Güney Kore’de Sendikal Örgütlenmeye Karşı Tutumlar: Samsung, Hyundai, LG Grup Örnekleri Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 995 - 1010, 25.11.2021

Aslı Kavurmacı

Öz

Geçtiğimiz altmış yıl içerisinde Japon sömürge yönetiminden, Kore savaşına, askeri yönetimlerden demokratikleşme hareketine kadar birçok zorlu ekonomik, siyasi ve sosyal değişimleri atlatan Güney Kore, bu süreçte sanayileşmesini tamamlamış ve gelişmiş ülkeler arasındaki yerini sağlamlaştırmıştır. Bugün ülke ekonomisi üzerinde önemli etkileri bulunan chaebollerin, sanayileşmenin başından itibaren önemli birer aktör olmaları sebebiyle ülkenin endüstri ilişkileri sisteminin gelişmesinde de önemli payları bulunmaktadır. Güney Kore’de emek rejimi ve endüstriyel ilişkiler sistemini etkileyen önemli olayların yanı sıra çalışma ilişkilerinin önemli aktörlerinden biri olan chaebolleri ve chaebollerin endüstri ilişkileri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemek ülkedeki endüstri ilişkilerine ilişkin yaklaşımları anlayabilmek açısından önem arz etmektedir. Bu bakış açısıyla, Kore’de kalkınma planları ve sonrasında ekonomik gelişme sürecinde yaşanan olayların da değinildiği bu çalışmada; Kore endüstri ilişkilerinde sendikal örgütlemenin yanı sıra, endüstri ilişkilerinin önemli birer paydaşı olan chaebollerin endüstri ilişkilerine ilişkin yaklaşımları betimsel analiz yoluyla, ülkenin en büyük beş chaebolü arasında gösterilen Samsung, Hyundai ve LG Grup örnekleri üzerinden ele alınarak ortaya koyulmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, kuruluşlarından günümüze endüstri ilişkileri açısından birçok deneyime sahip olan ve çalışmaya konu olan bu chaebollerin, yasalar çerçevesinde farklı endüstri ilişkileri yaklaşımları olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Güney Kore,, Endüstri İlişkileri,, Sendikal Örgütlenme, Sendika, Chaebol

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Attitudes Towards Union Organization in South Korea: An Evaluation of Samsung, Hyundai, LG Group Examples

Öz

South Korea underwent several economic, political and social changes such as the Japanese colonial administration, the Korean War, military administrations, the democratization movement before completing its industrialization and ranking among the developed countries in the past sixty years. Today, chaebols, who have had worthy effects on the country's economy since the beginning of the industrialization process, also have an essential role in the country's industrial relations system. Therefore, in addition to the leading experiences affecting the labour regime and industrial relations system in South Korea, it is also crucial to examine the chaebols and their effects on industrial relations to understand the approaches to industrial relations within the country. From this point of view in this study, besides discussing the events in Korea's economic development process; union organization in Korean industrial relations and the approaches of the chaebols were revealed through descriptive analysis, with the examples of Samsung, Hyundai and LG Group, which are among the five largest chaebols of the country. As a result, chaebols that are subject to this study have had many experiences in terms of industrial relations since their establishment. But in the end, it has been determined that they all have different industrial relations' approaches within the framework of the law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

South Korea, Industrial Relations, Trade Union, Unionisation, Chaebol

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s Next Giant South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Andolfo, I. (2018). Chaebols, the engine of the Korean economy: a case study. Department of Business and Management Chair of Corporate Strategies. http://tesi.luiss.it/22481/1/687771_ANDOLFO_IMMACOLATA_687771_Andolfo_Immac olata.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Bae, K. S. (2006). Collective Bargaining in Korea. ILO-Japan Multi-Lateral Project., https://apskills.ilo.org/industrial-relations/resources/korea-survey-on-collective-bargaininginstitutions-and-practice-2006-7/at_download/file1, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Bahtiyar, G., & Bakır, H. (2013). Güney Kore ve Türkiye Ekonomilerinin Makroekonomik Performans Açısından Karşılaştırılması. E. Atay & G. Karsan (Eds.), Kore’de ve Türkiye’de Yönetim içinde, s.91-126., İstanbul: Avrasya Enstitüsü Yayınları.
• Cho, D. (2015). Growth, Crisis and the Korean Economy. New York: Routledge Pub.
• Cho, S. (2006). Employment Relations in the Automobile Industries of Japan, Korea and China - Focusing on Nonstandard Workers in Toyota, Hyundai and Shanghai Volkswagen. https://www.jil.go.jp/profile/documents/Cho.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Delican, M. (1995). Sanayileşmenin Endüstri İlişkilerine Etkisi (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Dicker, R. (1996). South Korea Labor Rights Violations Under Democratic Rule. Ucla Pacific Basin Law Journal, 14(2), 196–242.
• Ergelen, S. (2014). Güney Kore Çalışma İlişkileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
• Eun Mee, K. (1997). BIG BUSINESS, STRONG STATE Collusion and Conflict in South
• Korean Development, 1960-1990. New York: State University of New York Press.
• Facing Finance. (2014, Aralık 10). Hyundai Motor Group: Precarious working conditions. https://www.facing-finance.org/en/database/cases/hyunda-motor-group-precarious-workingconditions/, Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2021.
• Harvie, C., & Lee, H.-H. (2003). Export-led Industrialisation and Growth: Korea’s Economic Miracle, 1962-1989. Australian Economic History Review, 43(3), 256–286. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8446.2003.00054.x
• Hemmert, M. (2012). Tiger Management: Korean Companies on World Markets. UK: Routledge.
• Hübner, C. (2014). Labour Relations at Hyundai: A Critical Review. Geneva. http://www.industriall-union.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/hyundai_- _unfair_play_-_industriall_42014_-_engl.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2021.
• Hyundai. (2021). Hyundai History. https://www.hyundai.news/eu/articles/press-releases/over-50- years-of-progress-the-history-of-hyundai.html, Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2021.
• ILOSTAT. (2020). Country Profile. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/country-profiles/, Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2021.
• IndustriALL. (2013). Executives condemn Samsung for union busting. http://www.industriallunion.org/industriall-executives-condemn-samsung-for-union-busting, Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2021.
• ITUC. (2016). Samsung Exposed - Modern Tech, Medieval Conditions. https://www.ituccsi.org/IMG/pdf/samsung_web_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021. 20
• Jung, M. (2020, Mayıs 4). FTC Announces List of Korea’s 64 Largest Chaebol Groups. Business Korea. http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=45210, Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2021.
• Kavurmaci, A. (2018). The Place of R&D and Education Policies in South Korea’s Economic Development. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 74, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2018.74.0003
• Kavurmacı, A. (2020). Güney Kore’de Chaeboller ve Endüstri İlişkileri. İstanbul: Ekin Yayınevi.
• Khaled, M. (2007). Park Chung-hee’s Industrialization Policy and its Lessons for Developing Countries. A Paper for the World Congress for Korean Studies-2007. Busan. http://www.geocities.ws/mortuzakhaled/park.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• Kim, B. (2021, Ağustos 12). Samsung signs collective agreement with unions ahead of leader’s release. The Korea Times. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/08/133_313811.html, Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2021.
• Kim, D. O., & Bae, J. S. (2004). Employment Relations and HRM in South Korea. UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
• Kim, D. O., & Kim, S. (2003). Globalization, Financial Crisis, and Industrial Relations: The Case of South Korea. Industrial Relations, 42(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 232X.00295
• Kim, T. Y., & Yeon, Y. S. (2021, Ağustos 12). Samsung Electronics signs its first collective bargaining agreement. Korea JoongAng Daily. https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2021/08/12/business/industry/Samsung-Electronicslabor-union-collective-agreement/20210812190806898.html, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• KOSIS. (2021). Major Indicators of Korea. https://kosis.kr/eng/, Erişim Tarihi: 18.08.2021.
• Kwon, S.-H., & O’Donnel, M. (2001). The Chaebol and Labour in Korea: The Development of Management Strategy in Hyundai. (First Edition). London: Routledge Publishing.
• Kyung-hwa, S. C. (2020, Haziran 14). S. Korean chaebols comprise 84% of GDP but only 10% of jobs. Hankyoreh. https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/949236.html, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Lee, B. H. (2016). Employment Relations in Korea. G.J. Bamber, R. D. Lansbury, N.Wailes, C. F. Wright (Ed.), International and Comparative Employment Relations içinde, s.266-290., (6th Edition). Sage Publications Ltd.
• Lee, C. (2005). Labor and Management Relations in Large Enterprises in Korea: Exploring the Puzzle of Confrontational Enterprise-Based Industrial Relations. DigitalCommons@ILR, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5131232.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Lee, J. (2011). Between Fragmentation and Centralization: South Korean Industrial Relations in Transition. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(4), 767–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2011.00876.x
• Lee, M. (2019, Aralık 17). Samsung execs sentenced to jail in union-busting case. Yonhap News Agency, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191217009300315, Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2021.
• Lew, Y. I. (2000). Brief History of Korea. The Korea Society. New York.
• LG. (2021). LG Profile. https://www.lg.com/global/our-stories, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• LG Electronics. (2020). 2020 LGE Corp. Pres. https://www.lg.com/global/investor-relationscompany-info Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• MOEL. (2020). Survey Report on Labor Conditions by Employment Type. http://laborstat.moel.go.kr/hmp/tblInfo/tblInfoPopup.do?listId=118_161, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• MOEL. (2021). Latest Numbers. https://www.moel.go.kr/english/main.jsp, Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2021.
• Murillo, D., & Sung, Y. (2013). Understanding Korean Capitalism : Chaebols and their Corporate Governance, ESADEgeo Position Paper 33.
• Nam, H. W. (2013, Aralık 19). Hyundai union workers told to pay W9 billion. The Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/12/116_148248.html#, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• Park, Y. B., Lee, B. H., & Woo, S. H. (1997). Employment Relations in the Korean Automotive Industry: Issues and Policy Implications. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 8(2), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/103530469700800204
• Premack, R. (2017). South Korea’s Conglomerates. SAGE Business Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1177/237455680324.n1
• Saadah, K. (2018). The Impact of Samsung Scandal in South Korean Corporate Culture: Is Corporate Governance Necessary? Global & Strategis, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.20473/jgs.11.2.2017.126-134
• Samsung GSG. (2021). Samsung Group Affiliate Companies and Performance. https://sgsg.samsung.com/newpage/newpage.php?f_id=samsung_performance, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• The World Bank. (2020). The World Bank Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2020&most_recent_value_d esc=true&start=1960&view=chart, Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2021.
• Ungson, G. R., Steers, R. M., & Park, S. (1997). Korean Enterprise: The Quest for Globalization. Harvard Business School Press.
• Wol-san, L. (2014). Corporations, Unions and CSR in South Korea. https://www.amrc.org.hk/content/corporations-unions-and-csr-south-korea, Erişim Tarihi: 14.08.2021.
• Won, N. J., & Özer, A. (2013). Kore ve Türkiye’de Darbelerin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. E. Atay & G. Karsan (Eds.), Kore’de ve Türkiye’de Yönetim içinde, s.49-69., İstanbul: Avrasya Enstitüsü Yayınları.
• WTO. (2021). International trade statistics. https://data.wto.org/, Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2021.