[News Share] What “humiliating layoffs” reveal about the situation of Chinese workers

[FallWind]

The following news report was reposted from Lianhe Zaobao:

Resign voluntarily, or transfer to the assembly line to tighten screws—Xinyu Co., a leading Chinese automotive lighting company, was recently accused of presenting this stark choice to several newly hired university graduates, sparking controversy over „humiliating layoffs.“ Large numbers of departing employees subsequently began defending their rights. In addition to filing complaints with the media and government, some were reportedly said to have filed complaints with the European Union.

Headquartered in Changzhou, Jiangsu Province, Xinyu is one of China’s leading automotive lighting companies, supplying products to automakers in China, Germany, Japan and other countries. Ironically, the company, which claims on its official website to uphold „love, gratitude and responsibility,“ was awarded a place among the „Top 10 Best Employers in Changzhou for 2025“ at the beginning of this year. Just months later, however, it became the target of public outrage over improperly pressuring employees to leave.

According to reports by the Beijing News, National Business Daily and others, Xinyu had previously recruited around 400 graduates from „non-985 and non-211“ universities—that is, universities that are neither part of Project 985 nor Project 211. These graduates joined the company in July this year, only to be summoned for group interviews a month later. The human resources department cited poor market conditions and urged them to resign voluntarily.

The company offered them two choices: either negotiate their departure and receive compensation equivalent to half a month’s salary, or transfer from their original research and development or technical positions to basic operational roles such as assembly, connector insertion and screw fastening, with their salaries recalculated.

People familiar with the matter revealed that during the process of persuading employees to leave, the human resources department also implied that only those who cooperated by signing the paperwork would avoid having their future industry background checks affected. It was said that most of the graduates who chose to sign their separation agreements had master’s degrees, and some even had doctorates.

Forced transfers, no room for negotiation, and possible consequences for those who refused to comply—after some departing employees disclosed Xinyu’s actions online, they immediately triggered public anger and the company was criticized for „humiliating offboarding.“

As public attention mounted, the local labor authorities intervened. On Tuesday (August 25), the Changzhou Human Resources and Social Security Bureau announced that Xinyu had recruited 440 university graduates from the class of 2026, of whom 107 had already had their employment contracts terminated.

The notice criticized Xinyu, saying that during the negotiations its „methods were simplistic and heavy-handed, lacking sufficient and effective communication and causing an adverse impact. The company deeply regrets this and has suspended its human resources director.“

Two days later, Xinyu issued a further letter of apology. In a warmly worded statement, it wrote: „The 440 students entered Xinyu’s family filled with hope. Because of our actions, 107 of them have had to leave Xinyu. The students came from all over the country and had spent 10 years studying hard. They had hoped to embark on a bright future, but after only a little over a month at the company, they were faced with such circumstances. We can imagine the disappointment and pain felt by you and your families.“

The letter acknowledged that management had made mistakes in both decision-making and administration. To make amends, the company would provide departing employees with a three-month living allowance while they looked for work. If they still had not found employment at a new company after three months, they would receive compensation equivalent to six months’ salary.

The rights-defense campaign extends overseas; netizens: Western medicine still works better
Why did Xinyu’s attitude make a complete 180-degree turn, from forcefully pushing employees out to humbly apologizing? This is believed to be related to the graduates’ multifaceted campaign to defend their rights.

From the beginning, the angry graduates refused to suffer in silence. They filed complaints with local labor-inspection authorities, while also providing the media with recordings of the meetings, text messages, employment contracts and other materials, bringing the dispute into the public eye.

Particularly noteworthy is that this group of people born in the 2000s reportedly extended its rights-defense campaign overseas. Reports said that, seeing Xinyu expand into the European market, some departing employees sent complaint materials through the environmental, social and governance (ESG) compliance feedback channels of major customers such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Others reportedly began studying the European Union’s supply-chain due-diligence regulations, attempting to use those rules to pressure Xinyu and thereby affect the company’s orders in Europe.

Some former Xinyu employees who were persuaded to leave reportedly attempted to file complaints with relevant EU institutions, hoping to pressure Xinyu through European labor and supply-chain regulations. Pictured is the EU headquarters building in Brussels, the capital of Belgium. (Reuters)
In addition, the graduates reportedly filed a complaint with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Xinyu had only submitted its application to list in Hong Kong at the end of last month, and they hoped to seize the sensitive period in which the company was racing toward a listing, put the labor dispute under the spotlight and urge the exchange to launch a special investigation.

Neither the EU nor the Hong Kong Stock Exchange has confirmed receiving a complaint, but this approach of using overseas regulators and multinational customers to exert pressure has already sparked heated discussion on Chinese social media.

Many Chinese netizens joked that „Western medicine still works better“ and praised this unconventional method of defending one’s rights. One netizen wrote: „The most ironic thing about this is that the humiliated master’s degree holders didn’t line up to seek labor arbitration. Instead, they’re studying EU regulations and digging up the ESG complaint email addresses of German automakers… This isn’t worshipping foreign things; it’s that the domestic route is too slow and cumbersome.“

Another netizen analyzed the situation this way: „Reporting overseas may really be different… Foreign automakers aren’t afraid of your lawsuit; they’re afraid that sweatshop labor will be exposed in their supply chains.“

Are people born in the 2000s reforming the workplace at „old-dinosaur companies“?
Against the backdrop of a labor market under prolonged pressure and graduates struggling to find jobs, being urged to leave immediately after joining a company is especially painful for young people.

These graduates had worked hard to secure research and development or technical positions at a major company, only to face unemployment just one month after joining. After leaving, they had also missed the prime period for autumn recruitment, making their anger, anxiety and helplessness entirely understandable.

What people find especially puzzling is that, judging by its performance, Xinyu’s business situation is actually not poor, and its cash flow could even be described as ample. Why, then, did it need to urge such a large number of newly hired graduates to leave?

The Paper quoted industry insiders as speculating that the core purpose of the company’s personnel cuts may have been to reduce labor costs in the short term and optimize per-employee efficiency figures, thereby beautifying its financial statements and paving the way for the review of its Hong Kong initial public offering (IPO).

Some netizens described the young people born in the 2000s who were urged to leave by Xinyu as „not to be messed with“ when faced with unfair treatment. (Screenshot from Xiaohongshu)
Whatever the case, even if a company is considering reducing costs, improving efficiency or raising funds through a listing, that does not mean employees’ rights can be used as the price; and if employees truly choose to appeal to overseas institutions, this also reflects, to some extent, their doubts about the effectiveness of traditional local channels for defending their rights.

The fact is that, as the EU has further strengthened labor-rights and supply-chain oversight in recent years, the idea of using overseas rules to pressure Chinese companies into improving labor conditions has resonated among some Chinese workers.

Reuters reported that the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation will not formally take effect until the end of next year, but the law, which bans products made using forced labor from entering the EU, has already attracted attention on Chinese social media. Some Chinese employees dissatisfied with the „996“ workplace culture have expressed support for EU sanctions against Chinese companies that violate the rules, and have even shared channels for submitting complaints to EU authorities.

Although there is still no evidence that the EU or the Hong Kong Stock Exchange has intervened to handle complaints in the Xinyu controversy, the company’s change in attitude has nevertheless opened up another possibility for Chinese netizens seeking to defend their rights. One netizen joked: „Is the EU the only way to fight involuntary overtime now?“

The controversy has also revealed a different side of China’s new generation of workers. Many netizens praised this group of people born in the 2000s for having „a strong fighting spirit,“ even calling for „the post-2000 generation to reform the workplace.“ Indeed, compared with the past workplace culture that emphasized endurance, young workers are more willing to speak out publicly and are more familiar with various tools for defending their rights.

As more people born in the 2000s enter the workforce on a larger scale, those „old-dinosaur companies“—a mocking term used by netizens for companies with outdated and rigid ways of thinking—may find it increasingly difficult to gain a foothold.

[FallWind]

The news mentioned above is primarily about a recent hot-button incident: Xingyu Co., Ltd., a leading domestic automotive lighting company, recruited around 400 graduates from non-985/non-211 universities in its autumn campus recruitment drive, only to plan to dismiss all of them less than a month and a half later (of course, in the form of so-called “persuasion to resign”).

Xingyu Co., Ltd. gave them two options: either negotiate their departure and receive compensation equivalent to half a month’s salary, or transfer to basic positions such as assembly, connector insertion, and screw fastening, with their salaries reassessed. Those who refused could potentially be negatively affected by future background checks within the industry. Under these conditions, more than 100 recent graduates chose to sign resignation agreements, most of them holding master’s or doctoral degrees.

To safeguard their rights, the recent graduates who remained submitted reports based on publicly available materials online to labor authorities, and even filed complaints with organizations including the European Union, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, as well as with the company’s business partners. Ultimately, under immense public pressure, Xingyu Co., Ltd. was forced to apologize and promise compensation.

[FallWind]

There are many aspects of this incident that are particularly valuable for analysis, involving every social stratum:

First, all of the newly graduated employees who were laid off had university degrees, and some even held master’s or doctoral degrees; in one round of layoffs, as many as 400 people were dismissed. The news report also pointed out that these 400 recent graduates may have been laid off in order to “optimize labor-efficiency data” and “reduce labor costs in the short term,” thereby beautifying the financial statements and serving other such purposes.

One point that must not be overlooked is that, in imperialist China, which has been mired in a prolonged economic depression, the continual and drastic deterioration of working conditions has long been an open secret. On the one hand, the organic composition of mental labor is rising, and new technologies such as AI are becoming increasingly widespread; on the other hand, the overall economic crisis continues to batter every sector, making the difficulty university graduates face in finding employment and the high youth unemployment rate widespread phenomena that remain difficult to resolve.

In imperialist China under fascist dictatorship, even intellectuals who think highly of themselves, possess a certain amount of intellectual capital, and can use it to secure a certain degree of personal benefit cannot escape the oppression of fascist dictatorship—unless they do everything in their power to become willing lackeys, wag their tails and beg for mercy, and ultimately climb onto the throne of the bourgeoisie. Yet in this era, the petty-bourgeois intellectuals who can truly climb onto the bourgeois throne can only be a tiny minority. For the overwhelming majority of the petty bourgeoisie, bankruptcy remains the only road ahead. As for these self-important intellectuals, the bourgeoisie can still humiliate them whenever it wishes and dismiss them whenever it pleases; the good times that many affluent petty-bourgeois intellectuals enjoyed under capitalism have also come to an end.

Under the general economic crisis of imperialism, even highly educated mental laborers and the affluent petty bourgeoisie are increasingly unable to maintain their position and are being driven closer to bankruptcy. This demonstrates that the ruling class—the bourgeoisie—can no longer continue to rule in the old way; while the ruled classes—the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat (it should be pointed out that the proletariat has long been unable to continue living in the old way; for the proletariat, surviving is difficult if it does not struggle even for a single day)—can likewise no longer continue living in the old way. In other words, the day when the general crisis of imperialism arrives is drawing ever nearer.

[FallWind]

Second, Xingyu Co., Ltd. did indeed humiliate these intellectuals, and as Marxists, we should also support these intellectuals in their struggle. Moreover, it must first be pointed out that Xingyu Co., Ltd., this monopolistic capital, is just as vile and detestable as all other monopolistic capital, and should likewise face judgment by the people after the revolution.

However, if we look beneath the surface and examine carefully how these recent graduates were humiliated, we can find some “interesting” clues—how did Xingyu Co., Ltd. humiliate the recent graduates? It actually made them do basic work and treated them like stinking laborers!

Thus, it is clear that under the dominant ideology of capitalist society (which is likewise reflected in the grievances of these intellectuals and the suckers at Xingyu Co., Ltd.), making intellectuals do the work normally performed by manual laborers is undoubtedly considered a tremendous humiliation, as though they were not human beings. Yet in this world, the laborers who perform “humiliating” work and are “not treated as human beings” likely number not merely in the hundreds of millions. Across the world, the laborers who truly create the wealth of human civilization suffer the bourgeoisie’s insults day and night, and can only swallow their hatred, grievances, and pain. As Stalin pointed out, the fate of the working class is unbearably painful; laborers endure torment and suffering. Slaves and slave owners, serfs and feudal lords, peasants and landlords, workers and capitalists, the oppressed and the oppressors—the world has been structured this way since ancient times, and this is still the case in the overwhelming majority of countries today. For thousands of years, laborers have tried dozens and hundreds of times to overthrow their oppressors and become the masters of their own lives. But every time they have met with failure, suffered humiliation, and been forced to retreat, forced to bury their grievances and shame, their anger and despair in their hearts. They have gazed up at the boundless heavens, hoping to find a savior there. The shackles of slavery remain unchanged, or the old shackles have merely been replaced by new ones that are just as heavy and just as humiliating.

These intellectuals, along with the many people governed by capitalist ideology, all firmly believe in this hierarchical system based on the distinction between mental and manual labor. The lives of many intellectuals are likewise built upon the fruits of the labor of the workers and peasants. The high wages they receive through the redistribution of surplus value come precisely from the blood, sweat, and toil of working people. In a sense, they too oppress the impoverished working people. Those who oppress others cannot achieve liberation themselves. This applies equally to intellectuals: those intellectuals who continue to enjoy the fruits of the workers’ and peasants’ toil while remaining detached from the people are themselves incapable of achieving liberation or securing complete victory in the struggle.

[FallWind]

After receiving the subsidy, these intellectuals said they were “relatively satisfied” with the result, and the whole affair thus came to an end. It is evident that although the struggle waged by these intellectuals was just, it was ultimately weak, economically motivated, and severely limited in scope. Once their personal interests had been satisfied, they immediately stopped struggling—their struggle was concerned only with their personal interests, not with those of all workers or of Chinese society as a whole.

[FallWind]

As for claims that those born after 2000 are “reforming the workplace,” they are even more absurd. Lu Xun once said that it is often young people themselves who kill the young. The concept of “those born after 2000” is blind to class: in milk tea shops and restaurants, the most vile ones are often the post-2000 store managers who have spent several years struggling in capitalist society and have become extremely adept at flattery, currying favor with superiors, and bullying those below them.

[FallWind]

Moreover, in my view, their struggle is directed upward, and can only be directed upward, because they possess a great deal of private property, as well as educational credentials, “platforms,” knowledge capital, and so on. In reality, they neither stand nor can stand on the side of working people, and they will not become ordinary workers in the future. Therefore, their struggle is limited and can at any time be betrayed by them themselves for the sake of their own interests.

[FallWind]

Third, what does it show that these recent graduates choose not to seek labor arbitration, but instead “appeal to foreigners”? On the one hand, it shows that labor arbitration can accomplish extremely little. These intellectual workers—who possess knowledge unavailable to the broad masses—have recognized this very clearly.

China is a fascist dictatorship, and the law is an expression of the will of the ruling class, while government institutions are organs that carry out its class functions. Although labor law may appear to protect workers’ rights and interests, the fact that labor law exists in China is itself the result of the working people’s struggles, fought with blood and tears. Not to mention that it is inherently biased toward the bourgeoisie; and even so, China’s labor law has long since become a mere scrap of paper, incapable of placing any constraint whatsoever on the bourgeoisie. Consequently, labor arbitration, an institution operating within the legal framework of Nazi China, can accomplish virtually nothing. Cases are typically dragged out for several months or even half a year, and in the end can only be resolved through negotiations at a hearing. Often, workers must expend enormous amounts of time and energy just to obtain a small amount of compensation that already belonged to them. This year, China even introduced so-called relevant regulations specifically targeting so-called “labor extortion,” not only seeking to completely strip workers of their right to defend their rights, but also to imprison them as a warning to others.

Therefore, judging from the attitudes of the broad masses of netizens and these dismissed recent graduates toward labor arbitration, it is already glaringly obvious what effect the notoriously disreputable labor arbitration system can have for workers seeking to defend their rights.

As for the role played by “appealing to foreigners,” I’m afraid it is not nearly as powerful as many petty-bourgeois netizens imagine. In countries that are not fascist dictatorships, the broad masses can still, with some difficulty, protect their rights to a certain extent through struggle. They can therefore protest against sweatshops and force bourgeois monopolies to make changes. Combined with the competition among monopolies under capitalism, this is what finally makes it seem as though “appealing to foreigners” can have some effect. Yet whether Chinese or foreign, they are all bourgeois—so how could they voluntarily make concessions in the interests of the people? In this incident, what truly played a role was not any appeal to foreigners, but the pressure placed on the Chinese government by the masses. To believe that it was the bourgeoisie of foreign countries that gave the workers the opportunity to struggle is to completely reverse black and white.

[vvv]

Ordinary workers simply don’t have the energy or knowledge to deal with such complicated matters. For example, when I was injured at work, I had to submit the documents in person to the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau where the company was registered—dozens of kilometers away from where I worked.
To be honest, these people just lost the ability to participate in the distribution of surplus value. At least this way, they can still get the company to provide several months of compensation. But what about the true proletariat? If they unite to go on strike, demand their wages, and defend their legitimate rights, wouldn’t they have been violently suppressed long ago by the capitalists and the police of the Chinese revisionist regime working together?

[FallWind]

Do any of the other comrades have any opinions? Please don’t hesitate to speak up!

[typhoon]

Actually, to be frank, it is quite clear whether appealing to foreign parties is of any use.

Do those European automakers really not know what kind of country China is? They are not fools. It is precisely because China’s fascist dictatorship brutally exploits workers that they are able to obtain such cheap parts. Doesn’t this greatly expand their profit margins? Economically speaking, they too are beneficiaries of China’s fascist dictatorship.

Therefore, what is supposedly an appeal to European automakers is, to them, nothing more than an additional pretext to further drive down suppliers’ prices. Even if they do not choose Xinyu, they still have other suppliers to choose from, so they suffer no real loss. Nor would this have any effect whatsoever on changing the overall situation in China.

Secondly, Xinyu’s methods also exploit the mindset of these intellectuals. In their view, after studying for a master’s or doctoral degree, how could they possibly do assembly-line or workshop work like frontline workers?

Put plainly, by sending these people to the workshop, Xinyu is using this method to force them to resign indirectly, exploiting precisely this mentality. In reality, recalculating their wages would not be so easy either. Since the contracts have already been signed, it would be difficult for them to obtain support under China’s labor law if they tried to amend the contracts unilaterally. They themselves are aware of this; otherwise, they would not have proposed negotiated resignation as an option.

Thus, in the eyes of those with master’s and doctoral degrees, entering the workshop simply means having no future, so they might as well go elsewhere. It is out of this mentality that they resist, in order to protect their personal property and prospects. In that case, if the bourgeoisie offers them a little money to buy them off, will they not simply follow the bourgeoisie?

That is indeed what happened. In the end, were they not also bought off to some extent by the bourgeoisie? Isn’t the money they received—three months’ wages—part of the surplus value? They had only recently joined the company and had not created much value for society, yet they were able to receive so much money. Where did that money come from? Was it not extracted from the frontline workers, from the workshop workers they look down on?

The opposition to Xinyu’s oppression of these technical personnel and intellectuals exists only because this oppression is simultaneously their oppression of the proletariat and of workers. And it must be said that this oppression is merely one aspect of the oppression suffered by the proletariat.

These oppressed intellectuals should also see the situation clearly: although we support their blows against the bourgeoisie, we must not portray them as some kind of superhuman figures and ultimately follow their path. That path is certainly not the path of proletarian struggle. Put plainly, it still amounts to hoping that another group of capitalists will discipline Xinyu’s capitalists.

[FallWind]

Exactly.

[qingyuanl6z8]

Just keeping track of my learning—dropping by to have a look.

[钱仁零]

While those intellectuals were fighting for their own interests, the situation of the workers did not change. On the contrary, because this struggle forced Xingyu’s share price to fall and caused losses to its beneficiaries, those losses were immediately shifted onto the workers, subjecting them to even greater oppression. Marx pointed out: the whole problem of capitalist production is to increase labor efficiency and compress labor time. Under the banner of so-called “cost reduction and efficiency improvement,” Xingyu increased working hours fourfold within four years, while reducing its workforce by nearly one-fifth. This has left workers increasingly unable to breathe. But fresh graduates are different: in the future, they may become senior executives or join the labor aristocracy.

As for those intellectuals, even when they were “sent down” to the workshop, they did not provide the workers with the slightest help. On the contrary, because of this incident, their accommodation fees were waived, their wage rates were increased, and those who remained employed could even receive compensation of 15,000 because they were fresh graduates. Even the factory’s management—the capitalists’ lackeys—probably do not have such favorable benefits. Yet the capitalist system recognizes intellectual capital: simply by having the so-called status of a “fresh graduate,” they can receive higher wages. This instead expanded the situation of unequal pay for equal work, consolidated the capitalist factory order, and placed all responsibility throughout the entire process on the workers. Just as the intellectuals cheered for their impending “victory,” the working class consequently found itself burdened with even heavier chains.