Rise up, people who are unwilling to be slaves, let us use legal weapons to protect our legitimate rights and interests!
In modern enterprise production and operation, influenced by seasonal fluctuations, employers often adopt flexible employment strategies, such as 'increasing staff during peak season and reducing staff during off-peak season.' However, when this adjustment evolves into 'the work of 3 people is undertaken by 2 people, with no reduction in per capita workload, yet the output salary inexplicably decreases by 1000 yuan,' this practice touches the red line of labor law. Workers have every reason to question its legality and carefully consider whether to initiate the 'forced resignation' process to protect their rights.
From a legal perspective, the core legality of such situations lies in the matching degree of 'labor remuneration' and 'working conditions.' First, according to (Labor Law) and (Minimum Wage Regulations), as long as workers provide normal labor within statutory working hours, their wages must not be lower than the local minimum wage standard. If a company unilaterally adjusts the piece rate or quota, resulting in a reduction of 1000 yuan in monthly income for workers while maintaining the original work intensity, or even falling below the minimum wage line, this evidently constitutes 'failure to timely and fully pay labor remuneration.'
Secondly, imposing the workload of 3 people on 2 people constitutes a substantial change in labor conditions. Recent judicial cases have clarified that although employers enjoy the autonomy of employment, changing positions or workloads must be reasonable and must not significantly increase the burden on workers. If a company forces employees to undertake excessive work using its advantageous position without providing corresponding compensation, this not only violates the original intention of the labor contract but also involves the use of 'work stoppage' or 'operational difficulties' as a guise for shifting operational risks.
In the face of such injustice, workers have legal grounds to initiate the 'forced resignation' process. According to Article 38 of the (Labor Contract Law), if the employer 'fails to timely and fully pay labor remuneration' or 'fails to provide labor protection or working conditions as stipulated in the labor contract,' the worker may terminate the labor contract. However, it should be noted that this is not a simple 'just leaving,' but must follow legal procedures.
Workers should first send a notice, clearly stating objections to the employer in written form (such as email, WeChat, EMS express), requesting to make up the wage difference or adjust unreasonable workloads, and retain relevant evidence. If the company refuses to correct within a reasonable timeframe, workers may issue a (notice of forced termination of labor contract) based on the aforementioned legal provisions, clearly stating the reason for resignation in the notice. This move aims to prove that the resignation is due to the employer's prior illegal actions, rather than personal reasons, thus laying a solid foundation for subsequent claims for economic compensation (N).
In summary, the business autonomy of enterprises should not override the legitimate rights and interests of workers. Beneath the surface of 'reducing staff and increasing efficiency' in the off-peak season, if there is hidden disguised exploitation of workers, the law will provide a negative assessment. When facing such dilemmas, workers should abandon the mentality of 'suffering in silence' and make good use of legal weapons to protect their dignity and interests through legal procedures, ensuring that the path to safeguarding rights is stable and long-lasting.