Contents
主动选择996公司的人是不是真的是主动选择？
国家不能用暴力来保护996公司，否则员工就没有自由选择的权利。
首先，中国的互联网企业并不是真正的市场经济。
它们受到国家的各种干预和监管，比如法人股，国有股，网信办，市场监管总局等。阿里裁员还要经过人社部的批准。这些企业已经相当于半个国企了。
其次，中国的互联网企业也没有面对真正的竞争对手。
由于中国政府的保护主义政策，谷歌，脸书等国际巨头无法进入中国市场。如果没有这样的壁垒，腾讯，阿里可能早就被干趴下了。所以，员工不能选择谷歌这样的公司，只能在国内的互联网企业之间挑选。
再次，中国的员工也没有表达自由和维权自由。
他们不能公开发声反对996或者其他不合理的要求，因为没有新闻自由。他们也不能通过法律途径来维护自己的权益，因为没有独立司法。如果他们敢于起诉公司或者组织罢工，就会遭到跨省抓捕或者其他形式的打压。例如，欠薪上访就抓，出租司机罢工就抓，外卖骑手陈国江组织罢工就抓，起诉鸿茅药酒公司就像谭秦东这样的跨省抓捕。
综上所述，我认为中国的996现象并不是市场自由选择的结果，而是政府暴力和垄断资本共同作用的产物。员工没有真正的选择权和话语权，只能被迫接受996这样的劣币驱逐良币的规则。你不996，别的公司996你竞争不过。你食品不下毒，别人下毒成本低，你竞争不过。
休息权是人性化的要求，应该得到保障。但是要实现这一点，需要有规则保证大家都遵守契约，不能强迫员工加班；需要有自由博弈让员工和公司之间达成市场均衡；需要有表达自由和维权自由让员工能够捍卫自己的利益。
本文链接
英文翻译
Is the person who actively chooses 996 company really chooses actively?
The state cannot use violence to protect 996 companies, otherwise employees will not have the right to choose freely.
First of all, China’s Internet companies are not a real market economy.
They are subject to various interventions and supervisions by the state, such as legal person shares, state-owned shares, the Cyberspace Administration of China, and the State Administration for Market Regulation. Ali’s layoffs have to be approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. These enterprises are equivalent to half of the state-owned enterprises.
Second, China’s Internet companies have no real competitors.
Due to the government’s protectionist policies, international giants such as Google and Facebook cannot enter the Chinese market. Without such barriers, Tencent and Ali may have been defeated long ago. Therefore, employees cannot choose a company like Google, but can only choose among domestic Internet companies.
Thirdly, Chinese employees do not have freedom of expression and rights protection.
They cannot publicly speak out against 996 or other unreasonable demands, because there is no freedom of the press. They also cannot protect their rights and interests through legal means, because there is no independent judiciary. If they dare to sue the company or organize a strike, they will be arrested across provinces or suppressed in other ways. For example, arrests were made for unpaid petitions, taxi drivers went on strike, food delivery rider Chen Guojiang organized a strike, and the prosecution of Hongmao Pharmaceutical Liquor Company was arrested across provinces like Tan Qindong.
To sum up, I think the 996 phenomenon in China is not the result of the free choice of the market, but the product of the joint action of government violence and monopoly capital. Employees have no real right to choose and speak, and can only be forced to accept the 996 rule that bad money drives out good money. If you are not 996, you cannot compete with 996 from other companies. Your food is not poisoned, and the cost of poisoning others is low, so you can’t compete.
The right to rest is a human requirement and should be guaranteed. But to achieve this, there needs to be rules to ensure that everyone abides by the contract, and employees cannot be forced to work overtime; there needs to be a free game to achieve a market equilibrium between employees and the company; there needs to be freedom of expression and freedom of rights protection so that employees can defend their own interests.