On the night of January 7, a video that detonated social media quietly came like a shock bomb, uncovering an untold war between low-level employees and the company's power scheme
The arrogant attitude of the female executive Jing is vividly displayed in the video, which is shocking. She is aggressive in rhetoric and arrogant in her attitude, showing extreme confidence in power.
First of all, she directly said in the video: "I will be released in violation of the law now, can you control my violation of the law?" This kind of blatant contempt for the law is staggering, as if she regards the law as an insignificant existence, showing disdain for the regulations. This kind of rhetoric not only challenges the bottom line of the law, but also makes people question whether she really sees the rule of law in her eyes.
Secondly, when the employee requested arbitration from the Labor Bureau, Jing's response was even more shocking: "I have people in the first and second trials. This sentence not only shows her contempt for the legal process, but also reveals that she has enough connections and power within the company, as if the law is only a form for her, and power is the only rule.
The most shocking thing is that she threatens employees in the video: "You can't find a job for two and a half years." This rhetoric not only shows an outrageous threat to the livelihood of her employees, but also her indifference to the fate of others. She seems to be playing with the control of the survival of the low-level employees, and makes no secret of her disdain and bullying for the weak.
This kind of arrogant attitude not only makes people angry at the character of a certain person, but also makes people question the moral bottom line of the company's management. The arrogance and invincibility she represents makes people think deeply about the uneven distribution of power in society and the disregard for the law, and provokes a deep reflection on corporate culture and workplace ethics.
The violations involved in the company are extremely serious in this incident, which is reflected in the following aspects:
First of all, the company violated the relevant provisions of the labor law in the process of terminating the employee. At the end of the probationary period, employee Sun Zhan was notified that he had not passed, but according to the Labor Law, the company was required to pay corresponding compensation for the dismissal of the employee during the probationary period. However, the company refused to settle the wages and even called the police on the spot to expel the employee from the company, which was a clear violation of the statutory labor relations procedures.
Second, the company is suspected of operating under different names in an attempt to circumvent regulation and avoid taxes. Sun Zhan revealed that the company's Pingxin and Oaks were actually the same company, and Jing was confirmed as the human resources director of Beijing Pingxin Technology Co., Ltd. This kind of cross-company operation and concealment of the true situation may violate tax laws and company laws, damage the tax interests of the state, and also infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of employees.
In addition, the company deliberately undermines the professional reputation of employees by fabricating negative information in the separation certificate. Sun Zhan failed to obtain a formal resignation certificate, in which the company falsely accused him of incompetence and inadequacy with the company's corporate culture, and implied that he had stolen the work of his subordinates. This kind of malicious slander may touch the red line of the right to reputation, which is not only harmful to the individual employee, but also tramples on the spirit of the labor contract.
To sum up, the company's violations involve illegal dismissal under the labor law, evasion of supervision in the operation of the enterprise, malicious infringement of the rights and interests of employees, etc., which seriously damage social fairness and the company's image of the rule of law. This kind of illegal operation should arouse the attention of relevant departments, investigate responsibility, protect the legitimate rights and interests of employees, and maintain the rule of law and justice in society.
Employee Sun Zhan encountered a series of shocking circumstances in this incident, revealing unfair treatment and disregard for employee rights within the company.
First of all, Sun Zhan was told that he had failed at the end of the probationary period, but this information should normally be communicated to the employee in advance, not suddenly at the end of the probationary period. This sudden notice of dismissal is undoubtedly a heavy blow to the employee, especially considering that he has been working normally during the probationary period.
Second, Jing treated Sun Zhan in a way that did not comply with the regulations. When Sun Zhan asked the Labor Bureau for arbitration, Jing chose extreme measures, not only refusing to settle his salary, but also calling the police on the spot. This extreme reaction demonstrates the company's management's resistance to employee rights protection, exposing a disdain for legal procedures and unreasonable dismissals.
What is even more worrying is Jing's attitude when Sun Zhan raised a rebuttal. She threatened Sun Zhan: "You won't be able to find a job for two and a half years." "This threat to employees' livelihoods is not only an infringement on individuals, but also reflects the company's overbearing of low-level employees and unfair treatment of the labor market. This threat of workplace power as a means makes people feel that there is a bad phenomenon of abuse of power within the company.
In the end, Sun Zhan failed to obtain a formal resignation certificate, and the company portrayed him as incompetent and inconsistent with the company's corporate culture on fictitious grounds. This infringement of an individual's reputation not only affected Sun Zhan's career prospects, but also damaged his personal dignity to a certain extent.
Sun Zhan's experience makes people think deeply that companies should be more humane, legal and reasonable in dealing with employee turnover. Employees should not fall prey to the game of power schemes, but should be treated with respect and fairness. This also calls for more clear legal provisions on the protection of workplace rights and interests.
The power struggle within the company was quite evident in this incident, highlighting the huge impact that the struggle between the top management has on the employees at the bottom.
First of all, the company's senior leadership change has created an unstable internal landscape. The initial leader was Zhang Yaojun, but due to the high-level struggle within the company, the leadership was transferred to Jiang Guang. This kind of leadership change often carries some ulterior motives, which may involve contradictions in the distribution of interests and corporate strategy.
Second, after the new leader Jiang Guang took office, he took action to dismiss the employee Sun Zhan, which may be a step in the scheme. Sun Zhan revealed that Jiang Guang was a new official who took office three times and wanted to dismiss him. Relying on her relationship with her boss Chen Yiran, Jing is full of control over the company's affairs, and even claims that the company is hers. This struggle for power and profit has caused tension and unease in the atmosphere within the company.
Finally, the formation of a small circle culture, a relationship culture, and corporate culture elements such as "mahjong culture" within the company also reflect the internal power struggle. A relationship-based corporate culture in which management forms a small circle for lunch can lead to opaque internal information, and employee promotion opportunities and resource allocation may rely more on personal relationships than on actual job performance.
This power struggle has had a direct and serious impact on employees at the bottom. Sun Zhan, an employee, became a victim of the struggle and was directly at risk of losing his job and having his personal reputation damaged. This internal power struggle not only damages the company's reputation, but also makes employees innocent victims and most directly harmed.
The corporate culture within the company takes on an absurd and distorted state in this event, manifested in formalism, relational culture, and bizarre style.
First of all, Jing's excessive attention to corporate culture is manifested in formalism. She cited the example of employees wearing short-sleeved uniforms, emphasizing that the company's employees need to wear short-sleeved uniforms in October and November, when the temperature is cooling. This seemingly subtle regulation is regarded as a symbol of corporate culture, which makes people lament the absurdity of formalism. The corporate culture should focus on core values and team spirit, rather than overemphasizing superficial formalities.
Secondly, the small circle culture and relationship culture that the company advocates are even more absurd. The management formed a small circle, and lunchtime became a place of communication for power schemes. This relational culture can lead to information asymmetry, where job opportunities and resource allocation are based on interpersonal relationships rather than individual abilities. This not only distorts the level playing field within the company, but also deepens employees' distrust of the company's management.
Finally, Jing's remarks about firing pregnant employees are a big absurdity in corporate culture. Her remarks show a disregard for the law and workplace ethics, and the corporate culture is used to highlight her personal bias and arrogance. This absurd corporate culture not only violates the bottom line of social morality, but also makes the company lose its legitimacy and dignity in the eyes of the public and employees.
This incident exposed the absurdity of corporate culture and reminded us that corporate culture should truly reflect core values, not become a tool of formalism and conspiracy. Such a corporate culture can only lead to internal tensions, employee dissatisfaction, and ultimately damage the company's overall reputation and long-term growth.