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.
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