Bonuses not enough? Samsung chip workers under fire once again as apartment subsidy scandal compounds prior backlash.

Some Samsung Electronics semiconductor employees are facing allegations of falsifying rental contracts to collect company housing subsidies, further fueling resentment toward workers already envied for their hefty performance-based incentives.

“We were already trying not to draw attention because the public wasn’t exactly happy about our performance-based incentives,” an engineer at Samsung Electronics’ chip division said on Wednesday. “Now a few bad apples are making everyone getting blamed, so the mood is pretty tense.”

The controversy began after the company began investigating suspected abuse of its monthly housing subsidy. Around 1,000 employees are reportedly under review.

Since 2022, Samsung Electronics has offered junior employees working at its Pyeongtaek campus in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi, and other locations up to 700,000 won ($525) a month to help pay their rent. The benefit is available to employees renting studios and other small homes measuring less than 33 square meters (355 square feet).

Some employees, however, are suspected of altering their rental contracts to qualify for the housing subsidy.

Employees who actually lived in homes larger than the 33-square-meter limit or in two-bedroom apartments — which do not qualify for the subsidy — allegedly submitted separate contracts to Samsung Electronics that listed a smaller floor area or described the homes as studios or eligible 1.5-room units. Some are also accused of reporting part of their building maintenance fees as rent.

“We have launched an internal investigation into employees who received the rent subsidy,” a Samsung Electronics spokesperson said. “We will decide whether disciplinary action is necessary and how severe it should be once the investigation is complete.”

Some employees caught up in the investigation say they are being unfairly blamed.

“I was basically forced to come to Pyeongtaek, and the real estate agent was the one who first told me I could change the listed apartment size on the contract,” a Samsung Electronics employee wrote on Blind, an anonymous online workplace community platform. “This is my third year here, and I’m terrified of losing my job. People around me have been congratulating me and saying they envy my performance-based incentive, but if I really have to leave, I feel like I want to die.”

Others have turned the blame on the company.

“Why is the company making such a big deal about this now when it didn’t properly check in the first place?” another employee wrote. “They should have warned us or double-checked from the start. I was put under so much pressure during the interview over the rent subsidy that my hair started falling out and I lost more than 3 kilograms [6.6 pounds].”

But sympathy within the company appears to be in short supply.

“Employees are worried that other employee benefits could be scaled back because of loopholes exploited by a small number of employees,” a researcher at Samsung Electronics’ chip division said. “They are adults who made their own decisions, so they should take responsibility without making excuses.”

Online reaction has been similarly harsh. Critics questioned why employees receiving hundreds of millions of won in performance bonuses would try to squeeze more money out of a rent subsidy, while others called for severe punishment to deter similar behavior.

Some employees are calling on Samsung Electronics to expand the investigation to former recipients whose housing subsidies have already expired.

“The fact that the subsidy period has ended shouldn’t give anyone a free pass for improperly receiving money in the past,” another Samsung Electronics employee wrote on Blind. “The company needs to investigate all expired cases, recover any improperly paid subsidies in full and hold those responsible strictly accountable.”

Whether employees deliberately deceived the company is likely to be a key factor in determining any disciplinary action.

Investigators could consider whether an employee knew that their home exceeded the size limit and whether they deliberately created a separate rental contract to submit to Samsung Electronics.

Courts also place greater weight on deliberate deception and the breakdown of trust between an employer and employee than on the amount of money involved.

In February 2025, the Seoul High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee at a quasi-government agency who used a corporate card to pay 235,000 won for a private dinner attended by two people after falsely reporting that eight people had attended. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling in June 2025.

Courts have upheld dismissals over far smaller sums.

A bus company was justified in firing its bus driver who pocketed 400 won in passenger fares on two occasions, for a total of just 800 won, according to the Seoul Administrative Court ruling in 2011.

The National Labor Relations Commission had previously ruled that the dismissal was unfair, partly because the amount taken was so small. The court overturned that decision. The court found that handing over all passenger fares to the company was fundamental to trust between the employer and its workers, and that deliberately pocketing the money mattered more than the amount involved.

“If employees submitted rental contracts that differed from their actual leases and the company paid the subsidies because it believed those documents were genuine, the difference between what they were entitled to receive and what they actually received could constitute fraud,” said attorney Cho Beom-soek at Seoksang Law Office.

BY LEE YOUNG-KEUN [[email protected]]