Kakao's labor union went on strike on the 10th, the first since the company was founded. But the strike lasted only four hours, and major services such as KakaoTalk and payments operated normally. The union said it was a warning signaling the possibility of a full strike, but the IT industry reacted by saying, "How much would Kakao really be shaken by stopping for four hours?" Unlike manufacturing unions that can halt production lines, IT corporations run core services with automated infrastructure and essential operations staff, so the pressure effect of this strike in terms of user inconvenience or revenue loss was limited.
Still, the limited effectiveness of the strike does not lessen management's responsibility. Kakao failed to present answers convincing enough for employees and the market while concerns over slowing growth and artificial intelligence (AI) competitiveness, affiliate restructuring, and distrust of the compensation system piled up at once. The union is trying to assert its presence with a weak hand, and management has offered neither a clear growth strategy nor compensation principles. Rather than a show of union strength, Kakao's first strike revealed that internal distrust over growth strategy and compensation principles has reached a level that is hard to patch up.
◇ Limits of platform corporations without production lines… a four-hour strike that lacked punch
On this day, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Kakao's union held a rally of members and began a partial strike in the area around Kakao's headquarters in Pangyo, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province. From noon to 1 p.m. was a break, making the actual strike time a total of four hours. While the Kakao Mobility union went on strike last year, this is the first strike at the Kakao headquarters level. Unions at Kakao Pay, Kakao Enterprise, DK Techin, and XLGAMES, where wage talks broke down, also joined the strike.
However, during the strike there were no major service disruptions such as KakaoTalk being down, nor any clear user inconvenience. With core services like KakaoTalk, the Daum portal, and payments operating normally, the strike's direct impact on company operations was limited.
This limitation becomes clearer compared with manufacturing. The contrast is stark when compared with the Samsung Electronics union strike. Samsung Electronics had a powerful bargaining chip in its semiconductor production lines. If production stops, revenue and profit take a direct hit, and delivery schedules and the supply chain come under strain. It is a structure in which the company cannot help but feel the strike as an expense.
Kakao, by contrast, is in a different situation. It runs units for messenger, portal, payments, and AI development, but major services are sustained by automated infrastructure and essential operations staff. A four-hour partial strike may delay some internal work or development timelines, but it is unlikely to lead to service disruptions that users would notice or to hits to company revenue. The continuity of platform services, a dispersed organizational structure, and the substitutability of operations staff are limiting the union's leverage.
For this reason, the partial strike is seen as closer to a symbolic protest than a strong fight. The union sent a message that it would keep the option of a full strike open, but the actual burden the company would feel is not great. If it were to turn into a prolonged strike, user inconvenience would grow, and the union could face backlash for "holding the national messenger hostage while demanding bonuses."
Perceptions of the union's demands are also not entirely favorable. Kakao in recent years has gone through slowing growth, affiliate restructuring, and reduced investment. It is a phase in which it is hard to justify large payouts solely on platform growth as in the past. In this context, questions are being raised about whether the demand to set aside 13%–14% of operating profit as a bonus pool meets the expectations of the market and shareholders.
◇ Kakao management deepened distrust… compensation standards and growth answers remain vague
That does not free the company from responsibility. Kakao employees' sensitivity to the bonus issue is not simply a call for more money. Distrust has accumulated that the company has failed to adequately explain by what standards it calculates bonuses and how it rewards organizations and individuals that produced certain results.
From employees' perspective, there is frustration that it is hard to know why bonuses fell even when company results improved, which metrics were reflected, and how long-term incentives are distinguished from the current year's bonuses. RSUs that Kakao has granted to some employees have also become a flashpoint. RSUs are restricted stock units that can be received only if conditions, such as working for a certain period, are met. The union argues that RSUs, which are long-term incentives, should not be calculated like current-year bonuses.
Compensation at AXZ, the operator of the Daum portal, also fueled internal discontent. After being spun off from Kakao and sold to Upstage, AXZ employees reportedly received about 100 million won per person on average in compensation from Kakao, raising questions among existing employees about fairness in compensation standards. The perception spread that while certain organizations received large payouts, even the criteria for calculating bonuses for general employees were not sufficiently disclosed.
A platform industry official said, "A compensation system cannot be separate from a company's growth strategy. It needs to show what results will get the company growing again and how those results translate into employee compensation," adding, "But Kakao management has pushed affiliate restructuring, portal business reorganization, and expanded AI investment at the same time without presenting a coherent standard that ties them together." Another platform industry official said, "It is hard to quell internal distrust by explaining bonus demands only as a 'management burden.'"
◇ AI lags and the stock falls… both labor and management lack a sense of crisis
Kakao's bigger problem is that its presence has weakened in the AI race. The company has said it would make this year a turning point for growth centered on AI and KakaoTalk. But results the market can feel are still unclear. The KakaoTalk overhaul has been presented as a move to improve both user experience and revenue, but compared with Naver, it has not shown clear differentiation in AI search, commerce, or global infrastructure partnerships.
Over roughly the past month, Naver's stock has risen on AI expectations and news of cooperation with Nvidia, while Kakao's has fallen amid overlapping labor strife and concerns about AI competitiveness. While Naver is being re-evaluated as a beneficiary of AI, Kakao has yet to answer the question, "What will drive its next phase of growth?"
The compensation gap is a factor heightening union discontent. Based on the 2025 business reports, the average salary per employee was 146 million won at Naver and 109 million won at Kakao. However, from investors' standpoint, there is no shortage of views that it is unconvincing for Kakao to demand only compensation increases when it has not demonstrated growth potential or AI competitiveness on par with Naver.
Ryu Jong-gi, adjunct professor at the Sogang University College of Media, said, "This is the result of internal risks—distrust of management risk, strategic vacuums, and compensation systems—overlapping and reaching a tipping point, and a signal that Kakao can no longer persuade employees and the market with past growth formulas," adding, "AI competition is accelerating, the stock is volatile, and employees do not trust the compensation standards. What is needed are acceptable compensation criteria and a growth strategy the market will recognize."
Meanwhile, on the same day, Kakao's union said it would "prepare and carry out a 'logout day' on the 29th," signaling an additional strike.