Small and medium-sized enterprises supplying to large corporations will soon be able to engage in collective bargaining and strikes against unfair practices such as price squeezing. The government is also considering exempting labor unions formed by gig workers—including construction workers, truckers, and delivery riders—from antitrust regulations.
The Fair Trade Commission held the first meeting of its "Task Force for Improving Fair Trade Systems to Strengthen Bargaining Power of Economically Disadvantaged Parties" on the 9th, unveiling these policy directions. The meeting was attended by FTC executives, officials from the Ministry of SMEs and Startups and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and private sector experts. The FTC plans to finalize improvement measures within the first half of this year through additional meetings, then pursue amendments to the Fair Trade Act and related regulations in the second half.
The core of the task force discussion is introducing a system that exempts SMEs from Fair Trade Act provisions when they engage in collective bargaining with large corporations. Current antitrust law prohibits anti-competitive joint activities, effectively banning small subcontractors from collectively demanding price increases or better contract terms from primary contractors. This stems from concerns that collective action by SMEs could be deemed collusion under the Fair Trade Act.
As a result, small subcontractors have long complained about power imbalances with primary contractors. Individual negotiations rarely influence large corporations' terms or payment practices. Business groups including the Korea Federation of SMEs have demanded the introduction of consultation request rights for SME cooperatives.
The challenge lies in defining which businesses qualify for regulatory exemptions. Some subcontractors generate revenues rivaling major conglomerate affiliates, while others leverage proprietary technology to secure "super-supplier" positions. Business circles worry that granting collective bargaining rights to such firms could disrupt normal corporate order. A government relations executive at a major Korean conglomerate noted, "If subcontractors raise prices, those costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers or export costs."
An FTC official responded, "We are already aware of concerns about various problems. Through several more meetings, we plan to discuss what level of joint activities should be permitted."
The FTC is also reviewing measures to clearly exempt gig workers—previously called special employment workers—and their unions from the Fair Trade Act. Rather than merely relaxing illegality standards, the plan would place workers, service providers, and unions entirely outside the law's scope. This would allow ready-mix concrete truck owners, delivery drivers, and their unions to negotiate collectively for better compensation without fear of antitrust violations.
The FTC expects these reforms to substantially strengthen the bargaining power of economically disadvantaged parties, aligning with the government's shared growth agenda.
However, the commission plans to establish safeguards to minimize side effects, as collective bargaining outcomes passed through to product and service prices could fuel inflation or weaken export competitiveness. The FTC recently commissioned related research. The core approach is to permit joint responses by weaker parties within certain limits while establishing safeguards against abuse.
Business circles acknowledge the spirit of shared growth but emphasize the need for precise design of its scope. A retail industry official said, "The key is how the actual scope and standards will be set. If not handled carefully, it could lead to market distortions or increased cost burdens."
Suh Yong-gu, professor of business administration at Sookmyung Women's University, said, "Given the structural trend toward more freelancers and small business operators, institutional protections for them are necessary." However, he added, "Considering the market impact of institutional changes, a gradual approach starting with minimal deregulation or limited permissions is preferable to sudden comprehensive reform."