Repression and Struggle: the State, the Chaebol and Independent Trade Unions in South Korea

Abstract

The paper examines the interactions between the state, the chaebol and independent trade unions in South Korea from 1945 to 1999 within a political economy framework. It explores four propositions. First, that a more contingent approach is needed to understand the diversity and dynamic nature of environmental forces affecting South Korean industrial relations than the conventional emphasis on rapid industrialisation, Confucian values and anti-communist ideology. Second, that the role of the state has altered since 1987 from one of repression of labour militancy to one of playing a less interventionist role in industrial relations, although the state remains more supportive of the interests of employers. Tbird, that employers, especially familyowned conglomerates or chaebol, play an increasingly central role in industrial relations. Fourth, that economic, social structural and political factors aided the re-emergence of independent trade unions, in particular the development of large-scale heavy and chemical industries in regional industrial estates as part of the process of rapid industrialisation and the movement towards democratic political rule in 1987.

Theoretical and empirical links between trade unions and democracy

“…On one side, their argument appeared vindicated by important cases of democratization with a strong input from labour organizations which received particular attention from scholars, especially Poland (Ost, 1990) and South Africa (Adler and Webster, 2000), as well as by further reflections on the South Korean path (Kwon and O'Donnell, 1999). On the other side, the contribution of labour to many other cases of democratization is ambiguous or even not apparent.…”

Diversity in Union Security Among Enterprise Unions: Cases of Korean Metal Firms from a Micro-Socioeconomic Perspective

“…3. A small number of recent studies in English on enterprise union activity done by Korean researchers (Jeong 1995(Jeong , 2001(Jeong , 2003Lee 1996;Kwon & O'Donnell 1999) deviated from the research tradition by considering distinct features of union activity at enterprise levels. On the basis of concrete data on enterprise union activity, they tried to illuminate differences and analyse them.…”

“…Martin (1989: 110) also warned, in studies of unions in developing nations, 'it is trade union movements themselves, rather than the political and economic context in which they operate, which must be given priority in any attempt to establish a workable typology of such movements'. O'Donnell (1999 and convincingly argued that 'state-centred' approaches to the analysis of the development of Korean IR have ignored the important independent roles of the chaebol firms and enterprise unions emerging as crucial actors in shaping IR outcomes after 1987.…”

Organised Labour, Dualisation and Labour Market Reform: Korean Trade Union Strategies in Economic and Social Crisis

“…Importantly, fragmented enterprise unions, often collaborating with employers, were thought to prevent the emergence of a class conscious amongst workers, which could have challenged the authoritarian government. Needless to say that unions were not allowed to engage in any political action (Deyo 1987;Koo 2001;Kwon and O'Donnell 1999). In other words, the promoted business unionism restricted to narrow workplace issues was a means of regime stabilisation, in addition to providing the institutional underpinnings for insiderfocussed strategies in the aftermath of democratisation, as discussed in the following section.…”