An interior view of Samsung Electronics’ Line 15 semiconductor fabrication facility in Hwaseong, GyeonggiSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
Lee Byoung-hun
The author is a professor and the head of semiconductor engineering at Postech.
The 52-hour workweek is a minimum safeguard intended to ensure workers a decent quality of life. Its good intentions should not be discounted. In the age of artificial intelligence, it also serves to correct an outdated assumption, shared by both labor and management, that goals can be achieved simply by extending working hours.
Recently, however, both sides have complained about the system’s rigidities. That is why proposals have emerged to ease restrictions at least in regions hosting semiconductor megaprojects. Regulations, once introduced, are difficult to revise. Limiting exemptions geographically is an expedient attempt to find a workaround. The debate is especially heated in semiconductors because, on the front line of global competition for technological supremacy, the ability of researchers to immerse themselves in their work can determine survival.
The real issue is the purpose of greater flexibility. If the goal is simply to increase working hours and cut labor costs, that would run directly counter to the system’s intent. But if flexible work arrangements are necessary to achieve innovative productivity, and that productivity is vital to the country’s future, a solution must be found. If the discussion is confined to the latter objective, the answer becomes surprisingly straightforward.
One alternative would be to allow separate, flexible employment contracts, agreed upon by labor and management, only for specialized research positions requiring intense concentration to produce results. The approach would resemble the United States’ white-collar exemption, which excludes certain executives and professionals from working-hour regulations. Instead of uniform overtime pay, employees could adjust their working hours autonomously, while those who deliver strong results receive substantial compensation through salaries and performance bonuses.
Korean semiconductor companies currently offer incentive programs that are exceptionally generous by global standards. But if large rewards continue to be distributed uniformly regardless of individual performance, workers have less reason to accept additional hours or maximize their output. If such a system discourages innovation through intense engagement, the future competitiveness of Korea’s semiconductor industry could be at risk.
The debate over making the 52-hour workweek more flexible should therefore be redirected to reflect the semiconductor industry’s particular needs. The prerequisite should not be simply putting in more hours, but redesigning compensation systems to create strong incentives for sustained, highly focused work.
Of course, flexible work must not become a pretext for forcing employees to work excessively long hours or infringing on the health and right to rest of research and development personnel. Eligibility and working arrangements should be strictly limited, and employees must have a genuine right to choose whether to participate.
Ultimately, compensation is the key. If standards for rewarding intensive work and additional hours are raised substantially, companies will have to carefully weigh whether such arrangements are truly worthwhile. Workers, in turn, will be able to decide for themselves whether the rewards justify the extra work.
The scope of deregulation should be narrow, while the threshold for compensation should be high. Employees who generate greater results should receive greater autonomy and rewards. A redesign of both workplace autonomy and compensation can offer a path toward balancing the interests of labor and management, protecting workers and promoting industrial innovation.
The 52-hour ceiling itself, in other words, need not be treated as the sole obstacle. The more important question is what kind of work warrants exceptional flexibility, who should be allowed to choose it and how much that choice should be worth. A narrowly tailored system that pairs genuine autonomy with significantly higher rewards would keep worker protection at its core while giving critical research teams room to pursue breakthroughs when sustained concentration is essential.
That balance matters because semiconductor research does not always proceed on a predictable timetable. Critical experiments, design reviews and development milestones can require periods of concentrated effort. Any exception, however, should remain exceptional, transparent and voluntary, with compensation high enough to reflect the burden involved.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
