Labor

SANTAIGO, Chile, May 15 (UPI) — The departure of more than 30,000 Venezuelan workers from Chile’s labor market in recent months has become an unprecedented trend that analysts say appears linked to tougher immigration policies under President José Antonio Kast and, to a greater extent, Venezuela’s political reconfiguration.

A study by the Economic Context Observatory at Diego Portales University found that the Venezuelan labor force in Chile fell 5.4% during the January-March quarter, marking five consecutive months of year-over-year declines.

Over that period, Chile’s overall labor force grew 1.1%.

“This is not an isolated phenomenon. The magnitude of the decline in the Venezuelan labor force had not been observed in previous periods,” economist Juan Bravo, director of the Economic Context Observatory and author of the study, told UPI.

Bravo said the gradual, but noticeable, return home of Venezuelans living in Chile began after the arrest of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro during a U.S. military operation Jan. 3.

“Venezuela is undergoing a transition and internal reconfiguration process, with some signs of change, but still facing high social tensions and a fragile economic situation,” he said.

With Kast taking office in March after campaigning on stricter measures against undocumented immigrants, Venezuela’s recovery process has become a more significant factor in migration patterns.

“While it is not appropriate to assume that the entire Venezuelan population in Chile will return to their country, it is also unrealistic to assume that no one will,” Bravo said.

The decline in Venezuela’s labor force is concentrated among people who have lived in Chile for fewer than five years, are age 34 or younger, male, single and hold university degrees. That group represents 80.1% of the total decrease.

Researchers warned that the reduced Venezuelan presence is directly affecting jobs in sectors that include delivery services, hospitality and customer service.

“By far, the occupation that could face the greatest labor shortage is motorcycle drivers, where 61.1% of workers are Venezuelan,” Bravo said.

He said Venezuelan workers also are heavily represented among vehicle cleaners, gas station attendants, hotel receptionists, electronics technicians and mechanics, cosmetologists and restaurant servers.

The drop in Venezuelan participation also comes as Kast’s government advances another campaign promise: the construction of a border trench aimed at stopping undocumented migration.

The so-called Border Shield Plan calls for a 37-mile trench in northern Chile along the borders with Peru and Bolivia. Authorities said in late April that 20% of the project had been completed, including an initial 7.5-mile stretch.

At the same time, Kast is seeking to restore diplomatic relations with the government of interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez to begin deporting undocumented foreigners living in Chile.

Authorities estimate that 75% of undocumented migrants in Chile are Venezuelans who cannot be deported because the lack of consular relations prevents Chilean authorities from verifying their identities and Venezuela will not accept them back.

Ernesto León, national director of migration and international police at Chile’s Investigative Police Department, or PDI, told Spanish newspaper El País that 6,000 deportations to Venezuela remain pending, while another 2,000 Venezuelans have left Chile voluntarily.

Samsung Electronics Co. and its labor union failed to reach a wage agreement Wednesday, raising concerns over a major strike later this month that could disrupt operations at the world’s largest memory chipmaker.

The breakdown came after two days of government-led mediation talks that had been viewed as a last-ditch effort to avert the strike scheduled for May 21.

Union and management have remained sharply divided over performance-based bonuses tied to the company’s earnings related to artificial intelligence (AI).

The union has demanded performance bonuses equivalent to 15 percent of operating profit, along with the removal of the payout cap and the formal institutionalization of the bonus system.

The management, meanwhile, proposed allocating 10 percent of operating profit to bonuses and offering a one-time special compensation package that it said exceeds industry standards.

“Because the differences between the labor union and management did not narrow, we requested mediation and waited for nearly 12 hours, but the proposal only worsened,” Choi Seung-ho, head of Samsung Electronics’ largest labor union, told reporters after the meeting at the National Labor Relations Commission office in the administrative city of Sejong.

Choi said some 41,000 unionized workers have expressed their intention to take part in the general strike, adding that the number could rise to more than 50,000.

“It is meaningless to wait any longer,” Choi said. “We do not plan to hold an illegal strike. We will proceed in a legitimate way.”

Choi added that the union now will focus on responding to Samsung’s request for an injunction restricting the union’s planned strike.

Later Wednesday, the Suwon District Court concluded a closed-door second hearing attended by about 30 people, including lawyers and officials from both sides.

During the hearing, the union argued that the strike would be carried out lawfully within a limited period and that it had no intention of illegally occupying company facilities, making an injunction unnecessary.

The court is expected to decide by May 20 whether to grant the injunction.

Following the breakdown in talks, Samsung Electronics expressed regret over the suspension of the mediation process, while pledging to continue efforts to engage in dialogue.

“The post-mediation process, which the government worked hard to arrange, unfortunately collapsed after the union declared negotiations broken down,” the company said in a press release. It, however, vowed to continue making sincere efforts until the very end to prevent the worst-case outcome from materializing.

The labor dispute at Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest memory chip maker and South Korea’s most valuable company, has raised concerns that a walkout could disrupt production and upend the semiconductor supply chain, as well as hurt the broader economy overall.

Observers say that if a full-scale strike takes place, losses to the South Korean economy, which is heavily dependent on exports, could exceed 40 trillion won (US$26.8 billion).

South Korea’s exports reached a record $219.9 billion in the first quarter of 2026, driven by strong global demand for AI data centers. Semiconductor exports were a major contributor, surging 139 percent from a year earlier to $78.5 billion as investment in AI-related servers accelerated.

Some observers have speculated that the government could invoke emergency arbitration powers to prevent further escalation.

Under South Korea’s labor laws, the labor minister may order emergency arbitration when industrial action is deemed likely to endanger public welfare or seriously harm the national economy.

If invoked, all strike actions would be prohibited for 30 days while mediation and arbitration procedures are conducted by the commission. Emergency arbitration powers have been exercised only four times in South Korea’s history.

A commission official declined to comment on the possibility, saying, “It is not something we are reviewing.”

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Adelmo Becerra is a Venezuelan trade union representative from the National Institute for Training and Socialist Education (INCES) and also a member of David Hernández Oduber Revolutionary Current (CREDAHO). In the past, he worked as an instructor at INCES and as a worker in the steel industry in Ciudad Guayana. In this interview, Becerra discusses the Venezuelan government’s recent labor policies under US sanctions, the growing labor reform prospects, and the present struggles and challenges facing the working class.

On May 1, the Venezuelan government raised non-wage bonuses while maintaining the minimum wage frozen. What was your reaction to these announcements? How do you place them in the context of recent labor policies in Venezuela?

The announcements represent a continuity of the labor policies of recent years. There had been expectations for restoration of the minimum wage in the short term. According to Article 91 of the Constitution, it must be adjusted once a year. Naturally, it would be a partial and limited restoration. But it is important to place the announcements in the context of various processes currently unfolding in the labor sphere.

In Venezuela, the Social Dialogue Forum, a body coordinated by the International Labour Organization (ILO), has been in place since 2021. Several trade union federations participate in this forum, including the Independent Trade Union Alliance of Venezuela (ASI), to which the INCES union belongs, the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV), the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Federation (CBST), as well as government representatives. The Social Dialogue Forum is not binding, but Venezuela has ratified conventions, including Convention 26, which establishes consultations with trade union organizations for setting the minimum wage. However, a mechanism for establishing it has not yet been agreed upon.

At the same time, the government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has established the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus, which includes the CTV, ASI, and CBST labor federations, along with representatives from business associations FEDECÁMARAS and FEDEINDUSTRIA, and government officials.

Then there is the struggle on the streets that has unfolded in the country in recent years. I would single out the August 2018 Program for Growth, Recovery, and Economic Prosperity as a starting point. This program produced two instruments that have denied wage and labor rights established in collective bargaining agreements, even disregarding the Constitution and labor legislation. I am referring to Memorandum 2792, from October 2018, which sets out the broad guidelines regarding the suspension of collective bargaining rights. And then there is the 2021 ONAPRE Directive, which addresses its specific application. Both instruments remain in force, and their repeal has been a constant demand in the workers’ struggles.

So, back to May 1, there was no restoration of the minimum wage. However, the announcements stem from agreements reached at the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus. And the signed minutes refer to a “wage consultation process” that will begin in May. This indicates that the issue of the minimum wage is far from settled. Similarly, the agreements “urge” the private sector to establish this same US $240 income floor, specifying that it may be through “non-wage bonuses,” although in reality there are no mechanisms to enforce it.

But the minimum wage is not an isolated issue. We have heard spokespersons from both the government and the private sector speak of labor reform. Just in recent days, in a meeting of the Social Dialogue Forum, one of the agreements was to “coordinate consultations of labor-related laws with the National Assembly.”

Let us take a closer look at the issue of bonuses versus wages. What are the consequences of this “bonus-ization” policy?

The main impact is on workers’ entitlements, specifically in the form of social benefits. These benefits accumulate over the course of the employment relationship, and their primary function is to recognize seniority so that it can be taken into account when paying out benefits.

But there is also another concept: retroactivity. This means that benefits are paid based on the final salary. Thus, when an employment relationship ends at a private company, the benefits paid as compensation are calculated based on the final wage and the duration of the employment. The same applies to those retiring from the public sector, or from a private company that offers a retirement plan –which is very rare in Venezuela.

This issue is very important because it has been at the center of the historical Venezuelan working-class struggles following the oil-led industrialization and the 1936 Labor Law. Social benefits allowed Venezuelan families to have assets, purchase homes or other property, and also served as a safety net in contexts of unemployment or economic crisis. This safety net no longer exists today because the minimum wage has been effectively eliminated.

Then there are other important factors, such as social security contributions, which fund the Venezuelan Social Security Institute (IVSS). This is a universal solidarity-based system in which both employers and employees contribute, and it serves as the economic foundation for old-age pensions and other IVSS social support initiatives, such as in healthcare. So, this system is also in crisis because contributions are computed based on wages.

The result is that for the private sector, both social security contributions and severance pay are practically free right now, and that in turn affects job stability.

Speaking specifically about INCES, which is a state-run training institute, what is the current employment situation like? Do the staff work full-time?

According to data recently provided to us by the authorities, there are approximately 11,500 people on the payroll, 6,800 of them active workers, and the rest are retirees. The vast majority receive only the “economic war” and bonuses, now set at $200 and $40 a month, respectively. Through our collective bargaining agreement, retirees also receive the food bonus, which is not the case in general in the public sector.

In recent years, as a union, we have held discussions with INCES authorities and the Ministry of Labor –which oversees the institute –to ease the requirement that people come to work every day while we try to secure better conditions. Simply put, if their income isn’t enough, they should have the option of trying to find a second or third job. With the recent increases in bonuses, the authorities are putting more pressure on workers to return to full-time work, but it’s complicated.

We are still in that struggle to improve conditions, even though we have not even been able to make progress on a memorandum of understanding to improve the socioeconomic clauses of the current collective bargaining agreement. But that’s the priority.

Turning now to the private sector, you have participated in the Observatory for Labor Dignity, which has investigated current working conditions in Venezuela. In general terms, why the focus on the private sector? And what is the reality of that world?

The first reason is that unionization rates in the private sector have historically always been very low in our country. At its peak, in the 1970s, it reached 30%, and today it is likely below 15% –and that is being optimistic. We must take into account the massive migration of recent years. It is a very low unionization rate, and in sectors such as retail or services, there are practically no unions.

Consequently, the level of job insecurity and vulnerability is much higher, especially given the government’s policy of restraining official workplace inspections based on tacit agreements with the private sector under the pretext of “promoting employment.”

One issue that came up repeatedly was the lack of maternity protection which was one of the advances of the 2012 Labor Law. Right now, in the companies we investigated, such as [department store chain] Traki or [textile distributor] El Castillo, no woman wants to get pregnant because that would mean immediately losing their job. Not only that, but it would also make it impossible to get a reference letter or a recommendation for another job.

It is important to stress that the approach to undermine or marginalize collective bargaining agreements was not limited to the public sector. The private sector also adopted it. Under the guise of “protecting jobs”–claiming that companies would go bankrupt otherwise –many employers sent workers home on minimum wage, with some being called back to work at the employer’s discretion.

Given the context of crisis and precariousness, under US economic sanctions, that has persisted for several years now, is the impact on workers’ awareness noticeable?

Indeed, there is a very acute lack of awareness regarding labor rights. The new generation of workers is entering the workforce with virtually no knowledge of the rights they hold by law, in part because they have never had access to them.

So, issues like employment contracts, pay stubs, or even working hours themselves are a problem. It is very common to have 10, 12, or even 14-hour workdays, or for the two days off per week not to be upheld. At Traki, this is usually respected, although the two days are not necessarily consecutive. In El Castillo, the average is one and a half days. In El Castillo, there is also a practice of having workers sign their contract and a resignation letter at the same time, which is obviously illegal.

Another characteristic is high turnover. Fixed-term contracts have become the norm. Although after several contracts the law grants the right to continued employment, this is practically nonexistent. The vast majority of people move around a great deal between jobs. This is, of course, made possible by the fact that benefits are nearly non-existent and it is extremely cheap to dismiss a worker, which in turn keeps people in a much more precarious situation.

But there is an important factor to consider: the shift in subjectivity –and this, of course, is not a phenomenon unique to Venezuela. A few days ago, I watched an interview with a North American researcher who found that for young people in the US a job at Starbucks seems like a good opportunity –better than average. Here, in some of the testimonies we collected, young people expressed satisfaction with working at the Traki department stores. They earn some $250 a month, work 9- or 10-hour shifts –while conditions elsewhere are worse –have two days off a week, and would like to stay there. Therefore, the notion of work with rights has also eroded. Issues like overtime pay, not to mention social security, become irrelevant due to the precariousness of the present. The employment relationship, which includes rights and mechanisms to protect them, is beginning to be viewed simply as a commercial transaction.

Labor reform talks are underway. Government spokespeople talk about “updating” the law following the impact of US sanctions, while private sector spokespeople are also voicing their demands. What is currently at stake?

I think there are several aspects to consider. We are clearly witnessing an aggressive campaign being waged by the media, along with well-known economists and influencers, to impose a narrative that any wage increase will cause inflation. As such, the only way to raise wages is to reduce employers’ responsibilities and eliminate the retroactive nature of labor benefits.

The 2012 Labor Law reinstated the calculation of benefits based on the last salary. This had been modified, amid much controversy, during the Caldera administration in the 1990s. Still, unlike proposals we see now, retroactivity was not completely eliminated. There is a proposal to let workers choose between receiving benefits immediately or accumulating them, which completely distorts the concept and takes advantage of current economic difficulties. If wages are insufficient, workers obviously prefer to collect as much as they can right away. Even if the current $240 minimum income was turned into salaries, this would represent less than 50% of the food basket for a family, according to different estimates.

I believe it is essential to reject the narrative promoted by groups like Fedecámaras, to reject the premise that we must give up our rights and historic achievements because there are no conditions to sustain them. For starters, there is a lack of transparency and information. We do not even have reliable information on the size of the economically active population. The last census was in 2011, and following the massive migration over the past decade, we do not know what the current picture looks like.

According to 2021 data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE), there were roughly 4 million workers in the formal private sector, just over 3 million in the public sector, and around 5 million pensioners. Therefore, with that precise data, and with transparent information on revenues, it would be possible to quantify whether or not there are resources. Because GDP was heavily hit by the US blockade but has been growing—according to the Central Bank, for 20 consecutive quarters –but the last adjustment to the minimum wage, to $30 per month, was in March 2022.

Another piece of data we lack is the distribution of surpluses among the workforce, private capital, and the state. According to research by former Minister Víctor Álvarez, the labor share reached 40% by 2010. Currently, according to estimates by researcher Carlos Dürich, that figure may be around 20%, which is what is typically observed in African countries with high levels of poverty and inequality.

We need all that data if we want to discuss what is possible or not, and how the wealth that is generated will be distributed. This is especially true in this context, where, outrageously, the US controls Venezuela’s oil sales. Now the Central Bank will be subject to external auditing, but the public still lacks information. So there is a second layer of opacity there.

In summary, under the present conditions, with an unfavorable correlation of forces and foreign control over the Venezuelan economy, it is not possible to restore the minimum wage and have it cover living costs, as established in Article 91 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, economists and trade union federations have argued that there are conditions for a partial restoration.

In this complex context, both domestically and internationally, what is the path forward for the workers’ struggle in the country?

For me, there is one fundamental factor –one that has been evident in recent years –and that is social pressure. Workers are the only force that has exerted pressure on the government, and to some extent on the private sector as well, particularly since 2022. In 2023, the government placated the protests by introducing the “economic war” bonus. The minimum wage had been devalued to $5 at the beginning of the year, and 15 days later the government set the bonus at $25, and then in May at $70. Even if it happens through non-wage bonuses, it is a struggle with the bourgeoisie over the country’s income.

The May 1 increase, again via bonuses, is also a response to pressure from the streets. We will now see what happens with the wage consultations and labor reform plans. The challenge is to sustain the actions and protests over time. But that sustainability depends on unity.

And what are the challenges to building unity around the labor agenda? A few weeks ago, we witnessed an absurd demonstration by certain union factions asking for support at the US Embassy.

Precisely. On May 1, there was a unified demonstration that likely drew 3,000 to 4,000 people in Caracas, along with smaller marches in other parts of the country. Various labor federations were present, ranging from the more left-wing ones like the CUTV to those social-democratic or Christian-democratic like the CTV or ASI.

On March 12, we also had a united mobilization, but since then the forces have split. And that weakens us because it reduces our impact; the business leaders rub their hands together.

This division has partly to do with issues of leadership and protagonism, and with the fact that not all federations understand that we must play on two chessboards at this moment: on one hand, the negotiating tables, and on the other, applying pressure in the streets.

But the division is also due to a particular factor: a group called the Coalición Sindical, whose main focus is not so much labor or wages, but politics. It serves as the vehicle within the labor movement for María Corina Machado’s political faction, which is obviously trying to capitalize on labor issues for its own agenda. This group has no interest in joint actions to secure better conditions –even if only partial –for the working class; rather, its priority is to stoke conflict.

That is why we see actions such as demonstrations in front of the US Embassy, calling on Trump to intervene. But right now, the priority for the US is stability, so it can advance its energy and mining interests. It views social pressure as something the Venezuelan government must handle on its own.

In short, it is essential at this moment to have a united force with a specific agenda: to fight for the restoration of wages, for the reopening of collective bargaining negotiations, for the release of unjustly imprisoned workers and trade unionists, and to defend labor rights against regressive reform efforts.

Each of us has a shortlist of movies we find ourselves rewatching, movies we will finish even if they’re half-over when we tune in. Even if it’s being streamed with commercials. Even if it’s playing on a 19-inch black-and-white television with no sound in a crowded dive bar.

For the past 20 years, “The Devil Wears Prada” has been one of those films for me and other Americans who entered the workforce just in time to say goodbye to pensions and hello to increases in student loan debt. Generation X had the highest homeownership rate relative to their age, so when the housing bubble popped in 2008, it hit Gen X the hardest. And yet this same group of workers is also shouldering the care of aging parents and adult children. According to Pew Research, more than half of 40-year-olds (“elder millennials”) and more than a third of 50-year-olds fall into this category, doing so with shrinking financial margins because wages have lagged behind the cost of living our entire adult lives.

While the current No. 1 movie at the box office — the biopic chronicling Michael Jackson’s rise from Gary, Ind., in 1966 to headlining stadiums in 1988 — may evoke a sense of nostalgia for Gen X, the sequel to “Devil” (which opens in theaters Friday) feels more like a peer review.

Twenty years ago, when we last saw our protagonist, Andrea Sachs, she had decided to leave her big corporate job because success in that environment required her to be someone she didn’t like or respect. As young professionals, seeing a fictional character like Sachs leave a toxic work environment felt like a satisfying conclusion in 2006. However, over the decades, you learn work/life balance is an oxymoron and characteristics such as integrity and loyalty are often valued but rarely useful on a spreadsheet.

Don’t get me wrong — I love the campy humor, the fashion and soundtrack of the first “Devil.” However, the thing that elevated the Oscar-nominated film to its cultlike status is the same thing that lifted similarly edgy coming-of-age stories such as “The Graduate” in 1967, “American Graffiti” in 1973 and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” in 1982: truth. Despite the fantasy elements of beautiful and talented people dressed in clothing designed by the upper echelon of the fashion industry, “Devil” has a sequel because what Sachs was experiencing felt real. Many of us have been there — behind on rent, desperately trying to build a career, navigating friends and romance.

The line the character Nigel told an overwhelmed Sachs in the original — “let me know when your whole life goes up in smoke … means it’s time for a promotion” — was more than a humorous quip. It was also foreshadowing for the young professionals in the audience who had not yet learned that being good at your job, or even great, wasn’t enough to keep it.

We know that all too well now. Just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported corporate layoffs in the first quarter of 2026 surpassed 200,000. Of course, it wasn’t always like this.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, in the immediate three decades after World War II, workers saw their hourly compensation in line with the country’s productivity growth. That’s because during the height of the Cold War — when employers offered employees pensions and union participation was at its peak — corporate America was incentivized to offer labor a larger share of the profits as a way to counteract communism. However, when the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, so did the motivation from domestic CEOs to share profits with workers. The split between capital and labor began measurably in 1970, and the gap has only increased since.

Twenty years ago — before the 2008 recession, the pandemic and the nearly $1-trillion price tag stemming from the Afghanistan war — it was believable a young professional like Sachs would walk away from a good corporate job for the sake of her integrity. However, given how fraught the current work environment feels, with the shadow of artificial intelligence looming over entry-level positions across multiple disciplines, would we find Sachs’ actions believable today? Or laudable? Or would we demand that she compromise her principles because it’s pragmatic to let go of the idealism of youth? Time has forced many of us to begrudgingly accept that possibility. Our younger selves might not approve, but our older selves know that’s how most people survive long enough in their careers to have a sequel.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

President Lee Jae Myung on Friday pledged unwavering commitment to workplace safety in his address to mark Labor Day at Cheong Wa Dae.

“I will neither compromise nor make concessions on workplace safety,” he said, vowing to build a “normal” country where no worker ever has to risk their life at work.

“Safeguarding workers is the most basic responsibility of any nation and any business,” he said.

The president also pushed back against the notion that worker welfare and business growth are incompatible, stressing the two are mutually dependent.

“We can only move forward by breaking free from the outdated thinking that being pro-business means being anti-worker,” he said. “Growth has a future only when labor stands behind it” he said.

Amid growing concerns that artificial intelligence (AI) threatens jobs, the president sought to reassure the public that the government prioritizes people over productivity.

“As technologies advance, the prevailing view is that machines powered by artificial intelligence will largely replace human labor,” he said. “But it is not right to ask workers to sacrifice themselves in the name of productivity,” he said, adding that growth that leaves workers behind is not growth at all.

Lee called workers “the backbone of our economy,” who keep things running on the ground and drive the spending that fuels growth.

It marked the first time a Labor Day event has been held at Cheong Wa Dae. The event brought together some 130 participants, including key figures from labor, management and government, as well as workers from diverse occupations, to mark the occasion.

It also marked the first time two major umbrella labor unions — the Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions — that are said to hold different political views both took part in such an event.

South Korea had initially observed Labor Day on May 1 before it was renamed “Workers’ Day” in 1963. The government restored the name to Labor Day last year and designated it as a national holiday earlier this year, allowing all workers to take the day off.

In celebration of Labor Day, a variety of events took place across the country, highlighting the value of work and its role in improving quality of life and driving economic growth.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

April 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s race for dominance in high-bandwidth memory, a key component for artificial intelligence chips, is diverging as SK hynix consolidates its lead while Samsung Electronics faces mounting labor tensions.

Industry analysts say the competition is increasingly defined not just by technology, but by timing – with early execution and customer alignment proving decisive in securing long-term market share.

SK hynix recently received a corporate innovation award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, recognizing its leadership in developing and mass-producing successive generations of HBM chips. The company has capitalized on surging demand driven by AI computing, strengthening partnerships with major global clients.

SK hynix is rapidly expanding sales of its HBM3E products while simultaneously preparing for next-generation HBM4, supplying samples to key customers and advancing toward mass production. Analysts say early validation and supply relationships formed at this stage are likely to shape long-term market positioning.

In contrast, Samsung is attempting to close the gap through its own HBM4 development but faces internal challenges. Labor disputes over performance-based bonuses have escalated, with unions warning of a general strike. Industry observers say the tensions could affect not only production but also research, development and customer engagement.

HBM products require close collaboration with customers on customized designs and process validation, making speed of initial response a critical factor. Delays in testing or supply can lead to lost contracts, while early entry into supply chains often results in long-term partnerships.

Analysts warn that Samsung’s internal disruptions could weaken its ability to respond during what they describe as a “golden time” in the rapidly expanding AI semiconductor market. If supply stability and development pace falter, customers may shift toward multi-vendor strategies, potentially solidifying SK hynix’s advantage.

Experts also point to structural issues behind repeated labor disputes, including disagreements over performance-based compensation. They suggest moving beyond short-term negotiations toward a more transparent system based on objective metrics such as return on invested capital, total shareholder return and economic value added.

Such reforms, they say, could help prevent prolonged conflicts and support the company’s competitiveness in a fast-moving global market.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260427010008233

It has long become clear that those of us who saw a glimmer of hope in President Trump’s appointment of Lori Chavez-DeRemer as secretary of Labor got snowed.

It wasn’t just, or even chiefly, the miasma of sleaze and corruption that seemed to surround her wherever she went. Or her slavish sucking up to Trump in public, notably at a Cabinet meeting in which she pleaded with Trump to send his immigration goons into Portland, Ore., to “crack down.” (“Thank you for what you’re doing with your agents on ICE,” she said at the August 2025 session.) Fun fact: She had represented a Portland suburb as a Republican for a single House term.

No. It was the gulf between the expectations, even among Democrats, that she might be a decent pick for the job, and the reality.

After all, she had been one of only three Republicans in the House to vote in favor of the so-called PRO Act, which would significantly strengthen collective bargaining rights. (The measure passed the House in 2019 and 2021 but hasn’t gotten out of committee in the current Congress.)

As I reported after her nomination, labor activists and pro-labor politicians made encouraging noises about her. Among them was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.): “It’s a big deal that one of the few Republican lawmakers who have endorsed the PRO Act could lead the Department of Labor,” Warren said. “If Chavez-DeRemer commits as Labor secretary to strengthen labor unions and promote worker power, she’s a strong candidate for the job.”

She received an explicit endorsement from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “Her record suggests real support of workers & their right to unionize,” Weingarten tweeted. “I hope it means the Trump admin will actually respect collective bargaining and workers’ voices from Teamsters to teachers.”

The betting was that Chavez-DeRemer would be, at the very least, an upgrade from Trump’s previous appointee as Labor secretary during his first term. That was Eugene Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court justice, who had been a lawyer for big corporations fighting unions and resisting workplace regulations.

The most commonly expressed doubt about Chavez-DeRemer was whether she would have the fortitude to maintain a pro-labor stance in the face of the open hostility to workers displayed by Trump and the rest of his administration.

Within months, the answer was clear, and it was no. In May, she ceased enforcing a Biden administration rule that had discouraged businesses from designating their workers as independent contractors, depriving those workers of the legal protections and wage and hour benefits they would have received as employees.

The budget she submitted to Congress last year would slash her agency’s discretionary funding by more than 35%, to $8.6 billion from $13.2 billion, and cut its workforce by nearly 4,000 full-time workers, or more than 26%. In July she announced a plan to rescind 63 regulations that had been designed to help workers.

With language that sounded cribbed from the MAGA playbook, she said her goal is to “eliminate unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity.” Most of the regulations facing the guillotine related to worker health and safety protections.

Brief as it was, Chavez-DeRemer’s tenure wasn’t the first time that the Department of Labor was ill-served by its management. Republican presidents have displayed a decades-long tendency to fill the top spot with political cronies or pro-business activists masquerading as worker advocates, or worse.

Frances Perkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s Labor secretary, recalled having to clean up the agency — not just morally and ethically, but with broom and bucket, when she took over from William Nuckles Doak, Herbert Hoover’s appointee.

The Labor Department was located in a converted apartment building, its interior dark and foreboding, its shadowy corners occupied by silent, hulking men whom Perkins mentally labeled “cigar in the corner of the mouth types. Stale ashtrays and spittoons were everywhere, along with wastebaskets surrounded by mounds of misaimed and crumpled papers. (Its current Washington quarters are in the Frances Perkins Building.)

Doak didn’t seem inclined to leave the premises. Perkins got rid of him by sending him to lunch and packing up his personal effects while he was out.

Perkins’ first step as secretary was to disband an anti-immigrant squad that shook down foreign-born laborers for cash and helped employers harass labor organizers. She set a high standard for the agency, pushing forward legislation establishing the 40-hour workweek and the National Labor Relations Board — and also creating Social Security.

Many of Perkins’ Democratic successors have watched sadly as their efforts have been undone with a change in administrations. Robert Reich, who served under Bill Clinton (and is now an emeritus professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and an assiduous blogger), wrote Tuesday of having loved the agency’s mission: “to protect and raise the standard of living of working Americans.”

With Reich at Labor, the Clinton administration raised the federal minimum wage in 1997 from $3.35 an hour, where it had been stuck since 1980, to $5.15 (albeit still a cheeseparing $10.69 in today’s buying power). “We fought against sweatshops,” Reich recalled. “We took on big corporations that were cheating their employees. We kept workers safe.”

That the agency has been “treated like crap is an insult to generations of hardworking DOL employees, to American workers, to America,” Reich wrote.

Under Trump, the Department of Labor has become just another pro-business front pretending to advocate for workers. Genuine labor advocates are infuriated by its decline, which has proceeded under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

The budget for its all-important wage and hour division, which enforces laws governing the minimum wage, overtime and prohibitions on child labor, has shrunk by 26% over a decade, according to David Weil, who headed the division under Obama and whose appointment by Biden to head the division was derailed by opposition from Big Business.

“There were 1,050 investigators working for the agency when I had the honor to lead it in the Obama administration,” Weil, who is a professor of social policy and management at Brandeis University, wrote last year. “It has barely over one-half that number now. The agency had 63 times more investigators per workplace in 1939 than in 2024.”

Trump poses as a pro-worker force, but his policies are atrocious for the laboring class. His Labor Department “walked away from a rule that expanded overtime protections to millions of workers,” Weil observed.

“While Congress’s ‘big beautiful bill’ boasts its worker-friendly removal of taxes on overtime, that provision benefits only a small slice of workers and revoking the overtime regulation further reduces the number of workers eligible for overtime protections when working long hours,” he wrote. “Or take the administration’s attack on low-paid workers whose employers hold federal contracts, by rescinding a $15 minimum wage for contractors covered by a Biden-era executive order, which benefited construction workers, purportedly a key Trump constituency.”

The Labor Department plays a role not only in regulating current workplace conditions but looking ahead at the “long-term prospects of our labor markets,” Weil told me Tuesday. “For example, the discussion of ‘affordability’ is rooted not only in rapidly rising price levels but also the low level of long-term earnings growth. Equally, our beliefs about the future prospects of employment and opportunity for college-educated workers are being upended by the potential impacts of AI.”

He added, “Questions like these require that the Labor Department be led by serious and knowledgeable individuals who place the interests of workers as their focus. So far, this administration has shown contempt for this mission,” as is shown by the decline and fall of Chavez-DeRemer.

Sometimes, the departure of an underperforming executive or official presages improvements ahead. That hasn’t been the pattern under Trump, and sadly, it’s not likely to happen at Labor.

Chavez-DeRemer is the third high-profile female official to leave the Trump administration after recent departures of Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi.

US Secretary of Labour Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving her post in the administration of President Donald Trump, the White House has said.

Chavez-DeRemer is the third woman to leave the Trump administration since March, when the president fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the wake of federal immigration raids in Minnesota that led to the deaths of two protesters. Trump also ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month.

Chavez-DeRemer has done a “phenomenal job” protecting American workers and is set to “take a position in the private sector”, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung said in a post on X late on Monday, announcing the labour secretary’s departure.

“Keith Sonderling will take on the role of Acting Secretary of Labor,” Cheung added, referring to the current deputy labour secretary.

While Cheung did not give a reason for Chavez-DeRemer’s departure, the New York Post reported in January that she was under investigation for “pursuing an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with a subordinate” and drinking in her office during the work day.

Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the allegations.

From the beginning of her tenure, Chavez-DeRemer had some notable differences with other members of Trump’s inner circle.

She had voiced support for the pro-union Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act), earning support for her nomination from some Democrats.

Her appointment was also seen as favoured by Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who notably spoke in support of Trump’s re-election campaign at the Republican National Convention in July 2024.

However, as the labour secretary, Chavez-DeRemer’s positions have more closely aligned with the Trump administration’s overall anti-regulatory policies, according to US media outlets. During her tenure as secretary, the Labor Department stalled on responding to calls for limits on silica exposure from Appalachian coal miners suffering from the occupational black lung disease.

Chavez-DeRemer is not the first top official to leave the Labor Department during Trump’s second term.

In August 2025, Trump fired the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Erika McEntarfer, who was appointed by previous President Joe Biden, after a report showed that hiring had slowed in July and was worse in May and June than had previously been reported.

Chavez-DeRemer had supported the president’s move at the time.

“I support the President’s decision to replace Biden’s Commissioner and ensure the American People can trust the important and influential data coming from BLS,” Chavez-DeRemer said in a post on X following McEntarfer’s removal.

WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is out of President Trump’s Cabinet, the White House said Monday, after multiple allegations of abusing her position’s power, including having an affair with a subordinate and drinking alcohol on the job.

Chavez-DeRemer is the third Trump Cabinet member to leave her post after Trump fired his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in March and ousted Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi earlier this month.

Unlike other recent Cabinet departures, Chavez-DeRemer’s exit was announced by a White House aide, not by the president on his social media account.

“Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving the Administration to take a position in the private sector,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said on the social media site X. “She has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives.”

He said Keith Sonderling, the current deputy labor secretary, would become acting labor secretary in her place. The news outlet NOTUS was the first to report Chavez-DeRemer’s resignation.

Labor chief, family members faced multiple allegations

Chavez-DeRamer’s departure follows reports that began surfacing in January that she was under a series of investigations.

A New York Times report last Wednesday revealed that the Labor Department’s inspector general was reviewing material showing Chavez-DeRemer and her top aides and family members routinely sent personal messages and requests to young staff members.

Chavez-DeRemer’s husband and father exchanged text messages with young female staff members, according to the newspaper. Some of the staffers were instructed by the secretary and her former deputy chief of staff to “pay attention” to her family, people familiar with the investigation told the Times.

Those messages were uncovered as part of a broader investigation of Chavez-DeRamer’s leadership that began after the New York Post reported in January that a complaint filed with the Labor Department’s inspector general accused Chavez-DeRemer of a relationship with the subordinate.

She also faced allegations that she drank alcohol on the job, and that she tasked aides to plan official trips for primarily personal reasons.

Both the White House and the Labor Department initially said the reports of wrongdoing were baseless. But the official denials became less full-throated as more allegations emerged — and when Chavez-DeRemer might be out of a job became something of an open question in Washington.

At least four Labor Department officials have already been forced from their jobs as the investigation progressed, including Chavez-DeRemer’s former chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, as well as a member of her security detail, with whom she was accused of having the affair, the New York Times reported.

She enjoyed union support — rare for a Republican

Confirmed to Trump’s Cabinet in a 67-32 vote in March 2025, Chavez-DeRemer is a former House GOP lawmaker who had represented a swing district in Oregon. She enjoyed unusual support from unions as a Republican but lost reelection in November 2024.

In her single term in Congress, Chavez-DeRemer backed legislation that would make it easier to unionize on a federal level, as well as a separate bill aimed at protecting Social Security benefits for public-sector employees.

Some prominent labor unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, backed Chavez-DeRemer, who is a daughter of a Teamster, for Labor secretary. Trump’s decision to pick her was viewed by some political observers as a way to appeal to voters who are members of or affiliated with labor organizations.

But other powerful labor leaders were skeptical when she was tapped for the job, unconvinced that Chavez-DeRemer would pursue a union-friendly agenda as a part of the incoming GOP administration. In her Senate confirmation hearing, some senators questioned whether she would be able to uphold that reputation in an administration that fired thousands of federal employees.

She was a key figure in Trump’s deregulatory push

Aside from reports of wrongdoing in recent months, Chavez-DeRemer had been one of Trump’s more lower-profile Cabinet picks but took key steps to advance the administration’s deregulatory agenda during her tenure.

For instance, the Labor Department last year moved to rewrite or repeal more than 60 workplace regulations it saw as obsolete. The rollbacks included minimum wage requirements for home healthcare workers and people with disabilities, and rules governing exposure to harmful substances and safety procedures at mines. The effort drew condemnation from union leaders and workplace safety experts.

The proposed changes also included eliminating a requirement that employers provide adequate lighting for construction sites and seat belts for agriculture workers in most employer-provided transportation.

During Chavez-DeRemer’s tenure, the Trump administration canceled millions of dollars in international grants that a Labor Department division administered to combat child labor and slave labor around the world, ending their work that had helped reduce the number of child laborers worldwide by 78 million over the last two decades.

The Labor Department has a broad mandate as it relates to the U.S. workforce, including reporting the U.S. unemployment rate, regulating workplace health and safety standards, investigating minimum wage, child labor and overtime pay disputes, and applying laws on union organizing and unlawful terminations.

Kim writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Cathy Bussewitz in New York and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.