Terminating Your China Employee. It Ain't Easy....

Termination of employees in China definitely ranks among the things relatively smart American companies seem to get wildly wrong in China. And I intentionally said "American" here, not "Western," because I think this problem is mostly an American one.

I have previously written on the cultural disconnect between China and the US when it comes to terminating employees:

Last week, I attended co-blogger Steve Dickinson's lecture on China labor law. Steve's lecture was part of a truly superb Doing Business in China seminar put on by Global Nav. The thrust of Steve's speech was that labor laws in China have changed, they are being enforced against foreigners, and they are very different from U.S. labor laws. In a nutshell, the biggest differences are that written contracts with all employees are required in China and firing an employee generally must be for cause. Neither of these are true in the United States.

Judging from the audience questions (and this was an extremely sophisticated audience), many were surprised by this and many had trouble understanding the full import. A few days later, Steve and I were talking about this with the Chinese lawyers we work with in Qingdao. In explaining to them some of the cases we have handled for American clients who got themselves into trouble by improperly laying off Chinese employees, it soon became apparent to Steve and me that the Chinese lawyers were not grasping why these American companies were making these mistakes. They would ask questions like, "how could these American companies really believe they could lay off 100 people without first securing their approval and that of the government as well?" When Steve and I told them about US labor laws, the Chinese lawyers found them so bizarre, they actually laughed.

We told them of how there is a saying in the US that one can fire an employee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, just so long as the reason for firing is not one prohibited by law (such as racial or gender discrimination). We talked about how one might fire an employee for wearing a green shirt. We told them of how most employees in the United States do not work under written contracts and how companies generally prefer not to use them. It took us at least a half an hour for us to give a basic explanation of employer-employee relations in the US and even then, it was pretty clear that these exceedingly bright lawyers were still nonplussed.

It was a good exercise for Steve and me and only reinforced why it is that Americans (the labor laws in Europe are not so wildly different in China) in China so often act on Chinese employment law matters based on completely false assumptions as to how things are really done there.

Americans: Just remember, no matter how capitalist China seems, it still, on at least some level, aspires to be a workers paradise.

China's Labor Contract Law distinguishes between full and part time employees and this post is going to deal only with full time employee. This post is also going to focus only on the situation where the employer wants to end its relationship with its employee(s) and the employee(s) do not desire likewise, aka, unilateral termination.

Employers in China may terminate their employees without advance notice and without severance pay in very limited circumstances, such as when an employee has severely violated company rules, engaged in such a serious dereliction of duty or been so corrupt as to substantially damage the employer, established an employment relationship with another company, or become subject to a criminal investigation.

Because no law defines what constitutes either a severe violation or severe damage, it is essential for the company's employee manual to spell this out. Termination for these reasons does not require payment of severance whereas pretty much every other termination does.

With at least thirty days notice (or by paying one month's salary), an employer (at least in theory), may terminate employees for the following:

-- An employee's inability to perform his or her job after returning after the statutory medical treatment period for illness or a non-work related injury.

-- Clear incompetence that has not been remedied by additional training or reassignment to a new position. Do not even think about this exception unless you have built up an incredibly good written record stretching back quite some time.

--There has been a "material change" in "objective circumstances" such that the employment contracted for can no longer be performed. I am not aware of "material change" or "objective circumstances" having been defined anywhere, nor am I aware of any company having won on these grounds. I am guessing that along the lines of a tsunami shutting down the factory will be required to win on this provision.

Terminating twenty or more employees or more than ten percent of the total workforce has its own, additional requirements.

The point of this post is not to set out in detail the rules for firings in China; it is to point out that there are many rules in China related to firings and that those rules are complicated and/or vague. Firings in China should not be done without real planning and legal analysis.

US rules do not apply.

Comments (18)

Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the end
Anne - January 9, 2010 2:29 PM

In my experience, laying off 100 employees is categorically different from laying off 5. In the latter situation, cause is not needed as long as the regulatory and contractual notice and compensation are provided. Over 10 employees at one time constitutes a "layoff" that must be approved by the labor bureau as a matter of social policy, not really labor law. Where exactly the cutoff lies, I don't know.

William - January 9, 2010 8:14 PM

I hear a lot about Chinese college graduates having a hard time finding employment. Is the new labor law one of the reasons why? I know that France's similar laws making it hard to fire people for any reason have also resulted in high unemployment among young people.

Louis Godena - January 10, 2010 11:05 AM

Good article. But I wonder why you link to Reason Magazine. They of all people embody the general cluelessness of the boosters of "free market" (sic) capitalism toward what is really happening in China. Capitalism, left to its own devices, does not trend toward full employment or better wages; quite the opposite (the USA being the prime example). The Chinese already realize this. And, I suspect, now that the "honeymoon" of globalization is over, so will an increasing number of people here in the West.

Anonymous - January 10, 2010 1:18 PM

What you say just applies to foreign companies.
When it comes down to local companies, that will be a different story.

Matthew - January 10, 2010 5:06 PM

Dan,

A good point to also make would be that in capping severance (in respect of post-2008 service) to three times the average monthly wage (in Beijing about 11,600RMB, although one month is payable for every year of service) the exposure of companies is fairly limited under the law.

William,

Such an analysis would be appropriate if you could say that graduates in the US are finding it easy to find jobs. My understanding is that they are not. It is so difficult to find jobs for graduates in China simply because there is far too many universities pumping out graduates every year. It is simply a question of over supply of labor. There is no evidence to suggest that companies would are under hiring because of the labour laws.

Anonymous,

I dont know what you are referring to but these rules apply to all companies - foreign or domestic. I have acted for Chinese companies in employment disputes who have faced exactly the same issues.

Ben - January 10, 2010 5:15 PM

This country is still communist in so many interesting and surprising ways. No wonder so many people work at the Wal-Mart.

Maciej - January 10, 2010 6:21 PM

Do those rules also apply to foreigners employed by Chinese companies? Would the labor court (if there is any) treat a foreigner same way, as he would have a Chinese national?

Maciej - January 10, 2010 6:24 PM

Labor law in Poland also has a long history of protecting the employee, rather than the employer. Similar rules of "reasons" apply, and it is often VERY difficult, if possible, to "let go" an employee who is a Union's member. To hear the "You're fired" line, so famous in US movies, is very, very difficult.

Will - January 10, 2010 6:24 PM

Also worth noting is that angry, terminated employees have become better at wielding the media to air their grievances, especially (although not exclusively) where a foreign employer is involved. So from the PR side of the trench, consider the possible ramifications of having a terminated employee or employees take their story to the media, and how, in the context of the current labor law, you might respond to public accusations of improper dismissal. It can be tricky, especially considering the need to maintain appropriate confidentiality and the vagueness of many of the conditions in law. Many companies like to tell their "talent" story to the press, and poorly handling a situation like this can blow up months or years of cultivated reputation.

Twofish - January 11, 2010 5:38 AM

This really isn't an example of China being different but rather the US being different. Chinese labor law is very similar to most developed countries such as France and Germany. It's the US that has labor practices that most of the rest of the world thinks are weird.

Matthew - January 11, 2010 6:09 PM

I have to agree with Two Fish. Most jurisdictions I have worked in do not permit termination without cause (subject to certain exceptions). In my experience, it is generally far easier to terminate an employee in China than Australia.

Jay - January 11, 2010 7:09 PM

My experience is the exact opposite. We have lots of trouble finding qualified staff. One reason for that may be that my company doesn't really want to pay too much, but besides that, we just don't see the candidates out there. Job-hunts at the universities are very demoralizing affairs. For one, you have to get in very early (e.g. half a year to one year before they graduate) and even then most of the students with any skills are snapped up by 'famous' companies. What's left after that are those kids who get through university on hongbao and while their resume claims things like "fluent in English, pass CET-6 with top marks" they have trouble even with "hello", and that's their best subject, going downhill from there... So, yes, they do have trouble finding jobs. It's probably the same everywhere, to some extent. If you sleep your way through an arts-history degree then there's no job for you in a downturn (b.t.w. China's downturn is long since over) whereas if you worked very hard to get an engineering degree, for example, then you can pick and choose employers and jobs.
Our company has reverted to giving out a fat bonus to anybody who can get their friend to join us, and we sign them for a minimum of three years (workers having to pay a us a hefty penalty if they leave earlier).

Anonymous - January 12, 2010 2:56 AM

So if I have a salesman who has worked for me for 3 years and he is no longer meeting his performance targets (for whatever reason) and I want to dismiss him (her) and they want to stay, can I just dismiss him, pay the appropriate severance as laid out by the law, and be done with it. Or do I need to also prove he is worthless and not trying.

So what I am asking is that as long as I pay all the severance payments and follow the law, I can fire him with our and need to prove why I am firing him?

Dan - January 12, 2010 6:33 AM

Anne,

You are exactly right. Terminating 100 employees is very different (both legally and otherwise) from terminating five.

Dan - January 12, 2010 6:37 AM

William,

I do not know and I think something like that would need to be studied. I have heard people talk about it having a major impact, but I have always suspected those are just people who do not like the law.

Matthew - January 12, 2010 5:34 PM

Anonymous,

Yes, so long as you satisfy the legal requirements re compensation there should not be an issue. There may be an issue if the employee is pregnant.

SD - January 14, 2010 2:05 PM

Are there probational periods for work contracts? Could an employee be released for any reason during this period? What kind of compensation agreement would you need to get rid of a new hire that hasn't worked out during their probation?

Can the blog do a post on part-time employees?

abass - January 15, 2010 9:38 PM

I have to agree with Two Fish. Most jurisdictions I have worked in do not permit termination without cause (subject to certain exceptions). In my experience, it is generally far easier to terminate an employee in China than Australia.

Post a comment

Fill out this form to add a comment to the discussion
I'd like to leave a comment. is
,
is
,
is
is