Paid in, unpaid
My wife’s company paid her social insurance on time, every single month, and did not pay her wages for a year. In the end she was forced out. To this day, the wages and compensation it owes her add up to more than 200,000 yuan. Not one yuan has arrived.
At first glance this looks like a contradiction: how can one company obey the law and break it at the same time? Then I understood — it isn’t a contradiction, it is an allocation. She is spending its compliance budget where the regulator is strongest. Behind social insurance there is a machine that compares data by itself and raises an alarm by itself. Behind wage payment there is still the machine that does not start until you come and file. The two run at such different power that of course a firm complies with the one that is switched on.
On the insurance line, the cost of noticing is not on you
In 2018 the reform of the state and local tax administration moved all social insurance contributions to the tax authority to collect. The Ministry of Finance’s 2019 package on cutting insurance rates said the change would proceed “one province at a time, as each one matures”. On 1 November 2020 Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, Shenzhen and a long list of others put enterprise social insurance under tax collection. What changed was not only the cashier; it was a new pair of eyes. The tax authority holds personal income tax filings, insurance enrolment and an enterprise’s total wage bill at the same time, so headcount against enrolment against base against total can be cross-checked. When the deviation is large enough, the system calls on its own — nobody has to report anything.
The penalty is hard-edged too. Article 86 of the Social Insurance Law: an employer that fails to pay contributions in full and on time is ordered to pay or top up within a limit, and from the date of default a late fee of five ten-thousandths of the amount per day is added; if it still does not pay, the administrative department fines it not less than one and not more than three times the unpaid amount. Beyond that, tax credit, tender eligibility and financing qualifications are wired into the same record.
I reduce that line to one sentence: for the firm, dodging costs more than paying. So nobody fails to pay social insurance. It isn’t conscience. It’s that they don’t dare.
On the wage line, somebody else holds the starter key
Wages are not the tax authority’s direct case; they belong to labour inspection and labour arbitration. The problem was never that nobody is in charge. The problem is how that machinery is started: it waits for a complaint, and every step of it spends the individual.
The protective clauses really are on paper. Article 85 of the Labour Contract Law: where remuneration is not paid in full and on time, the labour administration orders payment within a limit, and if the employer still does not pay it is ordered to add compensation to the worker of not less than 50% and not more than 100% of the amount due. Article 27 of the Law on Mediation and Arbitration of Labour Disputes: while the employment relationship still subsists, an arbitration application over unpaid remuneration is not subject to the one-year limitation (though once the relationship ends, the year starts running). Article 47: claims for remuneration not exceeding twelve months of the local monthly minimum wage are settled by a final award. Article 276-1 of the Criminal Law even makes it a crime to evade paying workers’ remuneration by transferring assets, going to ground, or simply refusing when you can pay.
None of those clauses starts by itself. The extra compensation under Article 85 requires that an order to pay was issued and ignored — so first you must get the administration to order, then prove the deadline passed. The criminal article has the same gate built into its elements: the authorities must have ordered payment and the employer must still have refused. In front of every protection there is a door you have to open yourself.
What actually finishes people is not “the law is on the other side”. It’s five concrete holes: no contract and no attendance record, so the employment relationship and the wage standard can’t even be established; the company renames itself, the owner goes to ground, the assets were moved months ago; and even if you win, execution runs into a balance sheet with nothing on it, and the judgment becomes paper.
On the insurance line, the system finds you first. On the wage line, you have to find the company first, then prove it. The startup cost and the burden of proof are not in the same order of magnitude.
Wages rank first in the queue. The queue is empty
There is one place people quote to prove the law protects workers, and I’ll spell out its mechanism, because spelled out it makes you angrier.
Article 113 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law: after bankruptcy costs and common-benefit debts are paid, the first rank belongs to the wages the bankrupt enterprise owes its employees, together with medical, disability and survivor expenses and the basic pension and medical costs that should have been credited to employees’ personal accounts; the second rank takes the remaining social insurance costs and taxes owed; the third rank takes ordinary creditors. On paper, wages outrank the taxman.
But that ranking lives inside bankruptcy. First, a rank only matters if there is an estate — secured creditors take their collateral, bankruptcy costs and common-benefit debts are taken out on top, and what is left is often a rented office and a few second-hand laptops. Second, most firms that owe wages never enter bankruptcy at all. They simply lie there. You sue, you apply for execution, and now you are in execution procedure, where what counts is who froze the account first — nobody asks who was owed a salary.
So the truth is not that the law put labour claims behind others. It is that it put them in the front row, and the front row has nothing in it. Ranking is fairness on paper. Assets are fairness in fact.
Not being able to afford the wait is not an accident — it is designed cost
Most workers do not fail to defend their rights because they don’t know them. They did the arithmetic. Arbitration takes time, litigation takes time, execution takes time; taking unpaid leave to stand at a window is money, gathering evidence is money, travelling is money. A company may owe you a year; the process may take longer than the year. The firm lives exactly on that gap: it waits you out until you give up, until the evidence rots, until it has swapped the shell.
Now compare a thing that has already been proved doable. In construction, there is a wage guarantee deposit. Article 32 of the Regulation on Guaranteeing Payment of Migrant Workers’ Wages, in force since 1 May 2020, requires the general contractor of a project to place a wage guarantee deposit, earmarked to pay the wages that migrant workers on that project were owed; the same line of rules adds a system in which subcontractors’ migrant workers’ wages are paid on their behalf by the general contractor, with work assessed monthly and wage ledgers drawn up.
Which means: “the firm collapses and the people who worked there still get paid” is not something China lacks a method for — it is something a method was built for in exactly one industry. Why that one? Because when migrant workers aren’t paid they block the site and climb the scaffolding, and that becomes an incident. Wage arrears in an office tower don’t block anything. They make one person quietly take a lower-paid job.
Whether anyone has your back depends on whether your absence causes a scene. That is ugly to write, but it is the only conclusion you get when you lay the two tracks side by side.
One year, the whole country, 650,000 people
The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security’s Statistical Bulletin on Human Resources and Social Security Development 2024: during the year, 137,000 labour-law violation cases were investigated and settled, and 8.65 billion yuan in wages was recovered for 654,000 workers.
Now divide, to see the other side. 8.65 billion over 654,000 people is about 13,200 yuan each. My wife’s company alone owes more than 200,000 — fifteen people’s worth of what the machine recovered per head. Put those two numbers together and they say one thing: the machine recovered for 650,000 people in a year, so it is not standing still; but what it recovered averaged thirteen thousand yuan a head, which tells you it mostly recovers the small, short, well-documented cases at companies that still exist. The big ones, the old ones, the ones whose company is already hollow, fall outside the 137,000. They were not “unowed”. They were never filed, never taken up, or filed and still empty-handed.
Asking the taxman to pay wages is unrealistic. Asking him to see the arrears is not
I won’t ask for the tax authority to pay workers’ wages. That’s unrealistic and the wrong division of labour. I’m asking something else: make unpaid wages generate system cost, the way unpaid contributions do.
Five items, and none of them is new:
- Connect the data. Keep pushing wage-payment data against income-tax filings and insurance enrolment, and raise an alarm on your own for firms that show “insurance paid, no wage flow” for months on end — instead of waiting for complaints.
- Make inspection data-triggered, not complaint-triggered. If the tax side can compute it, inspection should be pushed out of the building to act on it, rather than sitting behind a window waiting for someone to arrive.
- Make the credit consequences bite. Let arrears block tenders, financing and licences, so dodging again costs more than paying — the same logic that made the insurance line work.
- Extend the deposit and wage-guarantee funds beyond construction. Today only a handful of cities run their own arrears guarantee funds; the overwhelming majority of workers have no advance-payment channel at all when the company has no assets.
- Cut the time cost of arbitration and execution. Make “you can’t afford the wait” useless as a corporate strategy.
Nothing in those five needs inventing. The parts of the insurance track already exist. Move the connector over to wages and it runs.
But it won’t happen, because the referee and the defendant share one table
Here I can’t keep the clean tone of the rest. The reason those five items don’t move isn’t technical. Nobody has the incentive.
I have quoted that line from Planted in Reality many times; I’ll quote it again: one of a local government’s most important objectives is attracting and keeping investment. Tax base, jobs, keeping the firm from moving, a good-looking report. And what is labour inspection? It’s the department that tells the firm “you may not do this” — and its staffing, its budget and its performance review all sit in the hands of that same level of government.
When the hand that says “no” is holding the bowl that must keep this company here, the volume of that “no” was fixed in advance. This isn’t anyone’s character. It’s their position. I have watched this daily for two years inside an outsourcing firm: a stack of rules, every clause written from the company’s side, the employee’s interest something “nobody mentions and nobody cares about”; when they hire you you are talent, when they cut costs you are the line marked cost. Arrears and lay-offs are the same entry in the same ledger: push the cost onto the person who cannot afford to carry it.
So I don’t believe this line will harden on its own. Every time it has hardened in the past, it wasn’t because somebody wanted to protect workers. It was because not protecting them started causing incidents. That’s where the construction deposit came from.
The overachiever and the unpaid wage are the same thing at both ends
I hate the word “involution champion” — what I hate is somebody else’s incentive function trying to take over my life. I also hate wage arrears — what I hate is that a firm’s compliance function is loyal only to whichever regulator is strong. It isn’t loyal to your mortgage, to your child’s tuition, to your mother’s medicine. It answers only to the machine that can fine it.
Both come down to the same thing: when institutional cost can be shifted onto an individual, the individual is consumed again and again.
What I can offer someone in the same position is a short list of small actions. I’ll write it out:
- Keep the evidence. The contract, the staff card, attendance and clock-in records (screenshots from DingTalk or WeCom count), payslips and bank statements, the social insurance contribution record, work group chats, emails, shift rosters.
- Run the whole procedure. Complain to labour inspection first and keep the receipt that they accepted it, then apply for arbitration — the “50% to 100%” additional compensation in Article 85 exists only after an order to pay has been ignored. Without that order, that corridor is shut.
- Don’t wait. While you are still employed, evidence is easy to reach; after you leave, you can’t even log in to half the systems. And once the employment relationship ends, you have one year.
These actions raise your chance of winning. They do not guarantee you get the money. Writing them up as “claim your rights and it will come back to you” is doing that machine a favour.
Last line
You can tell how a society treats the people who work in it, not by the slogans it puts up, but by which line it connects its strongest enforcement machine to.
Right now that machine is bolted to social insurance. On the wage side there is still only a person — finding it out alone, proving it alone, and burning their own time alone.
That gap is the loophole itself. And it takes no guessing at all to see who is served by it.
评论
0 条评论