[비즈한국] The AI-driven memory boom is changing the 'rules' of the semiconductor industry. With forecasts suggesting that Samsung Electronics005930 and SK hynix000660 are nearing the 30 trillion won quarterly operating profit mark, the central agenda for wage and collective agreement negotiations at Samsung Electronics has shifted from "how much more do we get?" to "by what criteria is it divided?" It is a typical phase where internal rules surrounding performance bonuses evolve into both labor-management risks and corporate governance issues as earnings grow.
According to the consensus compiled by Yonhap Infomax based on securities firm forecasts from the past month, Samsung Electronics' operating profit for the first quarter of this year is estimated at 32.5305 trillion won, with revenue at 111.4113 trillion won. Following its entry into the '20 trillion club' in the previous quarter, it is now eyeing the '30 trillion mark' just one quarter later. SK hynix is also being discussed as having an operating profit of 28.2892 trillion won and revenue of 42.8807 trillion won for the first quarter, raising the possibility that both companies could simultaneously approach the '30 trillion quarterly' milestone.
However, the sense of an 'ultra-boom' is mixed within the company. In particular, the reason labor-management negotiations at Samsung Electronics are struggling with the performance bonus system is that bonuses are not merely compensation, but distribution rules tied to investment, dividends, and cash flow. As business conditions improve, employee expectations rise, while the company’s system calculates bonus resources by considering investments (capital costs) and shareholder returns. As this gap widens, the core of the negotiations shifts from wage increase rates to the 'formula' itself.
The trigger for the actual conflict was pulled on the 13th. The Samsung Electronics branch of the Trans-Corporate Labor Union announced that it would halt labor-management negotiations, stating that "our key demands, including transparency in performance bonuses and the abolition of the cap, were not accepted in this round of talks." However, other members of the joint bargaining group, such as the National Samsung Electronics Labor Union and the Samsung Electronics Union Donghaeng, have expressed their intention to continue the dialogue, revealing a difference in stance even within the union side rather than a 'unified suspension' of negotiations.
EVA or Operating Profit… The 'Tug-of-War' Over the Bonus Formula
The current point of contention is the calculation standard for the Overall Performance Incentive (OPI). The joint bargaining group is demanding that the OPI calculation method be changed from EVA (Economic Value Added) to 20% of operating profit, and is also calling for the abolition of the bonus cap, which is currently set at 50% of annual salary. On the other hand, the company is reportedly sticking to its position of maintaining the EVA standard.
EVA is a concept that calculates 'true remaining profit' by considering the cost of capital used in operations from the operating profit. In industries with high capital expenditure, an EVA-based calculation can increase volatility. If capital investment also increases during a boom, the 'increase in profit' expected by employees may not be fully reflected in their bonuses. Conversely, from the company's perspective, in a situation where AI competition is turning into a battle over CAPEX (capital expenditure) and yields, if performance bonuses are mechanically linked to operating profit, the flexibility of investment and financial policies could be compromised.
In this context, performance bonuses become internal rules of management rather than 'welfare.' Particularly in companies like Samsung Electronics where performance gaps between business divisions are significant, changing the formula can easily lead to conflicts over "which organization gets more." Because the results of the distribution vary depending on who designs the 'rules' even during the same period of strong performance, the nature of labor-management negotiations turns into a power struggle over the authority to design institutional frameworks.
The Core of Labor-Management Risk in a Boom: 'Predictability', Not 'Strikes'
While it may look like 'labor agreement friction' on the surface, what is more important from the perspective of corporate risk management is predictability. If the bonus formula becomes an annual battleground for negotiations, employees will repeatedly experience a rollercoaster of expectations and frustrations, wondering, "Will it eventually change again this year?" It also becomes difficult for the company to stably plan its labor costs (cash outflow) and investment strategies simultaneously. In a market environment where shareholder return policies are being strengthened, there is also the potential for the expansion of performance bonuses to escalate into a debate over priorities involving dividends and share buybacks.
Another variable is the multiple-union system. While the Trans-Corporate Labor Union announced a suspension of negotiations, other unions stated they would continue talks, complicating the 'focal point of negotiation.' As the bargaining structure becomes multi-layered, even if the company reaches an agreement, the speed and scope of its acceptance on the ground may vary.
If the boom driven by AI memory demand is not a one-time occurrence, the bonus debate becomes a structural challenge rather than a 'one-off event.' The longer the boom lasts, the greater the demands for performance sharing, and at the same time, the greater the incentive for companies to emphasize investment and financial discipline. In between, the bonus formula is prone to becoming politicized every year.
This is why Samsung Electronics' current wage and collective agreement negotiations are significant. The market is already racing toward the number '30 trillion per quarter.' However, as that number grows, the focus of conflict within the company shifts from 'money' to 'rules.' The true test of this ultra-boom begins not with the earnings announcement, but with the criteria used to distribute those earnings.