The employee stated that he had graduated from shanghai in 2014 to work online. In cases of terminal illness, first-hand forced, calculated, monitored, framed, threatened or even expelled from the company by security guards. He mentioned that he had had several months of dealings with internet-based companies, in which he had been subjected to unfair treatment such as complex forced stings, disguised backslides, early withdrawals, false accusations, and security violence。
He described the number of sick leave calls over the course of the five years, with the exception of a period that often left work at 2-3 in the middle of the night, when the supervisor said that sick leave could be requested later the following morning. After a cold at the end of last year, he began to faint and to climb the stairs and to struggle, and it was only then that he began to request sick leave from the supervisor and the officer-in-charge. At the end of january this year, he was diagnosed as amphibious cardiac disease, which nearly doubled。
The employee stated that during the period he had told the officer-in-charge about his heart problems, but that it had been easier to take sick leave without any reduction or delay in his work. The supervisor came to him at the end of march this year to talk about performance, and this time he is scheduled to be evaluated for performance “d”, because he is no longer fit to continue working here。
He was subsequently subjected to various threats during the appeals process. The employee also mentioned a more subtle form of threat to the boss when he knew. According to the company hr, “even if he wins the arbitration, the company will delay him for two years through repeated appeals, which he cannot afford”
And finally, the employee wrote, "i know that for a long time, i'm going to be alone against the easy hr team, the pr team, the legal team and other unnamed teams, but this time i don't want to back down. People, towers."
02 easy to apologize: simple and violent behaviour exists
Following the publication of the above-mentioned article, a wave of debate was quickly generated between the networks. Some netizens say, “same as the internet, seeing such an experience, that man-made terror is more frightening than any ghost.” “how can a worker continue to put his love and enthusiasm into the product.”
On the evening of 24 november, the internet access public relations department responded to the matter, stating that the company had arranged a dedicated team at the group level and was already in the process of verification。
Next, on the morning of 25 november, an apology statement was made by the internet. It is easy to mention that, at the end of march this year, the head of the former colleague proposed to him for performance reasons the dismissal of the labour contract, and the article presented a “performance ranking”, which actually ranked the workload and did not fully reflect the quality of the work. Following the review, their performance was not satisfactory. At this point, the supervisor was not sufficiently aware of his illness。
Internet-based statements
It is easy to mention that during the three-month period of sick leave requested by the employee, the company paid his sick leave salary on time and on 19 september this year paid him a lump sum of n+1 compensation, but reflecting on the process of communication and processing, it is true that the person in question has been subjected to many irregularities, such as simple, gross and unpopular behaviour。
Netcom said, “approve to this former colleague and his family, as well as to the colleagues and the public affected by this — sorry, we did wrong”。
It is easy to say that the above-mentioned employees declined their initiative in september to offer special care programmes outside n+1 and that, on the basis of the n+1 compensation, the company would continue to provide an additional monthly, unconditional benefit equivalent to their basic monthly salary for 12 months after their departure. Next, the company will continue to try to communicate actively and effectively with him to advance the proper management of the incident and will be ready to provide all feasible assistance to this former colleague。
For the above-mentioned statement, netizens do not seem to buy。
@moosemoot can't fly: unperforming or afraid to let him?
@alex: well, it's not easy to decide if it's a bad performance!
@and then it didn't last forever: after all, it's the fundamental thing about performance, but the unmasked workload that doesn't make sense is the self-described performance。
@catso: a lot of work, little bug, low performance, funny!
@litef: after five years of qualifying, suddenly disqualified?
@shotsan 2011: people left their homes in march and only filed for n+1 compensation in september. Is that a direct proof that they're not lying?
How should we defend our rights in the face of violence?
In an interview with yang, an expert in labour law and a lawyer at the chinese-cinnamon law firm in beijing (micro-sign:jwview), he said that what we usually call layoffs was legally called economic layoffs, and that article 41 of the labour contracts act listed a number of relevant situations, in particular procedural issues. For example, a 30-day notice must be given to all employees, the union must be informed in advance and the union's opinion heard, and the lay-off programme must be reported to the labour administration。
“in day-to-day practice, many companies do have a variety of reasons, even threats, intimidation and violence, to remove employees for the purpose of reducing their staff accordingly and reducing the cost of doing business, and they usually describe their employees as being retrenchment in the company, which is not, in essence, in the legal sense.” he said, “it is time for employees to examine themselves, whether or not these acts are committed by the company itself and, if not, to say no to the company.”
“some companies may be biased against individual employees, or the employee does perform poorly, and the company wants both to let its employees leave and to reduce costs, and there is a human resources incentive for staff to take the initiative to leave. If the employee writes his own letter of resignation at this point in time, then the legal employee will not receive any compensation, which is, of course, the least risky way for the company.” yang conservancy says。
In an article, the employee claimed that he had been treated unfairly during several months of dealings with the internet easy company, including forced stabbing, early withdrawal and threats of absenteeism. According to yang, in similar disputes, there were cases of intimidation of employees by companies, some of whom were legally aware and refused to accept the company's dismissal requests and did not necessarily have the courage to issue unilateral notice of dismissal to employees。
According to yang, unusual attendance is the most common reason for dismissal in practice, but this evidence must be certified jointly by the company and the employee. The effect of this requirement is also to determine the extent to which it is applied in practice。
“some companies appear to have strict systems, but they are not strictly enforced in practice, that is to say, loose behaviour and strict systems. Nor can this be the basis for the management of the employees.” yang's security statement。
The yang said that it would be preferable for employees to resolve this situation in practice by consensus with the company, and that if it did not work, employees could take up legal weapons and resort to labour arbitration. In practice, in most cases, intervention by the labour arbitration services in such disputes is more beneficial to employees. “for example, the reason for abnormal attendance is that most companies use electronic cards, which in itself are technically removable, and where an employee does not agree and the unit does not produce any other evidence, the law tends to favour the employee by considering the unit's evidence insufficient.”
