[The Editors' Verdict] Violent Actions in the Cargo Solidarity Strike Fail to Garner Legitimacy

If the Yoon Administration's Response Succeeds, a Hardline Approach Will Be Assured

[Asia Economy Kim Minjin, Political and Social Affairs Investigation Team Content Manager] I once stayed in Ulsan for a week to cover a labor union strike. I met with reporters from other companies, the union secretary-general, and the head of public relations. After explaining the strike situation and its justification, they earnestly warned me, "Do not roam around the factory carelessly while reporting. You might get hurt, and we cannot take responsibility."

I was quite surprised to hear that. The purpose of my visit and my identity were clear, and I had obtained the company's consent. Yet, was there some kind of extraterritoriality in that area, inside the factory? They were at war, and it sounded like a threat that they would not hesitate to use violence if anyone crossed the front line they had set. The company also discouraged individual reporting citing personal safety. I often witness cases where the behavior of some so-called "noble unions" causes even those conducting legitimate union activities to be collectively criticized.

Violent Methods Persist Over Time

On the 26th of last month, the third day of the collective transport refusal by the Cargo Solidarity Headquarters of the Korean Public Service and Transport Workers' Union (hereafter Cargo Solidarity), an incident occurred near Busan New Port where steel balls were thrown at a trailer in operation. The front windshield of the vehicle was shattered, and the driver was injured by glass shards. Nothing had changed despite the passage of time.

Steel balls flying at a moving trailer. A 25-ton trailer carries cargo weighing as much as the vehicle itself. If the moving trailer suddenly brakes or changes direction abruptly, it becomes a deadly weapon on the road. It poses a serious threat not only to the driver's life but also to surrounding vehicles.

A Cargo Solidarity official sent retaliatory messages to truck owners who returned to the site, saying, "We will definitely retaliate after the strike ends." Another union member hung a banner with a curse, saying to colleagues, "Today, you will die on the roadside."

If a legal strike is a right, then the right not to participate in the strike must also be guaranteed. For their cause, they even turn colleagues into enemies. During the strike, it is said that even taking out a mobile phone in the factory can lead to threats. The person who said this whispered and looked around cautiously even when alone with me. Does a just cause justify any means? Moreover, this strike’s legitimacy is even being questioned, and it fails to gain sympathy.

The Essence of the Strike is Forgotten, Only Confrontation Remains

Violent methods also hinder approaching the essence of the issue. Therefore, the other side seizes on some deviant violent acts and damaged morality to their advantage.

The surface reason for the strike is improved treatment. They demand the permanent operation of the cargo vehicle safety fare system, similar to the minimum wage system, and the expansion of applicable items from export-import containers and cement to other items. Shippers (companies) oppose this, saying they have already paid enough, while cargo drivers claim their right to survival, unable to work amid risks of overwork, speeding, and overloading.

Today marks the 15th day of the Cargo Solidarity’s collective transport refusal. The reasons for the strike are forgotten, and the head-to-head confrontation is directly causing damage. Although the government’s strong response, including the issuance of work commencement orders, is accelerating the withdrawal of Cargo Solidarity members from the strike, many sites remain halted.

The government emphasizes a principled response. Thanks to this, President Yoon Suk-yeol’s approval rating, which had been at rock bottom due to various disasters, has risen to around 40%. The early success in handling strikes will give confidence to the government and the ruling party. They will likely prefer other methods before engaging in dialogue to resolve the conflict. This is a problem entangled with money, vested interests, and politics. It involves class and social strata, ideology, and interests of capitalists and workers. No one remembers whether this is an economic or political struggle; only violent scenes and seemingly irresolvable conflicts remain.