Labor unions representing the Busan, Incheon, Ulsan, and Yeosu-Gwangyang port authorities have voiced strong opposition to the government's plan to merge the four entities. They argue that the distinct functions and industrial bases of each port could lead to delayed decision-making and diminished autonomy for regional ports.
On September 3, the unions issued a joint statement opposing the government's announcement of the merger during a public institution reform meeting chaired by the Prime Minister.
The unions contend that the government's rationale for the merger—strengthening inter-port connections, responding to global logistics changes, enhancing customer-focused services, and achieving cost savings through the integration of common functions—does not adequately justify the physical consolidation.
They emphasized that each port has unique roles and industrial foundations. For instance, Busan Port serves as a global hub focused on containers and transshipment, while Incheon Port handles logistics for the capital region and trade with China. Ulsan Port specializes in energy and liquid cargo, and Yeosu-Gwangyang Port is linked to the petrochemical and steel industries.
The unions pointed out that merging these distinct organizations would not automatically enhance inter-port connections. Instead, they warned that the process of aligning investment priorities and interests could complicate decision-making.
Regarding the government's argument for improved customer-focused services, the unions raised concerns that major stakeholders, such as shipping companies, cargo owners, terminal operators, and logistics firms, require services tailored to the specific characteristics of each regional port.
Currently, the port authorities make decisions on investments, incentives, route acquisitions, and policies based on the needs of shipping companies and logistics firms. However, the unions argue that post-merger, key decisions would need to pass through a central organization, potentially slowing regional responses.
The unions also called for an objective analysis of the claimed cost savings. They noted that if there are common functions among the four port authorities, efficiencies could be achieved through joint purchasing, system integration, and shared operations. However, they argue that merging the entities solely based on the existence of common functions is a separate issue.
They referenced past evaluations of port authority mergers, including a 2011 study by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, which indicated that the cost-saving benefits of physical consolidation were limited. Concerns were raised about decreased operational efficiency and weakened port competitiveness due to the complexities of a larger decision-making structure.
The unions demanded that if the government proceeds with the merger, it must provide specific details on overlapping functions, current costs, and anticipated savings post-merger. They also called for a cost-benefit analysis that includes transition costs related to organizational restructuring, personnel, compensation systems, and information system integration.
Furthermore, they highlighted that the port authority system was established to ensure the expertise and autonomy necessary for each regional port's characteristics. They warned that merging the four authorities would reinforce a centralized decision-making structure, undermining the original intent of the system.
The unions argued that the government's recent examples of public institution mergers, such as the integration of Korail and SRT, are not comparable. They noted that Korail and SRT operate within the same railway network, while the four port authorities are based in different regions and industries.
In conclusion, the unions called for the immediate withdrawal of the merger plan, the disclosure of objective evidence, and social discussions. They stated that if the merger is enforced, they would collaborate with higher-level organizations, the port and logistics industry, and local communities to respond, including engaging in the legislative process for related law amendments.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.