[비즈한국] When you think of "idol unions," the image that comes to mind is an "iceberg." We tend to perceive that the majority of an iceberg is submerged, with only a small portion visible above the water. One might think of idol unions in a similar way.
During a broadcast program, a panelist once said, "The rights of idol singers have improved too much lately. That’s the problem." That panelist was a music critic in her 30s and an author of books on idols. An educator once remarked, "Since the parents and the child agreed to the contract, the management aspect of the agency must be acknowledged. Therefore, it is not appropriate to raise moral or ethical issues regarding unfair treatment, or the accumulation and distribution of capital." When the push for an idol union was mentioned, a male critic in his 50s said, "They’re coming up with all sorts of things now. An idol union? Their power has become too strong." A labor expert stated, "It is difficult to recognize the 'worker' status of idols. The idea that the winner takes all is unfamiliar in the realm of labor."
Some of these views are professional, some are academic, and others sharply grasp the essence. There is no need to laboriously refute or deny these opinions. However, there are additional factors to consider in order to make a proper judgment.
While it is said that the rights of idol singers have improved, this is relative. There have been improvements because things were once so unreasonable. The revised standard contract, in particular, is cited as an example. However, idols and agencies still do not sign contracts on equal footing. Through side contracts, clauses unfavorable to idols are frequently added. When compared to ideal standards, there is still a long way to go. Above all, the idols whose rights have been enhanced are in the minority.
Furthermore, even if the parents and the individual agreed to the contract, it is questionable whether that contractual relationship should be maintained if unreasonable measures and treatment occur. The logic that they must endure it because they volunteered to be idols to earn vast sums of money should apply equally to the agency as well. The burden of risk should be equal. After all, the investment is made using the bodies of the idol members as collateral. Moreover, idols and trainees invest their youth and future. If we believe that exhausting a person's time and life is less important than capital, that itself is already abnormal and irrational. If K-pop is built on such a foundation, it should be changed even now. K-pop must exist upon a proper foundation and set of relationships—at the very least, like the "Kadeheon" (K-culture) Hen-tricks.
Idol unions have a realistic necessity. Existing entertainment industry organizations are built around entertainment companies. There is no organization or group for the artists themselves. While there is a Singers' Association, it is formed around famous singers or the older generation. It is not an organization or group where the younger generation or artists of new genres can establish a foothold. In short, it fails to reflect the changed landscape of K-pop.
Most importantly, while people only think of idols belonging to the "Big 4" agencies, in reality, there are many idols from small and medium-sized agencies. There are countless others from agencies so small they cannot even be called "small-to-medium." BTS, Blackpink, Stray Kids, Seventeen, Exo, Aespa, and Katseye will likely not join an idol union. Dozens of idol groups make their debut every year only to disappear soon after. They vanish without a name, and there is no organization or group to guarantee or represent their rights. People think of idols as famous and wealthy, but the reality is different. Looking from within the music industry, those idols are outside of the 99.99%. They represent only 0.01%.
Also, the majority of idols must move even when receiving unfair work orders from their agencies. If they do not comply, they face massive penalties and damages. And these are minor teenagers. Moreover, as K-pop gains global popularity, working conditions that were not foreseen in the past are emerging. These were not stipulated in the initial contracts. If unreasonable instructions and demands are made using artist activities as collateral, or if promises are not kept, individual trainees or idol members have no way to refuse. This differs from the agency structure in the English-speaking world. In that agency structure, idols can be accepted as business entities, allowing for the termination of contracts at any time.
Most of all, K-pop can exist because there are 99.99% who fail. If the state must do something, it should not be for the 0.01% of successful individuals, but to represent the 99.99% who have dropped out and lost their futures. That is likely the reason the state exists. It is natural for state policy to correct and supplement market failures. Regarding idol unions, the state needs to step in to resolve the issue of "worker" status. It is not limited only to idols. Countless artists are in the same situation. Just as many idols are children and teenagers, so are actors and musicians. Furthermore, the digital mobile environment is creating various industries in diverse fields.
Contract periods should not be maintained unfairly just because funds were invested. If there is an issue raised by the idol side and the agency has already recouped at least 2 to 3 times the investment, the contract period should be renegotiated. If an agency supports its artists, allowing them to raise no issues and engage in broader activities, there is no reason for an idol to leave—just like BTS or Blackpink. For this, transparent information disclosure and sharing must come first.
However, I hope it does not stop at a union for idols. It needs to become an "Artist Union" and possess true representation. In particular, I urge it to pay special attention to future generations, namely child and teenage artists.
The author, Kim Heon-sik, has walked through or hacked his way through the forest of popular cultural phenomena since his 20s, with the expectation that there is a way to make the world better through culture. Even in the 21st century, where artificial intelligence and quantum computers are active, he continues on the same path with the same belief.
※ Columns from external contributors may differ from the editorial direction of this publication.