After the “Yellow Envelope Act,” Where Is Korea’s Labor Rights Heading?

     In August 2025, an amendment to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, commonly referred to as the “Yellow Envelope Act,” was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly. The passage came after an extended filibuster and fierce confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties. The core of the amendment lies in the expansion of the definition of “employer” and “labor dispute,” as well as the limitation on companies’ rights to claim damages against striking workers.

     First, the definition of “employer” is expanded to include those with substantial control, thereby extending protection to subcontracted workers. Second, the definitions of “labor union” and “labor dispute” have also been partially amended, expanding the scope of disputes to cover major management decisions. Lastly, Article 3, which concerns liability for damages, saw the most significant revisions. The amendment introduces or modifies clauses relating to a union’s liability for damages, the extent of an employer’s right to claim damages, and the specific apportionment of liability among workers for losses arising from union activities. These changes are intended  to establish a freer and safer environment for union activity and the resolution of labor-management disputes.
     The name “Yellow Envelope Act” originates from the yellow envelopes that contained dismissal notices delivered to workers of SsangYong Motor Co., Ltd. in 2009, ahead of a large-scale layoff. Members of the SsangYong Motor labor union occupied the factory and went on strike, proposing wage cuts and rotating unpaid leave as measures for coexistence between labor and management. Their proposal, however, was met with a strong police commando crackdown. In 2014, the workers were ordered to pay 4.7 billion won in damages, which sparked a nationwide fundraising campaign known as the “Yellow Envelope Movement,” planting the seed for the legislative revision. From its initial proposal in 2015 to its final passage in 2025, the amendment endured a decade of opposition, excessive corporate damage claims and asset seizures, and waves of social criticism. Yet, standing on the sacrifices of countless workers, it finally crossed the threshold of the National Assembly. 
     One of the most frequently cited concerns surrounding the amendment is its impact on strikes. Critics argue that by limiting the scope of corporate claims for damages, the law may lead to an increase in unlawful strikes. But what exactly constitutes a strike, and why has the Yellow Envelope Act become such a polarizing issue? Under Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, a strike is defined as a collective refusal to work by employees exercising their right to collective action to demand better working conditions. A strike must have the lawful objective of collective bargaining or the improvement of working conditions, and its legitimacy depends on meeting legal requirements concerning the actors, objectives, procedures, and methods.

     Strikes can take many forms, depending on their goals and methods. The most common is an economic strike, in which a company’s labor union acts to achieve demands related to wages or working conditions. Other forms include sympathy strikes, held in support of another union’s industrial action, and political strikes, which seek institutional reform or the realization of political demands in favor of workers. Multiple unions may also organize solidarity strikes for shared goals, or under the direction of national or industry-level federations, initiate general strikes across sectors. Additionally, Korean labor law recognizes distinctions among partial strikes, unofficial strikes, lawful strikes, and unlawful strikes.
     As mentioned earlier, maintaining the legitimacy of a strike is crucial. However, before the Yellow Envelope Act, the boundaries of legitimacy were interpreted very narrowly. Any strike deemed “unjustified” was classified as unlawful, allowing companies to pursue civil damage claims and even criminal charges against individual workers. This legal framework imposed excessivefinancial burdens on workers, discouraging the exercise of the right to strike and, more broadly, threatening fundamental labor rights such as the right to organize and the right to collective action. The amendment thus represents not merely a revision of law but a structural shift intended to ensure that exercising labor rights no longer comes at the cost of personal ruin.

     Meanwhile, Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution of the French Fourth Republic defines the right to strike as a fundamental right of workers: “Everyone may defend their rights and interests through trade union activity and may belong to the union of their choice. The right to strike shall be exercised within the framework of the laws governing it.” Before the right to strike was formally recognized, France had strictly prohibited collective labor actions, but major reforms in the late 19th and mid-20th centuries gradually established strike rights. Later, under the 1958 Constitution of the Fifth Republic, this preamble was reaffirmed as still valid, meaning that the right to strike continues to be recognized as a fundamental right. However, laws and court rulings have allowed certain restrictions on this right in consideration of public order, essential services, and contractual obligations. In the public sector, the principle of maintaining essential services places certain limits on strike actions.

Contemporary France: That’s Not Our Debt!
     On September 10, 2025, the bloquons tout!(Let’s block everything) movement began as 175,000 workers and young people took to the streets to protest against the €44 billion budget cuts announced by President Emmanuel Macron’s government for the 2026 fiscal year. These cuts, prompted by a surge in national debt, involved reductions in public services and social welfare programs. While the government’s fiscal measures were legally justified, critics argued that they effectively placed an unfair burden on the socially vulnerable.

Following the strikes, the government has not provided a meaningful platform for dialogue with labor unions. As a result, France’s middle-class workers live with growing anxiety about their future. If citizens are merely guaranteed the right to strike without any genuine discussion between the government and the people regarding the purpose of such actions, one may question what true meaning the right to strike actually holds.

     France thus demonstrates how a strong right to strike can act as a driving force for social progress. For countries like South Korea, where labor protections remain relatively limited, the French example underscores the importance of worker solidarity and enhancing collective bargaining power, while also revealing the need for institutional mechanisms to minimize side effects such as economic paralysis. Some observers view Korea’s recent legal reforms, which aims at guaranteeing bargaining rights for subcontracted workers, as a potential step toward stability. Others, however, express concern about possible declines in foreign investment, disruptions to global supply chains, and negative impacts on the national economy. Meanwhile, some experts warn that “if the intent of the law is not accompanied by social consensus, it may lead to institutional instability,” emphasizing the need for restoring trust between labor and management and for developing social coordination mechanisms in parallel. In other words, to become a true leader in labor rights, a society must address not only the legal framework but also the social conditions that surround it. 

Seo Jun-hee (ST Reporter)

20231933@soongsil.ac.kr

Choi Ye-jin (ST Reporter)

cloe04@soongsil.ac.kr