prevent improper expenditures.

However, the amendment proposed by the Sangsaeng Union’s executive board stipulates that the scope and specific procedures for living expense support can be determined solely by a resolution of the Executive Committee (officers). This measure completely neutralizes internal checks and balances, leaving no way to stop the executive board from spending union dues without justification for the benefit of its own officers. This is why critics argue that this is not about mutual benefit for members, but rather a preliminary step toward the executive board’s arbitrary financial management.

This is not the only attempt to centralize financial authority. By adding a new clause on “Accumulation of Struggle Funds and Emergency Financial Measures” to Article 28 (Accounting), Paragraph 3 of the amendment, the authority to establish and manage these funds was also transferred to the Executive Committee for decision-making, rather than the Delegates’ Assembly.

Emergency financial measures or the creation of large-scale funds, which are critical to the union’s survival, are matters of grave importance directly linked to the rights and interests of union members. Allowing these to be executed solely by a show of hands from a small number of executives, without deliberation by the Delegates’ Assembly—the union’s highest decision-making body—is interpreted as an intention to manage union finances as if they were the executive board’s opaque, discretionary funds.

As the true nature of this amendment became known, criticism has poured in from within the Win-Win Union, accusing the executive branch of attempting to monopolize authority by using the pretext of “establishing an independent union” to blind the members.

A Samsung Biologics employee who posted on the workplace community “Blind” pointed out, “Looking at the content of Article 21 (Guarantee of Executive Status) of the proposed amendment to the bylaws published on the website, I understand the provision for legal fees, fines, and administrative penalties, but I question why ‘living expenses’ were included.”

He continued, “Given the current financial situation, there is a significant risk that the criteria for living expense payments will be determined arbitrarily by the Executive Committee,” adding, “Such a critical matter should not be decided unilaterally by the executive branch; it is only proper to gather the opinions of union members.” He also expressed strong dissatisfaction, asking, “After claiming to be a democratic union, aren’t they ultimately trying to establish a long-term dictatorial regime under the executive branch?”

A labor sector official commented, “Using the grand justification of withdrawing from the inter-company union as a tool to concentrate opaque financial authority is a classic reversal of union democracy,” and predicted, “Pushing forward with this amendment will not only spark strong internal opposition but also deal a serious blow to the executive board of the Win-Win Union in terms of its external moral standing and credibility.”