[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3006127/alib...
Most of those companies are not forcing their employees to work 996 on paper. But if you don't, then first, your team leader will give you some hint to ask you to stay longer. If you still don't, you will be fired for any number of reasons (KPI is too low for example).
Because of that, the company actually don't need to force it's employees. It just keep giving them tasks which cannot be finished without work 996, plus some peer pressures (One of it is "Boss's still here, you can't leave").
Jack Ma's "forcing staff to work overtime are ‘foolish’" statement is basically the same thing: You need to fight for your own future. On the surface, it's correct, but underneath it, he's trying to make you believe Personal strive === Overwork.
It worth notice that Jack Ma also said "If you love your job, 12 hours is not very long" (“如果你热爱（工作），其实12个小时不算太长”[0]) just days ago. Hit: If you don't work 12 hours a day, you don't love your job.
Some background: Jack Ma is a lair who also likes to pretend to be a Life Advisor, he will sometime throw out some bullshit to convince others to sacrifice for him. You need to read between lines.
> “Those who can stick to a 996 schedule are those who have found their passion beyond monetary gains,” Ma wrote.
You see what's going on here :)
[0] https://finance.sina.com.cn/china/gncj/2019-04-12/doc-ihvhie...
Edited to fix some grammar problem. Hope that will make it easier to read. Thanks for pointing out :)
Yes, I fixed it again.
This sounds exactly like the accounts of what it’s like to work as an Amazon delivery driver.
Or an Uber driver trying to make minimum wage.
Hm.
I don't see how that example works with this topic of overtime/overwork.
First up, I'm not arguing against the fact that there are many many managers, bosses, directors and CEOs that use emotional manipulation to blackmail employees to do their bidding even though on paper they claim differently. They give it all sorts of names to make you believe this behaviour is okay. The most damaging use of emotive language makes you feel crazy for feeling the way you feel. This invalidation of your experience, of your feelings, is pulled straight out of the narcissist's playbook and it has a name - it's called gaslighting. Making you feel crazy and invalidating you for feeling the way you do. "If you loved this job, you'd do this for me. If you don't do this for me, you can't possibly love this job." Anyone who has escaped an emotionally abusive relationship will attest to how damaging this one technique is. It's often the tool of choice for a narcissist to maintain emotional control of their target.
It's tough to spot because usually the people at the top got there by being charismatic and motivational. They're charming and make you want to follow them... the same way they treat their partners to get them into a relationship before they invalidate them and make them feel crazy to keep control of them and keep them from leaving. The language they're using to make you follow them is manipulation and is also another tool lifted directly from the narcissist's playbook. Beware of the way people make you feel to get you to play along. When you start to feel like your feelings are crazy and that you feel guilty for not wanting to play along, chances are you're being manipulated using these tools.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/here-there-and-every...
Secondly, the first part of the statement Ma made, given my own experience is, to an extent, true: "if you love your job, 12 hours is not very long."
I tend to agree that if you're occupied by something you love to do or are fascinated by, 12 hours doesn't seem very long. My experience has been that it tends to go by in the blink of an eye. This statement can stand alone without any implication. I frequently work for 12-18 hours straight without even realizing I've done it and then wonder how I didn't even notice it had got dark and I've missed dinner.
However, the opposing statement that if you don't work 12 hours, you don't love your job just isn't true in my experience. There are days, honestly, where I'm fairly apathetic towards work and I struggle to sit in front of my computer for even an hour. This doesn't mean I don't love my job. It just means I don't love what needs to be done right now.
Just because all cats are mammals does not mean that all mammals are cats.
Here is the part of statement from Jack Ma for better context, you can judge it by yourself (full: https://finance.sina.com.cn/china/gncj/2019-04-12/doc-ihvhie...):
(Notice I have difficulties when translating Chinese word by word to English, because expression of the two language is different. But I'll make marks to help you understand)
> 今天我们拥有这么多资源，我们带着巨大的使命，希望在未来能够让天下没有难做的生意，你不付出可以吗？不可以。所以我们说，加入阿里，你要做好准备一天12个小时，否则你来阿里干什么？我们不缺8小时上班很舒服的人。今天我们要招一些8小时上班，每天坐在一个好的办公室，条件很好，食堂也不错，出去荣誉感也不错，这样的人满大街能找到。
> Today we have this huge amount of resource, and a heavily mission, a mission to build a world where people can do trade with ease. Can we do that without effort? No. Because of that, if you plan to join Alibaba, you have to get ready to work 12 hours a day, otherwise, what do you come here for? We have many people who work 8 hours a day comfortably (in the society. maybe? translator's guess). If today we going to hire some people for 8 hours/day job, and provide such good office, good condition ('condition' means "our company is better than others", translator's mark), good cafeteria and honourable title, a street full of people would wanted the job. (Translator's note: What he meant was: The job is honourable/decent, the office is good, the cafeteria is good, and all of those is not here for somebody who could only work 8 hours a day.)
> 但是我们需要的是什么？我们问你来这个公司到底想做什么？是改变自己、帮助别人、实现使命。
> But what we need? We ask you what you wanted when you join this company? The answer is to change yourself, help others, and make our mission a reality.
> 阿里早年也加班，但是我们加什么班？加学习的班，我们8小时工作以后，最主要晚上是复盘、学习。我们今天做错了什么、什么事情应该修复，我们应该互相怎么学习。我们8小时以外的两个小时、三个小时是学习、提升，而不是去加班。
> During the early years, we at Alibaba also work long hours, why? We have to learn after a day's work is done. We learn what we did wrong, what need to be fixed, and how we learn from each other (Translator's note: Should be "Learn from our mistakes, learn how to fix the mistakes and learn from each others"). The extra 2 to 3 hours after work is for learning and advancing our knowledge, not overwork.
> 我希望阿里人热爱你做的工作，如果你不热爱，哪怕8个小时你都嫌很长，如果你热爱，其实12个小时不算太长。
> I hope Alibabaers (Translator's note: employees) love the work you do, if you don't, even 8 hours is too long for you, but if you do (love your job), 12 hours is not very long.
That's fine, I don't want to work at a place like that. I work hard, really fucking hard. I'm good at what I do. I've made a name for myself because I work hard to be the best I can be at what I do. I give back every time I can. I mentor. I send the elevator back down as often as I can. If a company doesn't come looking for me because of the reputation of commitment I've spent the last 35 years pouring my blood, sweat and tears into building, I don't want to work for them.
You can have your people on the street and treat them as slaves and you'll get the quality of work out of them you can expect out of a sweatshop. I will go somewhere that my contribution is valued.
A hell of a lot more equity than the average Alibaba worker gets today?
Sum up the post:
1. What Jack Ma is trying to do, is equalizing Personal strive and overwork (for him).
2. In China, company have many ways to force employees stay in long hour without literally say so. For example "When boss don't leave, you don't leave", and/or giving out tasks that you can't finish without overwork.
You're doing fine for nonnative, just still mildly noticeable.
Considering the topic of this post (and the hanzi in their comment), I'd venture to say s/he speaks some dialect of Chinese as a first language.
I think that what they write has little connection to truth in a situation like this but with that said I have no idea nor do I really care to form an opinion yet.
Google news and other social media used to do this until they got pressured to "localize" the news and favor "authoritative" sources.
What is shocking is how the same event is covered so differently by different countries and media groups. But the only way you would know this is if you actively search for news which is getting more difficult and which hardly anyone does.
I'd like to see it user/community driven. A user generates a topic and one headline. Then other users and the algorithm add headlines to the topic. And if there are two similar topics, it would require a curator intervention to join the topics.
Also, "sourcing + hashing" the articles and headlines so that you can see a "diff" of the articles and headlines in case the media companies change or alter the articles/headlines without informing their customers would be nice.
But if anyone tried this, I'm sure the media companies would attack the startup and of course with the new EU copyright laws, it might open the startup to lawsuits or takedown requests. Not to mention many countries might simply ban it outright.
> But in a speech to Alibaba staff on Thursday, Ma said the company expected people to be ready to work 12 hours a day since it had huge commitments to its clients.
> “If you don’t work 996 when you are young, when will you? Do you think never having to work 996 in your life is an honour to boast about?” he said in the speech.
Why wouldn't you think this?
Because you’re Asian? (My dad once asked me, when he perceived I was slacking as a teenager: “Do you know how to work a sixteen hour day?” Worked fine for him—he grew up in a village in Bangladesh and sent two kids to college in the United States. Writ large, it seemed to work pretty well for Japan and Korea as well, which went from developing nations to developed nations in a few generations.
In a place like China, you have to work hard. Most do it on a farm or factory. You’re lucky if you can do it in an office.)
All that working hard is to catch up to a country that pushed the envelope on a 40 hour work week, and at least made an effort to respect the right of the worker to have a life outside the office?
I find the argunent/cultural value unconvincing when most of the country's innovation has been fostered through copycatting, IP theft, and exploitative market gatekeeping.
I don't mean any offense, nor do I assert the United States is saintly in the non-abuse of workforce, or in any trade related department really, but given what we've been finding out about Chinese IP hijacking, their hostile trade practices, and personal experience working with Chinese H-1B's (whom if I catch trying to pull that 996 nonsense, I send home after 40 hours), I do think it's just an underhanded tactic used by authority figures on a vulnerable population.
The fruits of passion are best grown without compulsion. Play unites artist and engineer as Tao does one in the state of no mind.
One cannot be moved or inspired by heaven and earth stuck behind a screen toiling for one's master.
Hell, weren't the Chinese the same culture who brought us the gem of wisdom that "one who lacks control of oneself brings only strife when faced with the responsibility to control something larger than themselves"[Confucius paraphrased]? Where have these workers had the time to develop as healthy individuals? Not just to gather academic knowledge, but the wisdom born of personal folly to employ that intelligence well?
For a wealthy man in a purportedly communist regime, Mr. Ma seens, at least to me, whether he realizes it or not, to be falling into the worst tendencies of capitalistic practices hook, line, and sinker. The People suffer under the boot of a man who has grown so accustomed to the creature comforts afforded by his position that he has forgotten the reason he is where he is in the first place.
To usher the Chinese people to a new age of glory and prosperity.
At least, that's the Party line, is it not?
Surely others see the disconnect here, or am I just mad, and completely out of tune with the zeitgeist/realpolitik?
Nowhere in that is a blanket "Thou shalt do and ask no questions, lest you be punished."
There isn't Japan. Blind obedience went out of style in 1945, and should stay gone. We all know where that leads.
"A son who does not admonish an unreasonable father leads his family to ruin.", Confucius [paraphrased] again.
The 40 hour work week isn't even a luxury. It's required if you want some semblance of social stability. Industrialization was revolutionary in that tooling, factories, and infrastructure created an environment where work could happen 24/7/365. That doesn't mean it should, especially to the benefit of a few, at the cost of the livability of life for everyone else. Industry is meant to cure societal ills, not to act as a building block for exponential manufacture of new societal ills to be fixed by the very root cause of the original malaise.
I may not be Chinese, and may not fully understand current pan-Asian culture, but I weep at the tragedy I see unfolding whereby a culture seems to be cannibalizing itself into something nigh-unrecognizable from what it once was.
It seems to be happening everywhere nowadays.
> It’s a luxury for the already rich.
This sounds like you think it is an honor to boast about.
Korea had a different feel. It was more of a feeling of banding together and weathering the hard times for a brighter future. Korea doesn't really have natural resources, and they don't have a lot of manpower, so the only thing they can do is work massive hours. Now that the nation has achieved some kind of success, it's getting harder and harder to get the younger generation to buy into that mentality, in addition to the lack of jobs and security of the previous generations.
Do they all coordinate to get out of the way of each other’s photos, or how exactly does this work?
Either Bloomberg got a lot worse; or I was too dumb to realize how bad they were in the past.
Most people think fake news is reporting false information. But nowadays it’s relatively easy to fact-check something. Much more onerous is selecting facts to report on so as to tell a story that fits an agenda. It’s harder to recognize, and hey—it’s facts! What could go wrong?
No, it's opinions and editorializing. Because if all news that are made to fit an agenda are "fake news", all news would be "fake"
"Fake news" is just propaganda presented as "news."
Oh wait, no. The other thing. The thing about never trusting anything you read, especially if it was written by someone who has something to gain by manipulating your emotions.
reporters write stories. Those stories are judged on "traction" - how much interaction and general "buzz" they get. The more views, comments, shares, likes, etc, that a story gets, the better the journalist has done their job. Truth doesn't come into it. The best stories are the most controversial ones, because people share them more.
the paper gets paid for adverts and subscriptions. Adverts are viewed when people read stories. The stories that get the most views are controversial ones that people share.
All stories are passed through an editorial process. That process does things like correct typos and grammar mistakes, but it also edits for "punchiness" and potential engagement. It's very common for a "boring" story to get edited (or the journalist told to re-edit) to make it more interesting, more controversial, more engaging.
So by taking a fairly banal story of Jack Ma saying some obvious things, and editing it so that it appears that he's saying some outrageous things, the journalist gets the buzz they need, and the newspaper gets a bunch of "free" advert views when people share the story on social media.
No-one's lying - Jack Ma did say those things. The journalists involved can maintain a straight face while saying they're just reporting the truth. Meanwhile, everyone gets paid and they get another day in a very, very threatened industry. Jack Ma's pissed off, of course, but he's a billionaire, he can cope.
I mean I guess if I saw some proof of these claims I might change my mind, but at the moment it seems totally naive.
edit: Here's an article that discusses it (for the moment I'll just assume their anonymous sources are correct which is a bit ridiculous to assume coming from a rival news source):
https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...
> There's nothing wrong with a news story moving the market: It means a story is important.
I think this is really the key. Bloomberg's news is financial in nature. Basically any big story will have a market effect. So basically in this instance "moving the market" might just be equivalent to "being a big story". So if it's bad to give bonuses based upon market-moving stories, it's bad to give bonuses on big stories.
Regardless the whole thing side-steps the important question anyway. Are the articles they post actually true? That's the only thing people should concern themselves with.
They just know people will feel compelled to read their publications if they're consistently affecting the market.
Others reports this:
“No one likes working at a company that forces you to do ‘996’. Not only is it inhumane, it’s unhealthy and even more unsustainable for long periods – plus workers, relatives and the law do not approve of it,” he said. “In the long term, even if you pay a higher salary, employees will all leave.”
https://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-companies...
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
>“If you find a job you like, the 996 problem does not exist; if you’re not passionate about it, every minute of going to work is a torment,” Ma said in a post on his Weibo account on Sunday.
The point he's making is not that 996 is bad, he's saying it's bad for people who aren't passionate about what they do. It only works for people who are passionate about their jobs.
Now let's take that into consideration shall we, do you think he's saying that it's fine for you to turn up to BABA and do a 9-5 and tell your boss that you're not passionate enough to do 996? Hell No! In fact he says:
> if you’re not passionate about it, every minute of going to work is a torment
So here's the choice he's laying out - either you're passionate and you're happy to work 996 (and by corollary you need to work 996 to demonstrate your passion or commitment) or every moment is a torment and clearly you shouldn't be employed there.
So no, he's not endorsing forcing people to work 996. He's endorsing forcing people to pretend they want to work 996. Which by the way, isn't sustainable for most people no matter how passionate they are.
I think there's a lot of gray space between, that is actually fine. "I don't completely love the job, but it can be fun sometimes, and it pays the bills."
It sounds like something someone trying to manipulate you would say, if I think about it. The usual: "taking two extreme sides and creating a false dichotomy".