The National Financial Industry Union plans to go on strike starting September 4. Key demands include the introduction of a 4.5-day workweek, substantial wage increases, and halting the relocation of state-owned banks. Despite over 30 rounds of negotiations since April, no agreement has been reached, and mediation by the Central Labor Relations Commission has also ceased.
Strikes by workers are a legally protected right. In a vote on the union's strike action, over 96% of members supported the move. It is unreasonable to label demands for reduced working hours and improved wages as excessive collective action.
The 4.5-day workweek should not be outright rejected. Reducing long working hours and increasing productivity are challenges that society must address. The financial sector has previously played a role in advancing the introduction of a five-day workweek. There is potential for work practices validated in finance to spread to other industries.
However, simply reducing working hours without public support will be difficult. The financial union is demanding a reduction in weekly working hours from the current 40 to 35 without a wage cut. There is insufficient explanation on how to maintain productivity and customer service levels in financial companies.
Banks operate differently from regular businesses. They handle public deposits and loans and support payment networks, making them a highly public-oriented industry. While digital finance has expanded, bank branches remain essential for the elderly and small businesses. If reduced working hours lead to shorter operating hours or inconvenience for customers, the union's demands will lose credibility.
In wage negotiations, both sides need to make concessions. The financial union is seeking a 6% wage increase, while management has proposed a 2.5% increase. Given that financial companies are reporting record profits, the union's argument for sharing these gains with employees is valid. However, the public's perception of the financial sector, which is already a high-wage industry, demanding both reduced working hours and significant wage increases should not be taken lightly.
The issue of relocating state-owned banks must be handled with greater caution. If the government prioritizes political objectives in moving headquarters, it could lead to workforce attrition and inefficiencies. A thorough review considering the competitiveness and policy financing functions of institutions like the Industrial Bank of Korea and the Export-Import Bank of Korea is necessary.
That said, blocking the relocation issue through labor negotiations is also not advisable. The relocation of public institutions should be decided based on regional balanced development and national financial industry strategy. The government should transparently clarify the criteria for relocation, while the union should focus discussions on the impact on employment and working conditions.
If the strike materializes, customers will face inconveniences. Disruptions in lending, deposits, and corporate finance could harm households and businesses. If the union emphasizes the public nature of financial companies, it should also present plans to mitigate the impact of the strike on financial consumers and maintain essential operations.
Management should not simply prepare to endure the strike. They need to actively propose compromises, such as a phased implementation of the 4.5-day workweek or pilot programs for certain job categories, along with wage increases linked to productivity. The government must also avoid leaving the issue of state-owned bank relocation ambiguous, which could exacerbate labor disputes.
Time is running out before the strike. The union must balance its rights with responsibilities to financial consumers, while management should reflect on the need for improved working conditions in relation to costs. What is needed now is not a power struggle, but a compromise that the public can accept.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.