SK Hynix Becomes the 'Capitalist Traitor', Samsung Employees Launch Major Strike

marsbitPublicado a 2026-05-13Actualizado a 2026-05-13

Resumen

A major labor dispute is escalating at Samsung Electronics, with its union threatening an 18-day strike from May 21st after mediation failed. The core conflict is over profit-sharing, not the wage increase amount. The union, emboldened by a precedent set at rival SK Hynix, demands a permanent, formula-based annual bonus tied to 13% of the semiconductor division's operating profit. Management offered a large one-time payout instead, refusing to institutionalize an annual split, fearing it would set a costly precedent across Samsung's diverse business groups and the wider Korean conglomerate system. SK Hynix's deal, guaranteeing employees 10% of annual operating profit for a decade, has already delivered substantial bonuses due to its dominance in the lucrative HBM memory market for AI chips. This has triggered rare employee movement from Samsung to SK Hynix. The strike, potentially involving tens of thousands, risks impacting global DRAM and NAND production. Analysts see this as the start of a broader recalibration within the AI supply chain, where workers in critical, scarce roles are beginning to renegotiate their share of the massive profits generated, moving beyond traditional models like stock options towards more direct, transparent cash profit-sharing agreements.

Written by: Xiao Bing, Shenchao TechFlow

Samsung Electronics' labor negotiations have finally reached the brink of a strike.

Late on May 12th, mediation led by Korea's National Labor Relations Commission broke down. Samsung Electronics Union President Choi Seung-ho told reporters as he left the meeting room, "There's no point in waiting any longer." Barring any unforeseen circumstances, starting May 21st, the union will launch a major 18-day strike, lasting until June 7th.

The union currently has about 74,750 members, with approximately 80% from the semiconductor division (DS). According to Choi, about 41,000 members have expressed willingness to participate in the strike, with the final number potentially exceeding 50,000. Considering Samsung's participation rates in labor actions over the past two years, industry analysts estimate the actual participation this time will be between 30,000 and 40,000, making it the largest labor action in Samsung's history. A one-day partial strike previously caused a 58% reduction in night shift production on some lines. If the full 18-day strike proceeds, TrendForce estimates it could affect 3-4% of global DRAM capacity and 2-3% of NAND capacity. JPMorgan estimates that based on the current disagreements, Samsung Electronics' annual operating profit could be reduced by over 40 trillion KRW.

The real story isn't the strike itself, but the proposal the union rejected.

A 13% Offer, No Deal

According to the UK's Financial Times, the two sides had recently narrowed their initial gap considerably. The union's initial demands were a 15% bonus pool from the semiconductor division's operating profit, removal of the 50% bonus cap, plus a 7% wage increase. Management's initial response was 10% plus some other benefits. After back-and-forth negotiations, it was rumored both sides were close to the 13% figure.

But talks stalled.

The union wanted the 13% written into the agreement, to be paid annually according to this formula. Management was willing to pay a lump sum at this ratio, but only for this year, translating to an average one-time bonus of about $340,000 per person based on current profit levels.

It doesn't sound that different, but the union rejected it.

For employees, the difference isn't complicated:

The logic of a one-time bonus is: the company made a lot this year, so we're giving you a bonus. Whether the company makes a lot next year, whether we give a bonus, and according to what formula, will be renegotiated every year.

The logic of annualized profit-sharing is: according to the agreement, a certain percentage of operating profit inherently belongs to employees. Employees receive it for as long as the AI boom lasts; if the boom fades, employees accept that.

Both models are "bonuses," but they correspond to different statuses. The former is a temporary gift from the company; the latter is a share that is institutionally allocated by rule. With similar amounts, the two arrangements mean either employees wait for management's decision every year, or they have a predictable rule written in black and white.

This is the core point the union won't let go.

SK Hynix Has Already Made This Work

The union's confidence comes from its neighbor.

In the second half of last year, SK Hynix reached an agreement with its union, abolishing the previous bonus cap and establishing a 10% annual operating profit pool for employee sharing, valid for the next ten years. In February 2026, SK Hynix issued the first bonus under this new mechanism, amounting to 2,964% of base salary, averaging nearly $100,000 per person.

SK Hynix's Q1 2026 operating profit surged more than 5 times year-over-year, with an operating margin of 72%, an extremely rare figure in the hardware industry. The reason is clear: it holds over 50% of the global HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) market, being the main supplier of HBM for Nvidia's H100 and H200 chips. It earns as much as AI data centers are built.

As profit expectations have been raised throughout the year, some Korean and foreign media have calculated, under optimistic scenarios, that the average SK Hynix employee bonus this year could be around $470,000; if the high-end profit forecasts from institutions like Macquarie for 2027 materialize, it could theoretically approach $900,000. These figures require caution; they are projections based on optimistic profit assumptions, not money already in hand. But even based on the already disbursed amount and conservative expectations for the second half, the absolute numbers still far exceed Samsung's current offer.

Since December last year, about 200 Samsung employees have jumped ship to SK Hynix, according to the Samsung union's own statistics. This is a very rare migration direction among engineers, as SK Hynix has been playing catch-up to Samsung for the past decade. But this time, with the bonus structure changed, people are following.

Samsung Management Finds It Hard to Compromise

From the outside, Samsung just seems stingy, but from management's perspective, it's more complex than it appears.

Samsung Electronics is not a pure-play memory chip company. It has multiple business lines: mobile phones, home appliances, display panels, foundry, memory, and more. The semiconductor division making a lot this year doesn't mean other divisions can enjoy the same cycle. In Q1, the DX division's operating profit was already declining. If semiconductors alone get a 15% written profit share, people within the group would immediately ask: why do they get a share, and we don't?

According to external analyst calculations, if Samsung Semiconductor truly allocated 15% of operating profit to employees, the corresponding bonus pool would reach 40 to 45 trillion KRW, an amount higher than SK Hynix's total annual operating profit. This isn't just the company being "reluctant," but such a large-scale fixed expense, once institutionalized, would be very difficult to roll back in the future.

What management is most unwilling to do is write "formulaic profit-sharing" into a contract. Once this precedent is set, next year the DX union, the display panel union, will all use the same logic to negotiate. The entire internal compensation order within the Samsung Group would be reshuffled, and labor contracts across the entire Korean chaebol system would be used as new references.

That's why Samsung would rather endure strike losses, be called "stingy" by the union and media, and hold its ground on the wording of "annualization."

This Won't Stop at Korea

The specific day the union and management reach a compromise isn't the most important thing in the long run.

What's important is: Scarce positions on the AI industrial chain have begun renegotiating their value.

Over the past thirty years, Silicon Valley's script has been to tie employees' fates to the company's stock price with equity incentives. But this script has two implicit premises: the company must go public, and employees must be part of the early batch. Engineers joining later, after stock dilution, get far less than those who came before.

SK Hynix has carved a second path: no need to wait for an IPO, no need to watch the stock price; use cash profit-sharing to turn employees into cycle partners. Its benefits are a transparent formula, a timetable, and predictability. The cost is the company needs to acknowledge that employees aren't just a cost item, but also part of the profit item.

Once this path is proven at SK Hynix, and some version is negotiated at Samsung, the next entities facing the same question might not just be Korean companies.

What do TSMC engineers think about how much Nvidia earns for every GPU sold? What do ASML workers think about the $200 million price tag of an EUV lithography machine? Will veterans in those age-old industries supplying liquid cooling, power, and transformers for data centers suddenly realize they hold scarce resources?

Not all questions will have immediate answers, but the questions have been asked.

The capital market has already provided one round of answers to "Who gets the AI红利?" in the past two years: Nvidia shareholders were the first to reap the红利, followed by TSMC, SK Hynix, and Samsung through capacity and pricing power—this is distribution among companies.

Distribution within companies has just begun.

The 18 days starting May 21st might end with a union victory, or with some compromise, where management concedes a step on "annualization," writing it into a shorter-term agreement to leave an escape route. The specific outcome affects this contract's amount, but not the real direction.

SK Hynix employees have already received their first profit-sharing ticket. Samsung employees are using a strike to fight for theirs. Who gets the next ticket, when, and in what form, might be one of the most interesting underlying trends to follow in the AI industrial chain over the next three to five years.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the main differences between the bonus structures proposed by Samsung management and the union?

AThe union demands a 13% annual profit-sharing scheme written into a long-term agreement, ensuring a predictable, rule-based bonus tied to profits each year. Management offers a one-time bonus of approximately $340,000 per employee based on current profits, but refuses to institutionalize an annual formula. The core dispute is over creating a permanent, predictable rule versus retaining management discretion for annual negotiations.

QHow has SK Hynix's new bonus system influenced the Samsung labor dispute?

ASK Hynix successfully implemented a ten-year agreement last year, abolishing bonus caps and allocating 10% of annual operating profit to employees. This resulted in substantial per-employee bonuses (e.g., nearly $100,000 in early 2026). This precedent has empowered Samsung's union, leading to employee defections (around 200) from Samsung to SK Hynix and strengthening the union's demand for a similar, formula-based, long-term profit-sharing scheme at Samsung.

QWhy is Samsung management resistant to the union's demand for a formula-based annual profit share?

ASamsung is a conglomerate with multiple divisions (e.g., smartphones, appliances, displays, foundry). A formula for its high-profit semiconductor division alone would create internal equity issues, prompting demands from other divisions' unions. Institutionalizing a large-scale, fixed profit share (estimated at 40-45 trillion won) is seen as a rigid, costly commitment that would be difficult to reverse and could redefine compensation norms across the entire Samsung Group and the wider Korean chaebol system.

QWhat potential global impact could the resolution of this dispute have beyond South Korea?

AThe dispute highlights a broader trend: workers in critical AI supply chain roles (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing, equipment, infrastructure) are beginning to renegotiate their share of the profits. If profit-sharing models like SK Hynix's become established, it could set a precedent, prompting similar demands at companies like TSMC, ASML, and key infrastructure suppliers, challenging traditional compensation models and shifting the internal distribution of AI industry profits from companies to their skilled workforce.

QWhat is the estimated operational and financial impact of the potential Samsung strike?

AA full 18-day strike by an estimated 30,000-40,000 workers (primarily in semiconductor production) could reduce global DRAM output by 3-4% and NAND output by 2-3%. Financially, JP Morgan estimates that the full-year impact of the labor dispute, based on the current disagreements, could reduce Samsung Electronics' annual operating profit by over 40 trillion won.

Lecturas Relacionadas

"Water Scarcity": The Hidden Fatal Flaw of AI Infrastructure

“Water Scarcity: The Hidden Vulnerability of AI Infrastructure” In June 2026, SpaceX revised its IPO prospectus to highlight a core resource constraint alongside power and processors: water. This move signals a pivotal shift where water scarcity has transformed from an operational cost to a major, uncontrollable investment risk, directly threatening AI data center expansion. The scale of the problem is immense. U.S. data centers consumed an estimated 17 billion gallons of water for direct cooling in 2023, with indirect water use for power generation exceeding 211 billion gallons. Giants like Google alone use billions of gallons annually, with single sites consuming volumes equivalent to a medium-sized city. This water is largely “consumptive,” evaporated into the atmosphere and lost. This massive demand is colliding with scarcity. Tech companies are building “water tigers” in arid regions, sparking community protests in places like Mexico and Arizona, where data centers can legally use millions of gallons daily—enough for tens of thousands of residents. These conflicts are not about illegality, but about a mismatch between historic water allocation frameworks and new, colossal demand. The consequences are real. Community opposition, largely centered on water, has reportedly stalled or canceled $64 billion in U.S. data center projects over two years. Simultaneously, investors are pressuring companies for greater water footprint transparency, viewing it as a financial risk, not just an ESG metric. Technological solutions like air or liquid cooling involve trade-offs between water and electricity use, with final choices dictated by local constraints. The irony is stark: while industry leaders envision AI as a utility “like water,” its physical infrastructure is straining real-world water supplies. The race for AI supremacy may ultimately be governed not by the fastest chip, but by the slowest water meter.

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

"Water Scarcity": The Hidden Fatal Flaw of AI Infrastructure

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

Global Card Issuance Enters a Compliance-Driven Era: WasabiCard is Building the Next-Generation Payment Infrastructure

Global card issuance is entering a compliance-driven era, with WasabiCard building next-generation payment infrastructure. The platform asserts that as stablecoins increasingly enter cross-border payments, corporate settlements, and global commerce, the industry is shifting focus from "availability" and "growth-driven" models to long-term, compliant operation under global frameworks. Competition will center on sustainable compliance and global infrastructure capabilities. Stablecoins are evolving from on-chain assets into key payment tools in global business, with card issuance acting as critical infrastructure connecting digital assets to traditional payment networks like Visa and Mastercard. This expansion has revealed structural issues, including cross-regional issuance, BIN resource management, and insufficient AML and risk controls. In response, the industry is moving away from reliance on "grey efficiency" towards prioritizing compliance, risk management, and long-term operational stability. WasabiCard outlines its strategy: collaborating with licensed principals and local partners for localized operations, building robust KYC/AML systems, strictly separating commercial and consumer BIN usage, and enhancing global issuance, payment, and cross-border fund flow infrastructure. The goal is to build stable, scalable payment infrastructure amid evolving global regulations, shifting industry competition from scale to infrastructure capability. As stablecoins integrate further with global commerce, payment infrastructure will become a fundamental, embedded component of internet business. WasabiCard will continue to develop capabilities in global card issuance, stablecoin payments, cross-border fund flows, and API-driven financial workflows.

marsbitHace 33 min(s)

Global Card Issuance Enters a Compliance-Driven Era: WasabiCard is Building the Next-Generation Payment Infrastructure

marsbitHace 33 min(s)

Zhou Hang: How Much Is SpaceX Really Worth?

**Zhou Hang: How Much is SpaceX Really Worth?** SpaceX, arguably one of the greatest industrial companies of the past 50 years, is reportedly targeting a staggering $1.75 trillion valuation in its potential IPO. However, the author argues this figure is inflated by approximately $1.25 trillion when assessed through standard financial metrics. The analysis begins by acknowledging SpaceX's undeniable success: drastically reducing launch costs, achieving near-monopoly in commercial launches, and building the strategic Starlink network. Its achievement surpasses even Tesla's, given it disrupted a state-monopolized industry. Despite this greatness, a $1.75 trillion valuation places SpaceX above the combined market cap of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and General Dynamics. Projecting optimistic 2030 revenues of $50-80 billion and applying generous tech-sector multiples yields a "reasonable" valuation range of $500 billion to $1.2 trillion. The $1.25 trillion gap is attributed to three non-financial premiums: 1. **Long-term vision premium** for future Starship-enabled markets (e.g., space-based computing). 2. **Sovereign asset/strategic premium**, as SpaceX is deeply integrated into U.S. national security. 3. **Retail narrative/Musk cult premium**, driven by a heroic story and personal following. Post-IPO, three scenarios are outlined: valuation solidifying (25% probability), sideways volatility as narrative outpaces reality (50%), or a re-rating down to $800B-$1.2T if execution falters or Musk-related risks emerge (25%). The probability-weighted expected value is $1.3-1.5 trillion, suggesting negative expected returns for those buying at the IPO price. The conclusion advises investors to separate the company's excellence from its stock price. Buying at the IPO likely prices in excessive optimism. A more prudent strategy would be to wait for key milestones (e.g., Starship V3 stability) or a significant price correction before investing, or to treat an early purchase as a long-term, high-conviction hold with limited position size, not a short-term bet.

链捕手Hace 38 min(s)

Zhou Hang: How Much Is SpaceX Really Worth?

链捕手Hace 38 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片