Labour-management agendas in the game industry are expanding beyond wages and performance pay to include spinoffs and mergers and acquisitions, and AI adoption. Recently, unions are also seeking not only job security after business restructuring but prior consultation during decision-making.

The Wemade union, launched on Sept. 30, is one example of the shift. The Wemade branch called for opposition to restructuring and layoffs driven by a change in the controlling shareholder or organisational overhaul, and for improvements to the performance pay system. It also demanded prior consultation with the union if the company changes the direction of major businesses. Its demands also included succession of employment and continued existence of organisations in major units, including Wemix.

Wemade is currently undergoing a process to change control. Wemade Chairman Park Kwan-ho (박관호) signed a contract in June to sell his 39.33 percent stake to Neopulse. An investor consortium involving Neopulse and Kingnet plans to proceed with deal-closing procedures until the 30th. Once the transaction is completed, the investor consortium will become the largest shareholder, holding a 40.25 percent stake in Wemade.

With growing uncertainty that business and organisational operations could change after the controlling shareholder change, there is analysis that union demands are expanding beyond after-the-fact job security to include consultation procedures during future restructuring.

Employment is a long-standing agenda item, and what has changed is the decision-making process.

Game industry unions have not focused only on wages and performance pay from the start. When unions were launched in succession at Nexon and Smilegate in 2018, long working hours and comprehensive wage systems were raised as major issues. Job insecurity stemming from project shutdowns and organisational restructuring also emerged early as a labour-management agenda.

That does not mean compensation issues have receded. Last year’s labour-management conflict at Neople began over performance pay and profit-sharing after the success of Dungeon & Fighter Mobile in China. The union went on the game industry’s first strike, and the dispute lasted about 5 months before ending with a wage and labour agreement that included pay rises.

The recent change is not that compensation issues have turned into employment issues, but that the corporate restructuring process itself is becoming a labour-management flashpoint.

The issue also surfaced when NC spun off its QA and IT infrastructure organisations into separate entities in 2024. The union held its first rally since its launch, seeking job security for employees subject to the spinoff. It also demanded job security measures that took into account scenarios in which the new entity could later shut down or be sold.

In the game industry, development organisations are reshuffled relatively often depending on the success or failure of new titles and projects. In the past, the issue was how to guarantee redeployment and employment after a project ended or an organisation was reshuffled. Recently, the focus has broadened one step earlier to questions such as when information will be provided and from what stage unions will be consulted during business restructuring.

From individual company disputes to industry-wide joint demands.

These demands have taken concrete shape as an industry-wide joint agenda since last year, going beyond the level of individual companies.

The IT committee of the Federation of Chemical, Food and Allied Workers’ Unions drew up joint demands for the IT and game industries for the first time in 2025. They included disclosing evaluation criteria, improving procedures for reassignments made for management reasons, and establishing procedures to protect workers’ rights when companies change through spinoffs and mergers and acquisitions.

The joint demands called for improved procedures to respond to repeated reassignments during project reorganisations and to corporate changes such as spinoffs and mergers and acquisitions. The union side explained that cases repeatedly occur in which the parties’ intentions are not properly reflected or workers feel job insecurity in the process, and said there is a need to establish industry-wide common standards beyond individual companies.

This year, the joint demands expanded. The IT committee decided in March to add a 4.5-day workweek to the existing four major joint demands and present it in 2026 negotiations. The union side said major IT and game companies are accepting some of last year’s joint demands, but did not disclose which companies reflected which clauses.

The legal environment has also changed. An amended Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act that took effect this year includes business and management decisions that affect working conditions as subjects of labour disputes. Still, management decisions themselves, such as mergers, splits and sales, do not automatically become subjects for bargaining or disputes. The determination is made by examining whether substantive changes in working conditions, such as layoffs or reassignment, are expected during implementation of a decision.

Taken together, this trend suggests game industry unions’ demands are not merely increasing in number. They can be seen as taking shape toward securing information-sharing and consultation procedures in the decision-making process for changes that directly affect employees, rather than only seeking employment or compensation after projects and organisations change.

AI is another new variable, with labour-management talks lagging behind technology adoption.

AI is also being added as a new labour-management agenda.

In a survey of 1,078 workers conducted in April by the Democratic Party’s Special Committee on Games and the IT committee of the Federation of Chemical, Food and Allied Workers’ Unions, 77.3 percent of respondents said they feel job insecurity due to AI adoption. Another 82.3 percent said profit-sharing guidelines are needed in connection with AI adoption. By contrast, only 26.7 percent said there are official discussions on AI transition at the company and union level.

AI has already become a tool used in the workplace, but labour-management standards on how technology adoption will affect job roles, workforce composition, evaluation and performance distribution have yet to be sufficiently established.

The union side says it is not seeking to block AI adoption itself, but wants discussions to cover job security, creators’ rights and evaluation and performance distribution standards tied to technology use. The IT committee’s proposal to form a labour-management-government consultative body during the AI transition is intended to have workers, companies and the government jointly discuss AI’s impact on development processes and job roles and establish standards.

An industry official said, "In the game industry, job security has continued to be a major labour-management issue along with wages, performance pay and working hours, but recently the scope of disputes has expanded to management decisions that affect employees' jobs and work, such as spinoffs, reassignments and AI adoption." The official added, "Going forward, it will become important not only to reward results but also what information is shared and how far consultation goes in the decision-making process."