As the "parcel delivery social dialogue," led by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea to discuss whether to ban dawn deliveries, stalls and pressure mounts on Coupang, internal pushback is growing. The Coupang labor union said the dialogue is focusing only on the demands of a specific category of workers, intensifying on-the-ground conflicts between workers, so-called "labor-labor conflict."
According to the industry on the 21st, ahead of the third meeting of the parcel delivery social dialogue set for the 23rd, Coupang must draw up concrete implementation plans on key issues, including how to share social insurance (national pension, health, employment, and industrial accident insurance) premiums, which were included in the first and second social agreements.
The Coupang union issued a statement the same day, saying, "The current social dialogue is moving in a direction that excludes Coupang Friends (directly employed delivery drivers) and reflects only one side's demands," adding, "As a result, conflicts between the two groups of workers on the ground, the so-called labor-labor conflict, are becoming serious."
Coupang delivery drivers fall into two groups depending on employment type. There are Coupang Friends, directly employed drivers under Coupang's subsidiary Coupang Logistics Service (CLS), and "QuickFlex," drivers affiliated with parcel agency outlets under contracts outsourced by CLS. QuickFlex is an indirect employment model and is legally classified as workers in special types of employment (special employment).
What the union takes issue with is the method of sharing social insurance premiums included in the first and second social agreements. The union said, "Following the debate over banning dawn deliveries, the social dialogue has gone so far as to discuss requiring the company to cover in full the social insurance premiums for special employment workers, even though directly employed Coupang Friends also pay the same premiums," adding, "This goes beyond legal standards and is straying from the original purpose of protecting workers' health."
The parcel delivery social dialogue led by the Democratic Party of Korea's Euljiro Committee remains at the stage of reviewing whether Coupang has implemented the past first and second social agreements on parcel delivery. The Euljiro Committee plans to address the main agenda, including whether to ban dawn deliveries, after Coupang submits concrete implementation plans for the first and second agreements.
The first and second social agreements on parcel delivery, drawn up in 2021, included: ▲ deploying dedicated parcel sorting personnel ▲ having the principal contractor bear delivery drivers' social insurance premiums ▲ banning work exceeding 60 hours per week and 12 hours per day. The point of contention among these is who bears the social insurance premiums and how.
The Coupang union argued that the debate over social insurance premiums is fueling conflict between directly employed workers and those in special employment. The union said, "If social insurance premiums, which directly employed workers also share with the company, are provided as a preferential benefit beyond the law only for a specific employment type, anxiety in the field will inevitably accumulate."
It added, "Although the banner is addressing overwork and night work and protecting workers' health, in reality it is shaking the job security of directly employed staff, increasing their workload, and rolling back working conditions," adding, "This is not solving problems but a distorted debate that shifts sacrifices onto other workers to reinforce a particular structure."
The union urged Coupang to "establish fair standards that do not tilt to one side and a work environment free of reverse discrimination," adding, "Directly employed drivers, amid worsening working conditions, feel a deep sense of deprivation as they watch QuickFlex enjoy income structures averaging more than double and benefits that go beyond law and common sense."
It continued, "The reason Coupang was able to escape years of losses and turn to profit was thanks to the blood and sweat of directly employed workers who have worked quietly in the field," adding, "Even though it would be only fair for the company's performance and revenue to go first to direct employment, the reality is moving in the exact opposite direction."
On the other hand, some say this debate cannot be seen solely as a preferential treatment for a specific employment type. Given that delivery drivers in special employment are relatively vulnerable in terms of social insurance and safety nets, demands such as sharing social insurance premiums or expanding dedicated sorting personnel are the minimum protective measures.