Recently, a video posted by a netizen named "Da Yao Tok" appeared on Weibo and Douyin
He claimed that he was abruptly fired by his company in the afternoon of the same day because he bought the Xiaomi SU7 Founding Edition car on April 9, and did not receive any form of compensation
He claimed to have been fired for violating the company's non-compete rules and shared a recording of a conversation with the human resources department, alluding to the dismissal related to his choice to buy a competing car
Due to the fact that the incident involved market competition between two well-known car brands, and Xiaomi Auto has recently attracted much attention, the dismissal controversy quickly attracted widespread attention on the Internet.
On April 17, the legal department of Jiyue Automobile issued a public statement, detailing the specific reasons for terminating the labor contract with the employee
The company has vehemently denied that the dismissal of the employee had any direct connection with the purchase of a Xiaomi car.
The statement emphasized that although the employee held an important role in media operations within the company, he frequently promoted content related to the Xiaomi brand on his personal social media accounts
In addition, he was repeatedly absent from work without permission and posted content unrelated to the company's business during normal working hours, which seriously damaged the company's public image and reputation in the industry
With the further development of the situation, the heated discussion among netizens intensified.
Some netizens vividly compared: "This is like a hotel chef going to the restaurant next door to eat, although it feels weird, but it won't be fired because of this, right?" This witty metaphor just touched on the key point of the incident: Should employees' personal shopping behavior really be controlled by the company?
Some netizens also put forward from the position of the enterprise: "It is not easy for an enterprise to cultivate an employee, if employees have switched to the arms of competitors, how should the basic interests of the enterprise be safeguarded?"
After all, individual consumption choices are free, and whether companies have the right to interfere is a topic worth pondering.
However, some netizens have a more objective view: "Even if Da Yao just carried out an ordinary shopping behavior, if there is indeed direct commercial competition between Jiyue and Xiaomi in the field of new energy vehicles, and the non-compete agreement signed by the two parties clearly stipulates that the use of competitors' products is prohibited, then Da Yao's behavior may really constitute a violation of the agreement." ”
At this point, this turmoil seems to have come to an end. But it is undeniable that the move of "Da Yao Tok" is indeed laughable.
He originally tried to use the pressure of public opinion to force the company to make concessions, but he never expected that he would end up in an embarrassing situation.
After this incident, the legal term "non-compete agreement" has gradually become well-known to the public.
People are starting to think more seriously: how should companies grasp the scale when setting and enforcing non-compete rules?
Should employees' personal spending choices be governed by corporate regulations?
The answers to these questions may not be so simple and straightforward, but one thing is clear: in the fierce competition in the business world, how to find the balance between the interests of enterprises and employees is the key to ensure the steady development of enterprises and the full protection of employees' rights and interests.