Published on March 27, 2026
Apple will mark its 50th anniversary on April 1. The company has long been associated with the slogan “Think different,” distinctive design, technological sophistication, and an almost obsessive pursuit of perfection. Recently, however, another label has emerged: a U.S. company deeply dependent on China.
Since the 1990s, when co-founder Steve Jobs was still alive, Apple has built production bases across Taiwan and China. The strategy was to exert tight control over every stage of manufacturing. The company even purchased equipment for its contractors and trained a highly disciplined workforce in the Chinese-speaking world. As detailed in “Apple in China” (2025) , this system relied on China’s dense supply chains and labor conditions often described as social dumping.
Within that manufacturing ecosystem, Apple was able to maintain operating margins in the range of 30 to 40 percent. This business model, which does not require sharing significant profits with subcontracted labor, has been a key factor behind those margins and is often cited in comparisons with Samsung Electronics.
However, that era may be ending. As the United States and China decouple economically, Apple is seeking to shift parts of its production to India, Vietnam, and even the United States in a bid to reduce geopolitical risks. Yet no alternative fully matches China’s unique combination of efficiency and skilled labor, suggesting that Apple’s future remains closely tied to the country.
While Apple grapples with constraints in China, Samsung Electronics is facing a different challenge at home: labor relations. The company, which did not have a labor union until 2018 after nearly five decades of operation, is now contending with increasingly assertive union activity.
Samsung’s union staged its first-ever general strike in 2024. In 2025, with unionization in the semiconductor division nearing 70 percent, it has called for another strike in May. The central issue remains performance-based bonuses. With memory chip prices rising, a strike may lead to production disruptions and losses estimated at more than 5 trillion won ($3.4 billion).
The union demands that 20 percent of last year’s operating profit be distributed as bonuses, compared to 10 percent at SK Hynix. This would translate into about 450 million won per employee in the memory division and 300 million won in non-memory units. The union has rejected differentiated payouts based on individual performance or stock-based compensation, insisting on cash.
Samsung management bears part of the responsibility. For decades, the company distributed annual cash bonuses tied to short-term performance. Only after the end of its union-free era did it begin to consider compensation systems that align long-term corporate growth with employee interests. The reliance on short-term incentives has also been cited as a factor in Samsung’s difficulty retaining global talent.
In the current negotiations, the union is likely to hold the upper hand. Competition for semiconductor talent has intensified, with firms such as Nvidia and Tesla actively recruiting engineers with memory chip expertise. Just as Apple struggles to exit China, Samsung cannot sustain growth without cooperation from its workforce in Korea.
The semiconductor unions, however, should recognize a broader context. Bonus disputes at private firms have attracted nationwide attention, as the semiconductor industry is considered a strategic pillar of Korea’s economy. Successive governments have supported this sector as both a major export driver and a core national technology. A recent semiconductor support law passed in January expanded tax incentives for investment and encouraged central and local governments to help build industry clusters.
The administration of President Lee Jae Myung has also explored relocating fabrication plants beyond the capital region to spread economic benefits, despite public concerns about potential impacts on competitiveness. The industry’s achievements are not driven solely ; rather, they reflect sustained public support and policy backing. Against that backdrop, union demands framed as avoiding multitrillion-won losses risk causing frustration among shareholders and the broader public.
Resolving such disputes swiftly and quietly may be the most effective way to preserve both competitiveness and public trust.
Related News
- UK Considers Charging Museum Entry, Canada’s Azrieli Foundation Stops Funding for Toronto Arts Foundation, and More: Morning Links for March 26, 2026
- Diana Ross: Celebrating Motown’s Supreme Talent
- UP-style encounters in Bengal if BJP wins polls: Dilip
- Christie’s Turns Pop Culture Into a Stadium Event With $94.5 M. Jim Irsay Sale
- Should I stay or should I go? Rural international students face housing, job crunch
- Tamil Nadu assembly elections: First-timers bring goodwill, poll dividends