Yao Yang: Employees want to 996 themselves? That's because you didn't pay enough

Original title: Interview with Yao Yang, president of the Peking University Development Institute: Employees themselves want to 996? That's because you didn't pay enough! Instead of donating, companies should give employees a salary increase

YOUNG Finance interviewed Yao Yang, dean of the National Institute of Development studies at Peking University, to exchange views on corporate donations and social responsibility, and interviewed the 996 phenomenon and the protection of takeaway riders.

Produced the YOUNG Financial Personality Interview Group

Interview with Fu Bihan Song Yue (Intern)

Editing by Xu Aizhi ([email protected])

YOUNG Finance: We noticed that you mentioned in a recent interview, "It is better for companies to take on more social responsibility than to give so much money to donate." "How do you understand the balance between corporate donations and social responsibility?"

Yao Yang: I mean because there are three allocations now, some companies seem to be forced to donate quickly, and I think this is a bias of understanding, which is the first point. It is better for companies to do some grassroots things in real terms, such as the problem of 996 and the problem of takeaway riders. There may be entrepreneurs who say that we don't want to engage in 996, it is the employees themselves who want to work overtime, that is because you are not paid enough. You can raise the salaries of employees, raise the wages a little bit, I don't think it costs a lot of money, such as a few hundred million, you donate 10 billion, that is the increase in employee wages for decades.

There is also the fact that the practice of large factories has a demonstration effect on the whole society. If our big factories don't engage in 996, small factories will not follow up. Some small factories originally did not engage in 996, and then he had to do 996, I said why do you do 996, he said that it is a social atmosphere, as if he did not engage in this enterprise is a bit outdated. So boycotting 996 requires big companies to take the lead.

The labor law stipulates that 8 hours a day, more than 8 hours must be paid twice the wage, and then there are three times the wage. You take the lead, make this rule first, take out a fraction of the donation, and the employee's salary will be significantly improved. But which social impact is greater? I think it is that changing 996 has a greater impact, you make the whole society a cycle of positive energy, rather than making everyone nervous, so that the company itself has positive benefits.

And we always say corporate social responsibility, but social responsibility is not only about donations, donations are small heads. Corporate social responsibility is to abide by the law and abide by the labor law. On this basis, companies need to think about how to reduce emissions. The culture of the enterprise is not upward, and it is also necessary to think about doing business, whether you have brought the social atmosphere bad, or to the positive direction. For example, some malls go in, and he asks you to use his app, and then he starts collecting information about customers. App this thing is obvious, he wants to use his market position, collect customer information, even the ID card number, residence, mobile phone number all collected, this I don't know if it is illegal, but at least this is not a good practice. If our businesses were aware of these problems and did better, our society might be more relaxed. In a sense, this is also a contribution to fairness and justice.

There is also a point that I am not accustomed to many companies, that is, the donation is to prove that I have done, you do not come to me for trouble, I have done, this atmosphere is extremely bad. This is completely pulling society down, not letting society go up, and your donation cannot withstand your destruction.

Of course, I would like to affirm once again that I will always speak for our entrepreneurs, who are great, and they create value, but I must also say that the thinking of many of our entrepreneurs stayed in the 19th century, in the period of Hu Xueyan, the "red-top businessman".

Therefore, whether the entrepreneur himself or not has to review it. Including this time said to be three allocations, some of our entrepreneurs immediately rushed to donate, is he sincere? If it's not sincere, don't do it. I think this is to bring the social atmosphere badly, not to bring it well. Our entrepreneurs are in charge of power, they are in charge of the right to speak, and the society is watching.

YOUNG Finance: How do you think entrepreneurs' donations can be used in real terms? For example, to promote common prosperity, to promote educational equity, what role should it play?

Yao Yang: If enterprises are really willing to donate, of course, they are welcome, and I also emphasize that 60% or 70% of our donations in China are donated by entrepreneurs. So the kind of thinking that we entrepreneurs are all for the rich is a big mistake, a complete mistake. Our entrepreneurs are very concerned about society.

I have a lot of MBA students, in addition to doing their own business is to do public welfare, many people take public welfare as his career to do. I think those who attack our entrepreneurs in the self-media and on the Internet are complete nonsense, they are either ignorant or have ulterior motives. Entrepreneurs have done a lot of things today, contributed a lot of money and their own energy. At such an income level in China, our entrepreneurs have done a lot in the so-called third distribution, which is already super good. If you look at other developing countries, the per capita GDP is about $10,000, and they are far worse than China. For example, we have a future science prize that gives more than the Nobel Prize, which is donated by our entrepreneurs.

YOUNG Finance: I would like to tell you more about 996, we have noticed that the working hours of the East Asian cultural circle are higher than in countries with the same stage of development, such as South Korea, Japan and China.

Yao Yang: Let me give you an example, I met a Japanese government official at a conference before, and we had dinner at 9 o'clock, and he said that he wanted to go back to work, and it was very late at 9 o'clock. In fact, such a long working hour is a lot of grinding foreign workers, which has formed a very bad culture. In fact, he could have done it in 8 hours, but as soon as he saw that everyone was not leaving, he did not leave, just sat there looking at the window, and did not do anything at all, which was a complete waste of time, which formed an extremely bad culture. So it's not that they're hardworking, it's actually pulling the whole society down. If you look at the family in Japanese society, it's terrible, and a man who earns money doesn't belong to the family. Because he always had to work overtime, he went home and went to sleep. In this way, it will form a bad atmosphere.

YOUNG Finance: What advice do you have for safeguarding the rights and interests of riders? Because the rider belongs to a mobile group, many companies may not go to the rider to do insurance and the like, in today's context of our emphasis on corporate responsibility, how to better protect the rights and interests of the rider?

Yao Yang: For the insurance issue of takeaway riders, the regulatory authorities are now negotiating with these platform companies, because it is indeed flexible employment, so it has to have a special arrangement, and I think the regulatory authorities will finally introduce an arrangement. Such an arrangement should be able to meet the needs of rider protection and take care of the burden of the enterprise, but the time problem of rider takeaway, I think the algorithm is indeed constantly squeezing them, which is very bad.

The rider finds a short path, the algorithm immediately knows, which is calculated according to the time the rider approaches the road, and the next time you have to reach the speed of the short path, otherwise you will start to deduct money. There are many undesirable effects of this matter. The first rider is exploited, such as time, deduction, and the rider will be very tired. The second is traffic congestion, because the flag bearer will jump in a hurry. The third has cultivated a very bad habit for us consumers, if you want to eat takeaway, I will order, and then you must arrive within half an hour, and I will complain.

You look at our welfare as improved, but not necessarily. You have to eat takeout at noon, and if it can be delivered to the consumer in an hour, then the consumer will be ready an hour ago. You can get there in half an hour now, that's half an hour before you order. The next time you arrive in 20 minutes, order takeout 20 minutes in advance. Right. And honestly, I've been wondering if takeaway is good or bad in the long run.

I have a student who teaches at Chinese University, and she did an interesting study and found that there are more takeaways in the family, and then there are more obese people. This shows that a lot of the takeaway we eat is junk food, we make the takeaway so good, it seems to increase the welfare, in fact, a general ledger, not necessarily everyone's welfare increased, everyone to eat those junk food, all oily, you don't know how he made it, that thing can be good? Therefore, from the perspective of the whole society, the rapid development of takeaway is not necessarily the best direction.