Recently, a Japanese company declared bankruptcy and announced a surprising compensation package: employees will receive $155,000 in compensation. However, in the domestic market, the news caused a lot of controversy and questioning, and many companies condemned it and called it "malicious compensation", disrupting the market.
First, let's take a look at the compensation scheme of this Japanese company. The company reportedly offered compensation programs totaling more than $460 million to its 3,000 employees. According to the plan, each affected employee will receive about 155,000 US dollars (1 million yuan) in compensation. It can be said that this is a very generous and shocking number.
While similar high reparations and huge bonuses are already common in Western countries, they are less common in Asian countries such as China. Therefore, the emergence of such a large-scale and generous compensation scheme in the domestic market will naturally attract widespread attention.
However, different companies react differently to this behavior – some see it as a hostile means of competition and cause market disruption; Others are supportive and understanding, and believe others should offer better treatment and benefits to their employees.
So the question is: who is right?
First of all, it should be pointed out that "malicious competition" does not only refer to the direct loss or gain brought about by a specific action or event itself. On the contrary, "malicious competition" mainly refers to the wide range of means used to achieve illegal or deceptive goals through some form or method and the consequences caused.
Of course, in this case, the definition of "bad faith" is also divided. From some perspectives, the manifestation of "bad faith" may simply be due to a lack of appropriate legal provisions or provisions, resulting in miscalculation; From other perspectives, there may be psychological factors such as hostility, jealousy, and revenge.
In any case, similar situations must be dealt with calmly and objectively and based on facts. If "hostile competition" does exist, relevant measures need to be taken to stop it; If not, the constraints and scope need to be further clearly defined.
Finally, back to the question raised by the title: is there "malicious compensation" to disrupt the market?
The answer is clearly no. The negative connotation of "malice" emphasizes that it is aggressive and destructive; The positive connotation of "kindness" emphasizes its trustworthiness, reliability and good qualities. Therefore, the two cannot be confused and simply summarized as "good" and "bad".
Compared with the lack of necessities, materials or infrastructure construction investment in the lower standard of living, resulting in the fragility of the social security environment and other long-term accumulated problems have not been eradicated, the performance of "kindness" is naturally worthy of recognition and support!
To sum up, we should correctly evaluate this action and advocate a fairer, more reasonable, more loving and caring social atmosphere!