In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

82 T H E K S E C U N I O N ommend to the company as “model worker.” Three workers got nominations. Opinions varied about how to proceed to choose one. Some wanted to pick the oldest man; others wanted to have a vote. The latter group won, and a Mr. Yi from the Machinery Department got the highest vote. Then a union official from the Shipbuilding Department challenged the result as unfair because five of eight voters came from the Machinery Department. Finally, everybody agreed on his suggestion of recommending two people—one from each department—to the company.44 The issue could be even more complicated when departmental rivalry, respect for the elderly, respect for higher rank, and pragmatic concerns all played out at once. On January 27, 1961, the union put to a vote the selection of a lobbyist to send to Seoul. The two vice presidents tied the vote at the top. The union president wanted to pick the chief vice president, even though the customary practice was, as he said, using age as a tiebreaker. Another official suggested that the two candidates negotiate between themselves. But five days later the choice was finally made in favor of one candidate who had family and personal connections to political figures in Seoul.45 THE UNION TAKES CHARGE By late March 1961 wage payments had been delayed again for two months, and the atmosphere on the shop floor became tense. There was talk of the union being too weak, or rumors of union officials being bribed by the company. Pressured by rank-and-file opinion, the union gathered all the members in front of the company gate on March 31 and called on the company president for an explanation .46 Union officials were apprehensive about possible reprisals by the company after the rally, noting that the company president “did not show any sign of remorse.” The company president was overheard accusing the union president of “being engaged in a popularity-raising tactic for the next union election.”47 The union then called for nothing less than a “movement to expel the company president.” The rationale was that he was “incompetent” and took “business trips too frequently,” spending 10,000 won each time with little success in garnering work orders. As a “struggle method,” the union decided to call for a sit-in demonstration, followed by a notice to the authorities of the beginning of a labor dispute. Unity of union members was repeatedly emphasized, and union president Im advised union officials “to be extremely cautious so as not to betray any vulnerability.”48 The union officials’ apprehensions about the company president’s reprisals T H E K S E C U N I O N 83 turned out to be well grounded. The events of March 31 led to a personnel transfer of the Administration Department section chief to the Seoul office and two months’ salary reduction for two other managers on the charge of “insufficient supervision.” A rumor was reported to the union that the company president would punish union officials who supposedly had “insulted company directors while drinking” at the company cafeteria with the three managers who received disciplinary action.49 The company president also aroused anger when he remarked that at other companies workers did not protest even with three months’ delay in wage payments. Some union members cautioned the union not to jump into a confrontation with the company, especially on the issue of a disciplinary action against managers. The majority opinion in the union, however, was that the union should fight for those managers who were disciplined by the company because they had been sympathetic to workers. Company president Kwŏn T’aech’un then weighed in from Seoul, ordering his directors to fire Im Hansik and reduce the salaries of two union vice presidents , but the directors hesitated because they were worried about the aftermath of such a reprisal. A kind of amicable and codependent relationship can be detected here between the union and frontline managers, apart from the company president, who was an outsider sent in by the state. The union decided to send a notice to management warning them of a sit-in demonstration in case of the execution of Kwŏn’s order. All overtime work would be refused, and consecutive sit-ins might be considered. A union official argued: “If we accept this punishment, the union will be destroyed and there would be no organization to...

Share