In a striking win for employee rights, a Beijing-based engineer has secured a court-ordered compensation of 19,000 yuan (approximately US$2,600) from his former employer for being compelled to attend mandatory online training sessions after regular working hours — a case now hailed as a “landmark” in China’s evolving labour rights landscape.
This unusual clash over what qualifies as overtime in the age of remote work and digital communication was first reported by Workers’ Daily on July 17 and has since drawn nationwide attention, sparking conversations about employee autonomy in an always-connected world.
Training After Hours? Or Hidden Overtime?
According to South China Morning Post, the man, identified only as Wang, had been employed as an engineer at a Beijing-based engineering firm from July 2020 until June 2023. His gripe wasn’t about workload during office hours — it was about what happened after. According to Wang, his employer required him to participate in frequent online training sessions using platforms like DingTalk and WeChat, all outside his official shift.
Refusing to attend came at a peculiar price: a “voluntary donation” of 200 yuan (about US$28). Wang wasn’t buying it. He filed for arbitration, seeking over 80,000 yuan (US$11,000) in unpaid overtime. However, when the labour authority failed to support his claim, he took the battle to court.
Employer’s Defence: Log In, Zone Out?
In its defence, the company argued that these post-shift sessions didn’t constitute overtime since there was no active work involved. Logging in, they claimed, was merely symbolic — employees weren’t required to speak or even pay attention. As such, they contended, no actual labour occurred, and therefore no compensation was warranted.
They also denied any connection between the training sessions and the 200-yuan donation, suggesting that the two were unrelated policies.
Court Calls Out “Encroachment of Personal Time”
The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court disagreed. It held that the very requirement of logging into a scheduled session during personal time was itself an intrusion, regardless of whether verbal participation or listening was enforced.
Most crucially, the court observed that the presence of a punitive “donation” policy suggested the sessions were effectively compulsory. “These activities occurred after working hours, with the employee lacking the option to decline participation. Therefore, they should be classified as overtime,” the court ruled.
However, it also acknowledged inconsistencies in Wang’s login times and awarded him a partial sum — 19,000 yuan instead of the 80,000 he had originally sought.
Digital Boundaries and Labour Laws
Government-affiliated news portal gmw.cn lauded the court’s verdict, describing it as carrying “landmark significance.” An editorial published by the platform sharply noted the creeping intrusion of work into personal time through digital tools, calling such expectations “hidden overtime.”
“With the evolution of communication tools, the encroachment of work into employees’ personal lives is increasingly prevalent,” the editorial stated. “Even when not physically present in the office or officially off duty, a message on a mobile device can pull them back into work.”
The case underscores an increasingly urgent global dilemma: where should the boundary lie between personal time and professional obligation in an era where the office is just a screen away?
This unusual clash over what qualifies as overtime in the age of remote work and digital communication was first reported by Workers’ Daily on July 17 and has since drawn nationwide attention, sparking conversations about employee autonomy in an always-connected world.
Training After Hours? Or Hidden Overtime?
According to South China Morning Post, the man, identified only as Wang, had been employed as an engineer at a Beijing-based engineering firm from July 2020 until June 2023. His gripe wasn’t about workload during office hours — it was about what happened after. According to Wang, his employer required him to participate in frequent online training sessions using platforms like DingTalk and WeChat, all outside his official shift.
Refusing to attend came at a peculiar price: a “voluntary donation” of 200 yuan (about US$28). Wang wasn’t buying it. He filed for arbitration, seeking over 80,000 yuan (US$11,000) in unpaid overtime. However, when the labour authority failed to support his claim, he took the battle to court.
Employer’s Defence: Log In, Zone Out?
In its defence, the company argued that these post-shift sessions didn’t constitute overtime since there was no active work involved. Logging in, they claimed, was merely symbolic — employees weren’t required to speak or even pay attention. As such, they contended, no actual labour occurred, and therefore no compensation was warranted.
They also denied any connection between the training sessions and the 200-yuan donation, suggesting that the two were unrelated policies.
Court Calls Out “Encroachment of Personal Time”
The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court disagreed. It held that the very requirement of logging into a scheduled session during personal time was itself an intrusion, regardless of whether verbal participation or listening was enforced.
Most crucially, the court observed that the presence of a punitive “donation” policy suggested the sessions were effectively compulsory. “These activities occurred after working hours, with the employee lacking the option to decline participation. Therefore, they should be classified as overtime,” the court ruled.
However, it also acknowledged inconsistencies in Wang’s login times and awarded him a partial sum — 19,000 yuan instead of the 80,000 he had originally sought.
Digital Boundaries and Labour Laws
Government-affiliated news portal gmw.cn lauded the court’s verdict, describing it as carrying “landmark significance.” An editorial published by the platform sharply noted the creeping intrusion of work into personal time through digital tools, calling such expectations “hidden overtime.”
“With the evolution of communication tools, the encroachment of work into employees’ personal lives is increasingly prevalent,” the editorial stated. “Even when not physically present in the office or officially off duty, a message on a mobile device can pull them back into work.”
The case underscores an increasingly urgent global dilemma: where should the boundary lie between personal time and professional obligation in an era where the office is just a screen away?
You may also like
Air India pays interim relief of Rs 25 lakh to 166 crash victims' kin
Morgan Gibbs-White explains why he has signed new Nottingham Forest deal amid Tottenham interest
Chelsea handed major transfer boost as PSG 'looking to sell' Gianluigi Donnarumma
Man Utd transfer news: Amorim moves for 'chosen one' as agent flies for £42m talks
EastEnders newcomer has famous family members who have also starred in BBC soap
