Recently, a female Alibaba employee named Xu Chang posted that she was interrogated forcibly by three Alibaba quality control employees for 8 hours on December 24. During the interrogation, she was subjected to restrictions on personal freedom, intimidation, invasion of privacy, insults in words and deeds, resulting in great mental and physical injury in the past half months.
Xu Chang said that the reason for his interrogation was his work failure, suspected of cats fatigue with tremolo and taking kickbacks from KOL and so on.
Xu Changs explanation is: Shuang12 Marketing Department launched a trembler challenge project, and the top ten users who participated in the challenge and received the highest praise will get 1212 yuan WOM vouchers. During this period, in order to increase participation in the activities, I mobilized all my colleagues, friends and relatives around me to help jump together. At the end of the event, the winner list will be screened by tremolo and the final decision will be made by me.
Xu Chang said, Due to negligence in the work of the three lists did not carefully check, resulting in the form of their relativesaccounts, I immediately stopped the project after finding problems on Friday, awards were not issued, nor did any damage to the company. At the same time, the weekend and colleagues explicitly mentioned that Monday to talk to HR face-to-face about this matter, Monday to the company to see HR to explain the situation, was accused of blocking talk directly into the office for interrogation.
Xu Chang believes that, regardless of whether the charges are established or not, the quality control personnel have the right to lock me up as a prisoner for 8 hours for interrogation, restrict personal freedom, intimidate, infringe privacy, insult my words and deeds during the interrogation period, and raises the following seven questions:
Alibaba Public Relations Department staff provided Xu Changs department with a word-of-mouth operation posting response on the intranet on January 10, and said that this is the basis.
Yesterday, Ms. Xu Chang challenged her dismissal from WOM. I would like to state the following:
1. Xu Chang acted as the project manager in the marketing campaign of Shuang12 Short Video Platform in 2018. The 10 winners confirmed by the audit included three accounts of himself, his sister and his friends. These three word-of-mouth APP red envelopes should have been distributed to consumers for 1212 yuan a year. This is a serious violation, the company according to the provisions of the dismissal, never hiring penalty.
2. After the companys independent group complete resumption, the investigation neither restricts Xu Changs personal freedom, nor flips through her mobile phone computer without her permission, nor does it exist the so-called situation that the personal information of his mobile phone is monitored by the companys system. The company has never done this to its employees. The companys work software, Alirang, does not collect any personal privacy information about employees.
3. Ali has zero tolerance for internal corruption and always emphasizes full respect for employeespersonal rights and interests. We believe that these two aspects are our social responsibility and the basis for our long-term development.
Which is right or wrong?
A netizen suspected of Ali employees posted a message saying, Xu Changs Department posted a detailed background and the origin of the incident at about 22:20 p.m. on Jan. 10. In the current situation, the content of screenshots is biased, avoiding the heavy, not specifying the reasons for being talked about.
On the pulse of the social platform, other netizens who suspected Ali employees said similar things.
Another insider knows that Xu Chang avoids talking about the core causes, 10 winning lists, 3 are your family and friends, attributed to their high pressure, taking drugs caused. My art student is not sensitive to numbers. As a marketing communication practitioner, he was dismissed because he won a false prize. He took a screenshot and found a bunch of marketing trumpets on Weibo. He emphasized that unmarried female employees, three men were eye-catching and insulted the company.
Some netizens said that, regardless of whether Xu Chang made any work mistakes or not, there were two points of concern in the incident. One was whether the quality control personnel restricted Xu Changs personal freedom, intimidated him, violated his privacy, insulted him by words and deeds. Second, whether Ali has the behavior of recording or recording the personal mobile phone operation of employees, as Xu Chang said.
Xu Chang is a word of mouth operator in Ali. In recent years, Alis management of bribery, abuse of power, occupation and other issues of operators has become increasingly stringent, and the case of book court has occurred from time to time.
On January 19, 2018, the Peoples Court of Yuhang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, opened a court hearing and made a first-instance judgment in the case of Tianmaos bribery acceptance by Li two days before the first elementary school. It recognized that he was a company worker who illegally accepted other peoples property and property by taking advantage of his position and seeking benefits for others. The amount of the judgment was relatively large. His act constituted the crime of accepting bribes by non-state workers and sentenced him to two yearsimprisonment And confiscate 420,000 yuan of illegal income.
Tianli used to be a sophomore of Tianmaos computer assembly business. From 2016 to 2017, he received many benefits from businesses and took advantage of his position to give them care. In this case, Alibaba closed seven shops involved in the case in accordance with the Unfair Profit-making Clause of Article 69 of the Tianmao Rules.
On April 22, 2016, Alibabas Ministry of Integrity issued a circular in its internal system that a senior operating Commissioner of the Tianmao Business Department was taken away by the police and detained criminally on suspicion of bribery by non-state staff members. The announcement shows that the senior operational commissioner is responsible for the category of fast-growing consumer goods in Tianmao Business Department.
At the beginning of 2016, some media exposed a number of facts about the bribery of Taobao Junior 2. Alibaba Group announced by open letter that 22 shops on the platform would be closed permanently for profit by improper means. In March 2015, 26 illegal stores were declared permanently closed by Ali on suspicion of bribing Junior Two.
Among the cases involving the crime of occupancy, Kongqi, vice president of Ali Film Industry and general manager of ticket-hunting in December 2016, is more well-known for the case of intercepting the return of operators. Public information shows that Kong Chi carved the seal of Alipay and Taobao. The two operators, Wuxi Boda and Wuxi bostle, have returned about 1 million 900 thousand yuan. Subsequently, Kongqi was taken away by the police.
Zhang Yue, a lawyer at Beijing Jingan Law Firm, told TIME Finance and Economics that large enterprises such as Ali, Jingdong and Huawei generally have anti-corruption departments, which may work closely with the local administrative departments and generally pay more attention to keeping pace in the process of inquiry. If Xu Changs statement is true, we should judge whether Ali is guilty of illegal detention, infringement on citizensprivacy, insult and defamation according to the specific extent of the incident. Generally speaking, however, eight hours does not constitute illegal detention.
Zhang Yue also said that if Alis statement is true, Xu Changs related acts cause the companys economic losses, and the amount involved meets the standard set by the city where the company is located for the crime of occupying positions, Xu Chang constitutes the crime of occupying positions. If there are anti-corruption clauses in Alis labor contract with Xu Chang, then Ali has the right to dismiss Xu Chang. (George Time Finance)
Source: Beijing Time Responsibility Editor: Wang Fengzhi_NT2541