Dynamics of Unionism and the Movement for a Labour Party

In Korea, workers’ movements had expanded vastly in 1987 on the base of the big citizens’ rally for democracy in June of that year. Millions of people had protested against the dictatorship and had acquired a direct presidential election system, and these movements inspired workers who had been working under seriously poor working conditions to join massive waves of strikes. From July to September 1987, 3,749 strikes occurred. 1,162 new unions were established, and many yellow unions were changed into democratic ones. 

These new unions had focused on not only working conditions but also on political issues in Korea. Two historical factors made workers interested in politic issues. Onne was the dictatorship not allowing unions, and the other was activists who moved into factories from student movements to organize workers and to educate them for socialist revolution. Student activists moving into the factories gave the workers ideologies strengthening their struggle against the dictatorship. These activists had studied social issues and progressive ideologies (especially socialism) in universities. They played a major role in establishing unions and operating worker organizations.

After the strike wave in 1987, Korean workers constructed a national centre of trade unions (the official name is KTUC, Korea Trade Union Congress, or Jeonnohyup in Korean) in Jan 1990. The national centre covering 600 unions and 193,000 workers had declared that its main purpose was to fight for democracy and for labour rights (in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, these slogans implied revolutionary change in Korea). The centre organized a general strike to demand the resignation of the Minister of Labour as soon it began its business as a trade union centre. The first general strike it launched was joined by 60 per cent of its members, and it also launched a second general strike demanding the resignation of the president in 1991. But the government suppressed the centre widely while it continued to struggle strongly with many members. More than 500 workers were arrested every year, and 3,000 workers were fired by the companies and the government. On the other hand, the government blocked big company unions from joining the centre, by using lots of conciliation and even by killing leaders of unions. As the result of this suppression, the number of the members of KTUC had shrunk by 70% in 1993.

Table 1. Changes in the Korean labour movement, late 1980’s to now.

One of the political goals in the workers’ movements was to found a worker’s vanguard party (like the Bolsheviks) in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Many activists in the movements served for it. But there were various changes in the early 1990’s such as the collapse of USSR and the defeat of the struggle in 1991. (Millions of people including students and workers had struggled against the government but had been defeated by the suppression and ideological attacks of the government. Also, thousands of activists had been arrested.) Activists in the workers’ movements changed their vision for social progress from the Russian model to the western welfare model. The western-style labour party became the main organization which workers should strive for, and cooperation with capital for wages, employment and welfare came to be considered first priority by the unions, rather than intransigent struggle against the capital and the government.

Such change was pushed especially by unions in large enterprises, which could not join the KTUC (some because of the government’s intensive suppression, and some because they could not agree with the political line of KTUC). In the early 1990’s, the large enterprises in Korea could give better wages and welfare to the workers since exports soared and they could make large profits. Wages of workers in the large enterprises such as Hyundai and Daewoo increased very much in comparison with the wages of workers at small and medium companies (the KTUC had been made up mainly of workers in the small and medium companies); their wages were higher than workers’ in the small and medium companies by 160%. In the 1980’s, the differences between these two groups of workers had been very small. The condition of compromise between workers and capital made workers concentrate more on the wages and welfare rather than political issues.

In 1995, unions of large enterprises had formed the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and KTUC was disbanded. KCTU covered unions of large enterprises, unions of white collar workers and former members of KTUC including those from the small and medium enterprises. The number of members in KCTU was 400,000, initially, and increased to 650,000 as many yellow unions also joined KCTU. These changes of members led the main issue of the union to benefit-based unionism, away from the radical ideology of KTUC. Of course, this change could not remove all the radical ideology of the previous workers’ movements. Emphasis on militancy, solidarity, and revolutionary spirit, called the ‘spirit of Jeonnohyup’ was still influencing the movements of KCTU even while mainstream of the movements had been changed.

After the mid-1990’s, the main goal of worker’s movements was to establish an industry-based trade union (KCTU was a kind of federation of unions in each company) and mass labour party like SPD, the Social Democratic Party, in Germany. It was a natural change, because workers’ requests were an efficient political organization to achieve extraction of benefits from the government, rather than to make a new revolutionary government. Especially, the general strike in the winter of 1996-1997 and the presidential election in 1997 made activists take the proposal of a mass labour party more seriously. KCTU won the struggle against the government’s neo-liberal labour policy (laws making lay-offs easier, expanding irregular work and making work time more flexible) through use of the general strike but the chief of KCTU lost ignominiously in the election, when he ran as presidential candidate. The strike in 1996-1997 was the symbol of the power of KCTU in Korea yet the leader of KCTU had obtained only 1.1% of the votes. Activists in the workers’ movements believed only a stable and large labour party could make a win in the political field because they thought their failure to win greater political gains had to do with their organizational form (in short, they had imagined that they could do more in the form of a political party!).

Figure 1. Polling scores of KDLP (% of votes) and no. of KCTU-led strikes, 2004-2008

Meanwhile, the Korea economy came into bankruptcy at the end of 1997, and IMF controlled the economy. Firms started to massively fire workers, and the government tried to make a new law to make lay-offs easier and other neoliberal policies. But KCTU could not have a strike or other strong struggles after the election. In 1998, Hyundai trade union had a strike but they compromised with capital under a contract which allowed lay-offs for women workers but not for men workers. After that surrender, the degree of labour flexibility increased a lot, so the portion of irregular workers expanded by about 56% in 2001. However KCTU still did not have the capacity to organize those irregular workers and also could not struggle strongly for them. Their social position as a body representative of the workers was threatened by the conservative press, parties and also workers themselves. Usually KCTU was recognized as a high-class workers’ union. 

More unions compromised with capital in the early 1990’s, as workers in large enterprises enjoyed better wages and welfare, and these dominated KCTU, the main union federation. It led to a greater focus on wages and welfare, away from political issues and radical ideology.

In the above situation, Korea Democratic Labour Party (KDLP) was established with the full support of KCTU in Jan 2000. KDLP which had started from 13,000 members, was defeated disastrously in the general election of 2000, but won in the general election of 2004 by taking 13% of the votes. 13 leaders of KDLP were able to make it into the National Assembly. A lot of people were surprised at the big success of KDLP (the first labour party in Korea since the 1960’s), and the number of members soared up to 77,000 in 2006. But, in contrast to this success, the union was slashed in numbers more and more. The number of members decreased, and its social position was also threatened more broadly. Lots of irregular workers started to struggle against their working conditions but KCTU could not support their struggles fully.

At some points KDLP wanted to to separate itself from KCTU because the social opinion of KCTU was raising the burden for the party. But it was impossible. Lots of resources in KDLP were still dependent on KCTU and also most people in Korea thought KDLP was a part of KCTU. From the perspective of the workers’ movement, it was correct.

 The above figure shows the number of strikes in a year and the vote rate of KDLP. Both the number and the rate has been declined since 2004. The number of strikes indirectly shows the power of the unions because there is no stable negotiation structure among labour/capital/government in Korea. Also the strike is influenced strongly by the social opinion as most strikes are usually treated as illegal strikes by the government, so workers should be supported by the citizens’ opinions to win against the government or capital. So a more favorable opinion of KCTU influences the number of strikes positively, and also this favorableness influences the broader favorableness of KDLP.

In short, the inability to succeed in its struggle against neoliberalism since 1998 has led to a bad opinion for KCTU generally (as well as the low opinion caused by the negative position regarding the fight against neoliberalism held by mainstream members who were satisfied with their wages and working conditions), and this influenced the political situation of KDLP. It meant that KDLP could not stand alone without the social growth of the workers’ movement.

The gain from formation of the labour party is not clear. 
The loss is more clear, however - worker movement leaders moved out of unions into the party, and focused on the press or middle ground of public opinion, rather than building the movements or strengthening unions.

Gain and loss after construction of the labour party

The gain from formation of the labour party is not clear. With only 3% of total national assembly members, it could not achieve anything special. The labour party was caught between the government party and the large opposition party. Especially, the ex-president Mr. Roh (from 2002 to 2007) was usually recognized as the left by the people, and the KDLP was sometimes recognized only as a second government party.

In the president election of 2007, the candidate of KDLP got only 3% votes and in the general election of 2008 KDLP succeed in having only five assemblymen elected (only half of the number of 2004). Furthermore KDLP was divided into two parties after the presidential election, the ‘major’ group and the ‘left’ group. It was caused by hot debates about the responsibility of the major group in the party. The left group in the party criticized its undemocratic management and dogmatic ideology (especially about following North Korea – historically the left group criticized the social structure of North Korea for its undemocratic government, but the major group still recognized the North Korean government for its potential power to change North and South Korea). But the major group didn’t accept the claims of the left group so the left group went out and formed a new party called the New Progressive Party. This division also influenced KCTU and other workers’ movements, and KDLP could not be the single labour party for workers in the country anymore.

The loss is clear, rather than any gains. First of all, many leaders of workers’ movements moved out from the union into the party, so it created weakness within the leadership of KCTU. The leaders were more interested in realizing their visions for lawmakers, not for leaders in the movements. They concentrated on the press or the middle ground of opinion, not on how to build the movements or to strengthen the unions. They usually focused on the yearly election, not on the training or education of the members. It has contributed to the weakness of the educational or training structure in the unions. The workers’ movement collapsed away from the grassroots very quickly. In the elections of 2007 and 2008, the labour party was defeated in Ulsan which is famous for being a workers’ city. Workers in Ulsan selected candidates from the the conservative party rather than their own labour party.

Now in Korea, KCTU is facing very big troubles. On one hand, some leaders have been revealed to have engaged in sexual violence and corruption; on the other hand, some big unions such as the subway trade unions are trying now to secede from KCTU. In the economic crisis, lots of irregular workers and workers in the small and medium factories are being laid off but KCTU cannot do anything special for them.

The lesson of this history for workers’ politics is clearer and clearer these days: that workers’ politics should be based on a broad movement, not on political engineering. Leaders should focus more on re-organizing the grassroot organizations of the workers’ movement, not on showy political actions. They should do their best to organize irregular workers and the workers in the small and medium companies. The political gains will be the result of mass movements, not of the politics itself.