The Price of Convenience: Rocket Delivery Under Fire
The Innovation Paradox
Coupang has become synonymous with daily life in Korea. Its promise of “order tonight, arrive tomorrow” has set a global standard for logistics. However, this unprecedented convenience is built on a labor model that critics argue pushes human endurance to its breaking point. The “Coupang model” is now facing its most severe existential challenge: is it sustainable, or is it exploitative?
A Series of Tragic Deaths
The controversy reached a boiling point following a string of deaths among fulfillment center workers and delivery drivers, labeled by unions as “gwarosa” (death from overwork). The deaths of young, healthy workers from heart attacks and strokes during or after night shifts have shocked the public. These tragedies have pierced the corporate veil, revealing a workplace culture driven by algorithms that prioritize speed over safety.
The Public Turns a Critical Eye
Consumers, once enamored by the service, are beginning to feel uncomfortable. The “ethical consumption” movement is gaining traction, with some users boycotting the platform. The question “Did someone die to deliver my package?” has become a haunting moral dilemma for the Korean middle class, forcing a re-evaluation of the true cost of free shipping.
The ‘Blacklist’ Allegations: Systematic Exclusion?
The PNG List Scandal
Investigative reports revealed the existence of a “PNG List”—a spreadsheet containing names of thousands of former workers who are allegedly barred from re-employment. The list reportedly includes not just those who violated safety rules, but also those who were deemed “uncooperative,” complained about working conditions, or were involved in union activities.
Definition of ‘Uncooperative’
The criteria for inclusion in the blacklist are vague and subjective. Workers claim they were blacklisted for taking bathroom breaks, refusing excessive overtime, or simply falling ill. This systematic exclusion acts as a powerful tool of control, silencing dissent among the precarious daily-wage workforce who fear losing their livelihood.
Legal Battle over Personal Data
Lawyers and civil society groups argue that creating and sharing such a list without consent violates the Labor Standards Act (prohibition of interference with employment) and the Personal Information Protection Act. Coupang defends it as a necessary measure for workplace safety and personnel management, but the legal validity of this defense is currently being fiercely contested in courts.
The Algorithm as a Boss: Digital Taylorism
Monitoring Every Second
Inside Coupang’s fulfillment centers, workers carry PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) that track their every movement. The “UPH” (Units Per Hour) metric measures performance in real-time. If a worker’s speed drops, they receive immediate warnings. This “digital panopticon” creates a high-stress environment where workers are afraid to stop even for a moment.
The Dehumanization of Labor
Critics describe this system as “Digital Taylorism”—a modern, hyper-efficient version of the assembly line where human autonomy is stripped away. Workers are treated as mere cogs in a machine, optimized by algorithms. The psychological pressure of constant surveillance is cited as a major factor contributing to mental health issues and physical exhaustion among the workforce.
The ‘Cls’ System for Drivers
For delivery drivers (Coupang Friends and Flexers), the pressure comes from the “Cleansing” (Cls) system. Drivers are assigned delivery zones based on performance. If they fail to meet delivery quotas or refusal rates, their zones are “cleansed”—taken away—effectively firing them. This creates a relentless competition where drivers are forced to work through illness and bad weather to keep their routes.
Night Shifts and Health Risks
The Biological Cost of Night Work
The core of Rocket Delivery is the night shift. Thousands of workers toil from dusk till dawn to ensure morning deliveries. Medical studies consistently link long-term night shift work to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies night shift work as a probable carcinogen.
Inadequate Rest and Recovery
Despite the high physical intensity of the work, unions argue that rest periods are insufficient. The “continuous work” model, driven by the need to meet cut-off times, leaves little room for recovery. The lack of proper climate control in massive warehouses—freezing in winter, sweltering in summer—further exacerbates the physical toll on workers.
The Debate on Night Labor Regulation
The controversy has sparked a legislative debate on regulating night labor. Proposals to limit consecutive night shifts or mandate higher health check standards are on the table. However, the logistics industry argues that restricting night work would collapse the “dawn delivery” market, a key driver of Korea’s e-commerce growth.
The Gig Economy and the ‘Fake Self-Employed’
Employee vs. Independent Contractor
A central legal battle is the classification of delivery drivers. Coupang relies heavily on “Coupang Flex” and subcontracted drivers who are classified as independent contractors (freelancers). This classification exempts the company from providing health insurance, severance pay, and paid leave. Unions argue they are “disguised employees” under the direct control of the company and deserve full labor rights.
Shifting Liability
By using a multi-layered subcontracting structure, Coupang effectively outsources the liability for industrial accidents. When a subcontracted driver dies or is injured, the platform often claims no legal responsibility. This loophole allows the platform to enjoy the profits of labor while externalizing the risks to the most vulnerable workers.
The Need for a New Labor Law
The Coupang case highlights the obsolescence of traditional labor laws in the age of the platform economy. Experts call for a “Platform Worker Protection Act” that guarantees minimum wages, industrial accident insurance, and collective bargaining rights for gig workers, regardless of their contract status.
Unionization and the Fight for Collective Bargaining
David vs. Goliath
Establishing a union at Coupang has been an uphill battle. The company is known for its aggressive anti-union stance. Workers who attempt to organize face alleged harassment, isolation, and non-renewal of contracts. Despite these obstacles, the labor union has been growing, demanding collective bargaining to address wages and safety.
The Demand for a ‘Living Wage’
While Coupang claims to pay competitive wages, workers argue that when the intensity of labor is factored in, the pay is insufficient. They demand a “living wage” that reflects the harsh conditions and the night shift premium. The discrepancy between the company’s record profits and the workers’ stagnant wages is a major point of contention.
The Right to Bargain
The union is fighting for the basic right to sit at the table. They want a say in setting safe work speeds (“standard UPH”) and heat/cold break policies. The company’s refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue has led to strikes and protests, further straining the relationship.
Corporate Response: Safety Investment or PR Strategy?
Coupang’s Safety Initiatives
In response to the criticism, Coupang has announced massive investments in automation and safety. They highlight the introduction of sorting robots (AGVs) to reduce lifting loads and the deployment of “Coupang Care” health programs. They argue that their safety metrics are actually better than the industry average.
Skepticism Remains
Critics view these moves as damage control rather than structural change. They argue that automation is used to speed up the workflow rather than ease the burden on humans. Unless the core algorithm that demands “impossible speeds” is adjusted, safety gear and health checkups are mere band-aids on a gaping wound.
The transparency Issue
A major hurdle is the lack of transparency. Coupang rarely releases detailed data on injury rates or worker turnover. Without independent verification of their safety claims, public skepticism remains high. Demands for external audits and government inspections are growing louder.
The Role of Government and Regulation
The Ministry of Labor’s Investigation
The Ministry of Employment and Labor has launched special supervisory probes into Coupang’s fulfillment centers. The findings of these investigations—regarding the blacklist, illegal dispatch of workers, and safety violations—will be a watershed moment. If systemic violations are found, it could lead to massive fines and criminal charges against executives.
Legislation for the Platform Era
The National Assembly is moving to close the legal loopholes. Bills are being drafted to regulate “algorithmic management” (requiring transparency in how AI manages workers) and to prohibit “blacklisting” in the platform sector. The outcome of these legislative efforts will set the rules for the entire Korean digital economy.
Balancing Innovation and Rights
The government faces the delicate task of protecting workers without stifling innovation. Coupang is a major job creator and a symbol of Korean tech prowess. The challenge is to guide the company toward a “high-road” model where efficiency and human rights coexist, proving that innovation does not have to be built on exploitation.
Conclusion: Sustainable Innovation
A Critical Juncture
Coupang stands at a crossroads. It can continue its current path, risking growing legal liabilities, reputational damage, and labor unrest. or it can choose to lead a new paradigm of “sustainable logistics.” The era of growth at all costs is ending. The future belongs to companies that treat their workforce as assets to be nurtured, not consumables to be burned through.
The Consumer’s Voice
Ultimately, the power lies with the consumer. By demanding ethical treatment of workers as a condition of their loyalty, consumers can force change. We enjoy the magic of “Rocket Delivery,” but we must ensure that the magic is not dark.
Towards a Human-Centric Model
The Coupang controversy is a microcosm of the global struggle in the gig economy. Solving it requires a new social compromise. We need a system where the efficiency of the algorithm is balanced by the empathy of society. Only when the worker delivering the box is as safe and valued as the customer opening it, can we truly call it “innovation.”
