Samsung reportedly set to distribute up to $26.6 billion to staff in AI-driven semiconductor bonuses after last-minute union deal — average payouts could approach $400,000 per chip employee
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/samsung-reportedly-set-to-distribute-up-to-usd26-6-billion-to-staff-in-ai-driven-semiconductor-bonuses-after-last-minute-union-deal-average-payouts-could-approach-usd400-000-per-chip-employeeOpen linkView original on sh.itjust.works526
Comments55
400k is nice and all, but imagine how many PlayStations you could buy if you didn't have union dues.
Except the union dues go towards making your salary even higher, paying for itself and more
All is forgiven if you admit mistake, don't be that guy
<3
They were referencing anti union propaganda
They were repeating propaganda
I tried, seems like you prefer to be angry.
This is a small community that I care about. How people treat each other is everyone's business.
The context is pretty obvious. 400k vs saving enough money on Union dues to buy a PlayStation.
Oh shit! I don't think those posters were being completely honest with me. $400k is more than $700.00.
Cue "the more you know" music. Lol.
Yes, why don't you
There was an attempt by an american airline company to fight unionization. They told their employees that union dues could add up to the cost of a Playstation and that unions are powerless to change anything. This is what the poster was referring to.
I remember hearing the opposite, that strikes with a set duration were ineffective because management could just wait it out...
That's a lot. Sounds like good news. What's the catch?
It just might be that it's cheaper than disruption
How is that bad news? That's how strikes work.
They didn't say it's bad news
They were asking what the bad news is, though.
Sometimes there is no bad news but an explanation.
Right, but the question of "what's the catch" frames it as a bad thing, so it's not incorrect to assume that the answer is a bad thing, especially if the answer doesn't frame it as a good thing
But I'm just arguing semantics, and nothing I said actually matters.
I'm fine with there being no catch and everybody gaining. They shouldn't have to strike for it though.
well otherwise they could just wait it out
Samsungs stakeholders cannot capitalize on the whole 8-fold growth, as a part of that goes to the workers who actually produce the goods. If you really want a catch, thats the only one I can think of.
Oh no! Won't anybody think of the shareholder?! /s
It's not fair! The poor get all the breaks!
https://youtu.be/wAr3iJGiB6E
The catch is that it took threatening a strike to get to this concession, and even after they were projected to lose (I think) more than a billion a day. This isn't a free gift out of nowhere, but a hard fought victory for the union
Fantastic outcome. Great to see people striking when their concerns are not answered and unions coordinating.
Is this “average” in the same way “On average Jeff Bezos and I are billionaires”? Are execs getting huge bonus and workers nothing, or actual workers getting a sizable payout?
Execs aren't usually included in unions
Er... Which one?
edit: Ah, I see, it's a weird way to say "per employee of the semiconductor division"
I was reading per chip x employee, and I was like damn, that's a lot.
Found the physicist.
Bingo
Here and I was reading it as "They are getting $400k, per Chip, employee of Samsung."
most of that (7% of profits out of 12%) in stock vested over 2 years, so samsung got themselves a breather here. it might be also that these shares are at peak valuation now
Seems like a good thing. Aligning workers and shareholders seems reasonable. And it even seems vaguely lefty, with the workers having a bigger stake in the means of production and all. Valuation might go down, and if there is a global recession most of our 401ks will go down, too. I don't see any disproportionate downside.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but owning stock in a company is nothing like owning the means of production and all this does is give the company a pretext of making employees work against their class interests. An employer might mention that a strike would decrease stock value and scare a worker into staying in poor working conditions despite a strike being better for them for gaining long term benefits. Also, bonuses are a bad form of compensation in general because they often are dependent on decisions outside of workers control and in this case come from AI demand. Now those workers feel as though increasing prices, increasing AI use, and decreasing the number of employees all leads to them personally benefiting. All of these are against the interests of their own class.
I said vaguely. I'm not a communist or Marxist and recognize the limits of my understanding.
The difference between owning the means of production and sharing ownership with investors feels meaningful but not diametrically opposed. Without the investors, the workers would STILL have to weigh their ownership stake against working conditions and determine what is in their best interest.
I agree that bonuses being outside the workers control makes them not great overall, however in this case the bonus isn't cash, but a stake in the company which again ties the payment to future performance. Not in a way the workers can directly control, but there is always going to be friction between what workers deserve to be paid for their work and what customers are willing to pay for the product. Ordinarily that friction serves to make investors fabulously rich and the workers largely get exploited.
Anyway, I said vaguely and I stand by it. If you want to go in depth on your views of capitalism and Marxism, I promise to read and likely be fascinated. But I think you read that with a lot more intent than I originally meant to impart. I probably should've just left that bit out, knowing Lemmy users.
I was responding less to the lefty comment and more to the idea that aligning workers with shareholders is a good thing ("reasonable" per your comment). If you don't subscribe to left-wing ideas, and sit more in the lib territory (non derogatory in this instance) of the spectrum, I can understand why we would disagree on that.
Generic leftist drivel below:
The profit motive is inherently exploitative of the working class. In my opinion, any attempts to align the working class with the profit motive is just a way for the owning class to dismantle class solidarity. Not to get too into theory, but this is where the idea of and disagreements regarding the petite bourgeois often come in. There is a concept of a managerial class who does not necessarily own the means of production, but profits based off of exploitation of the people beneath them. A lot of people consider this its own class, or at the very least class traitors, but what it really is is just working class people who the owning class has convinced to promote the interest of the owning class. If the owning class can divert a large enough portion of the working class into that sector then there is not much hope for change. You often hear about blue collar and white collar workers, but discussions of people who explicitly do not have to work don't come up as frequently. You're seeing more people talk about billionaires nowadays though, and if enough white collar workers realize that they are much closer to blue-collar workers than the billionaires I think we would be in a much better place.
I suggested I'd probably be interested, and I am. I have to explore my thoughts on profit motive and owner class vs. working class. We don't see entirely eye to eye, but there are a lot of layers to unpack and I've been at this reply off and on for some time now. I drafted a much more detailed response, but it's undergone several full-draft rewrites, and I think I need to just do my thinking offline and this thread will be long dead before I come back around to it.
Anyway, I do appreciate your response.
I appreciate your response and openness too. I will also sometimes write full responses just to delete them, so I understand that struggle.
I doubt I have a unique perspective to offer, but if at some point in the future you do have a thought or question about this you'd like to share with me, I'll be around.
Yeah, you're right, they'd be better off without an extra $400k. Let the rich guys keep it. /S
They'd be better off with the cash that they could choose to invest or spend as they please and they would be much better off if companies were not able to extract that amount of wealth in the first place. Then they wouldn't have to threaten a strike to get compensation. They weren't just gifted this. The union had to fight for it. Additionally, stock valuations change and they have a vestment period and restrictions on selling. If you read my comment as an indictment on compensating employees and not the system in which they exist then I'm not sure you're engaging in good faith.
It's better than not having stock though. Same with having bonuses.
I get what you're saying though and I'm not even gonna disagree. Just that it'd be good for people to have stock in the companies they work for. It definitely is not the same as owning the means of production.
Stock is better than nothing, but the equivalent in cash would be better for sure. They can then invest it how they see fit if so desired and unlike company stock there's no vesting period or restrictions on selling. I'm glad the employees are getting something, I just think it's important to realize that this is better for the company than paying cash bonuses and is not really similar to owning the means of production in any meaningful sense.
How fragile do you think workers are? No shit a strike harms the bottom line of the company as a whole. That's the whole point.
It's incumbent on the unions and workers to decide if them getting shafted in contract negotiations is disproportionate to how the company is doing as a whole or if it's just the company actually not being able to afford raises or benefits (is the money really not there or is it getting hoarded by management)
If the company is actually not doing well, then laying off some people and trying to right the ship is preferable to everyone losing their jobs if it goes under. When deciding to strike you're weighing if it's because of management greed or the company actually not being able to afford the additional benefits.
As it is currently employees only get the downside when the market is weak, they don't get the upside. Stocks mitigate that problem.
Love it.
Kick management in the dick.
This is just from 10% of profit. Management barely noticed financially.
Always love people who piss on a victory. Have a great day.
I mean, some things just are. They're not huge victories or tragic defeats.
10% is massive to investors
Uh I've got a Samsung microwave what do I get?
Unevenly thawed hot pockets
Whoever downvoted you must be fun at parties. Have a great day my funny friend.