Culture change will only come by enforcing legislation. It is the same as with OHS, the culture only changed because companies are terrified of having the book thrown at them, not because they suddenly started caring about workers.
What legislation exists to stop workers who are salaried from working an extra hour or two at the office each day? I have never worked in an office that stops me from staying at the office for hours afterwards. If a culture occurs where literally all the workers are doing this and pushing each other to do this and shame occurs if you do not do this then it is absolutely possible under existing laws in the UK that I know of at least. These workers can go home, they aren't because of the culture.
We have the same problem in western tech companies, it's just called crunch instead and gets pushed by the company due to mismanagement in project planning. The difference is that 996 is not pushed by management at any time because it's not something they need to push, it is workers attempting to outdo each other for promotion and social signalling.
It needs legislation that does not currently exist anywhere in the world to my knowledge.
It needs legislation that does not currently exist anywhere in the world to my knowledge.
I believe -- at least for a while -- U.S. employers were required to pay overtime for salaried employees who worked more than maybe 50 hours per week. Of course, this was means tested to death (company had to be a certain size, it only applied for low-salary workers, etc.), but a stronger version of it might work pretty well. It'd give companies (whoever owns/controls them) an incentive to tell people to go home, especially if additional time on the clock is not productive. And if that time is needed and workers genuinely want to be there, they get paid more.
The legislation exists in China as mentioned in the op article. The issue is that it is not enforced and will probably never be enforced as 996 benefits the ruling class. Neither will any kind of organic "culture change" in either the west or the east. Much like any public display of pro-unionism, questioning the 996 or crunch cultures will result in termination.
The legislation exists in China as mentioned in the op article.
No it does not. I have quoted it elsewhere in the thread. Please fucking read the legislation before stating your uninformed opinion so confidently, you have done zero investigation.
Much like any public display of pro-unionism, questioning the 996 or crunch cultures will result in termination.
They literally have the state union backing the fight against 996.
The language is "shall work for no more than". If the translation is accurate then it is establishing a maximum that does not discern if the hours are voluntary or not.
You already know that it's not. You are being willfully obtuse about this because you have a position you do not desire to do any self reflection on. I think anything contrary to your presupposed position is one that you will oppose no matter what is placed in front of you.
I can only form my position based on the information presented to me. You have posted a section of law that supports my position and are simply asserting that it means something other than what it says. If it exempts hours that are voluntary then quote the section that describes that exception or post a translation where the language supports what you are saying. If you can't be bothered then that's fine too but don't go about calling me obtuse or ignorant for ... reading the quote that you provided.
Culture change will only come by enforcing legislation. It is the same as with OHS, the culture only changed because companies are terrified of having the book thrown at them, not because they suddenly started caring about workers.
What legislation exists to stop workers who are salaried from working an extra hour or two at the office each day? I have never worked in an office that stops me from staying at the office for hours afterwards. If a culture occurs where literally all the workers are doing this and pushing each other to do this and shame occurs if you do not do this then it is absolutely possible under existing laws in the UK that I know of at least. These workers can go home, they aren't because of the culture.
We have the same problem in western tech companies, it's just called crunch instead and gets pushed by the company due to mismanagement in project planning. The difference is that 996 is not pushed by management at any time because it's not something they need to push, it is workers attempting to outdo each other for promotion and social signalling.
It needs legislation that does not currently exist anywhere in the world to my knowledge.
I believe -- at least for a while -- U.S. employers were required to pay overtime for salaried employees who worked more than maybe 50 hours per week. Of course, this was means tested to death (company had to be a certain size, it only applied for low-salary workers, etc.), but a stronger version of it might work pretty well. It'd give companies (whoever owns/controls them) an incentive to tell people to go home, especially if additional time on the clock is not productive. And if that time is needed and workers genuinely want to be there, they get paid more.
The legislation exists in China as mentioned in the op article. The issue is that it is not enforced and will probably never be enforced as 996 benefits the ruling class. Neither will any kind of organic "culture change" in either the west or the east. Much like any public display of pro-unionism, questioning the 996 or crunch cultures will result in termination.
No it does not. I have quoted it elsewhere in the thread. Please fucking read the legislation before stating your uninformed opinion so confidently, you have done zero investigation.
They literally have the state union backing the fight against 996.
The section you have quoted does not conflict with the op or anything I've said.
Of course it does because none of it prevents workers from working extra hours voluntarily. Which was the point I made above.
You are either misreading my points or ignoring them.
The language is "shall work for no more than". If the translation is accurate then it is establishing a maximum that does not discern if the hours are voluntary or not.
You already know that it's not. You are being willfully obtuse about this because you have a position you do not desire to do any self reflection on. I think anything contrary to your presupposed position is one that you will oppose no matter what is placed in front of you.
I can only form my position based on the information presented to me. You have posted a section of law that supports my position and are simply asserting that it means something other than what it says. If it exempts hours that are voluntary then quote the section that describes that exception or post a translation where the language supports what you are saying. If you can't be bothered then that's fine too but don't go about calling me obtuse or ignorant for ... reading the quote that you provided.
No I fucking haven't. You are acting in unbelievably bad faith. This is a waste of my time and everyone else's time reading this back and forth.
Debate-bro culture is the most annoying thing about online discussions.
Eh sounds like a strawman
:gamer-gulag: