If someone doesn’t know what I’m referring to, 996 refers to working 9am-9pm 6 days a week, which some Chinese companies enforce (or enforced) on their employee. Jack Ma, for example, has spoken in support of it.

Wikipedia says that the Supreme People’s Court deemed it illegal in 2021. I don’t know about China’s court system in detail (or any country’s, really) but my understanding is that cases go to a higher court if someone successfully appeals the decision of a lower court. Shouldn’t something like a 72 hour workweek be stricken down before reaching the supreme court?

I’ve heard that Huawei still enforces this, for example. I don’t have sources because I’ve heard it from someone with Chinese acquaintances, so some fact-checking is appreciated.

  • sevenapplesOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    not enough jobs to match the growing population of people who have undergone higher education

    This is exactly the thing you need to abolish 996, isn’t it? If there’s not enough jobs, then you can split one job between two people. Obviously it’s not that easy for every sector, but it should be feasible for factory work.

    Which brings me to my next point: I guess 996 could be ignored if it’s only for the top tech companies and young people had other viable alternatives. A point of reference would be Silicon Valley. I’m aware they expect overtime there too, maybe less though, or maybe the same without a catchy name like 996, I don’t know. But if people working low income jobs are coerced to working overtime because their pay won’t be enough otherwise, then it seems like a big issue.

    • qwename
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Like I’ve mentioned, some factory jobs have low barrier to entry, having two people work normal hours instead of one working extra long hours would mean that the two people would each get less income, while the factory would have to pay social insurance for an extra person (if they do pay for social insurance in the first place).

      You might have misunderstood what I’m saying, there aren’t enough “good” jobs for people who have undergone higher education, they are more reluctant to take jobs that have low barrier to entry, whether it’s because those jobs aren’t in the same field they took a degree in, or they think they’re too “good” for those jobs.

      At this point maybe you’d ask why don’t corporations just raise the basic income for existing 996 jobs, well there’s the problem isn’t it!