3 ms·
The supreme court released several actual cases ruled in favor of employees that set precedent for similar cases. The "say" in the title is just disingenuous an
by WiSaGaN 5y ago
The supreme court released several actual cases ruled in favor of employees that set precedent for similar cases. The "say" in the title is just disingenuous and sad.
- bobthepanda 5y agoA headline only has room for so many words. It was both the court and relevant ministry, but clarifying both and what exactly they did is the purpose of the article, not a terse headline. Also, there is a bit of a distinction in China between "rule of law" and "rule by law", so the question of equal, consistent enforcement needs to be proven out a bit as it's early days.
- hkmaxpro 5y ago> China's top court and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security on Thursday published guidelines and examples on what constituted as overtime work (Emphasis mine) See also this line from the state media The Global Times: (https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1232602.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1232602.shtml) > The Supreme People's Court (SPC) of China and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security recently jointly released a guideline illustrating 10 typical cases of overtime work, stipulating that the "996" overtime work policy is illegal The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security is also saying the policy is illegal. The title of the Reuters article is perfectly correct.