Is the railroad union's industrial action a struggle for compliance? [Anchor Report]

Many people probably received such disaster texts three days ago ahead of the National Railroad Workers' Union's compliance struggle.

It was about the fact that the union's unemployment could cause inconvenience in using the subway.

There was a fight over the word 'taeup' used here.

If you look at the meaning of the word 'Tae-up', it is said that it is an industrial act that reduces work efficiency by intentionally working unfaithfully.

Korail says it is a "struggle for law" because of the inconvenience of citizens, and the railway union says it is working.

In particular, the railway union argues that it is rather an act of complying with the company's regulations, such as not running during work, making sure that passengers get on and off thoroughly, and keeping breaks.

On the other hand, there are many criticisms that the industrial action ahead of an indefinite general strike in December is intentionally causing inconvenience to citizens to carry out the union's demands.

If the train is delayed or stopped due to a layoff, there is a concern about a multi-crowd crowd accident during rush hour when citizens flock, and this situation should not be a means to achieve the union's purpose.

Is it a layup or a law-abiding struggle?

Both sides should put aside this fighting and start proper negotiations to get rid of civil inconvenience quickly.