Things need to be changed in the workplace – (9)

This is the last part – Part 9 of this article. Read Part 8 of this article here.

*Note:
1. Throughout the article, the phrase “the business field” or “the business world” means the whole society where people join the workforce. It does NOT only represent people who work in a business-type position, but also every people who work in office jobs.
2. Throughout the article, “Boss” only refers to the CEO or the owner of the company; it does not refer to the “Supervisor” who is not a CEO but manages some employees. “Boss” and “Supervisor” is different in the article as above describes.
3. Throughout the article, “employers” is referred to the boss, hiring manager, and HR. It is NOT only referred to as a boss or an owner of a company.
4. When there is a situation in the article that is not specifically pointed out as “the situation in Taiwan”, this situation also occurs in the West.

18. Different Pay For The Same Job Between employees with Master’s Degrees and employees with Bachelor’s Degrees In Taiwan

The Car Allowance Case

In an article from PTT, an online discussion forum in Taiwan, a former employee of ASML, a Netherlands company, wrote about the pay of ASML and the work situation in ASML. One thing particularly caught my attention, although the author did not notice anything wrong regarding that thing: The amount of the car allowance of the Customer Service Engineer for visiting clients varies depending on what level of degree you possess. If you only have a Bachelor’s degree, you get TWD$10K; if you have a Master’s Degree, you get TWD$15K^[1]https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1437744673.A.1A8.html . Such a difference in the amount of car allowance depending on the level of degree in ASML probably comes from the common practice in Taiwanese companies that employees get different pay for the same job to vary based on the level of degree they possess. I don’t agree with this way. This seems ridiculous to me.

First, I am not sure if the commuting expense of an employee for visiting clients is additionally reimbursed for one’s actual expenses by ASML in this case, except for the car allowance described in this article on PTT as a regular allowance with a fixed amount given to employees without requiring the receiver to account for how it is spent. In addition, the company could also cover the exceeding car allowance for employees when the actual expenditure of visiting clients exceeds the regular car allowance with a fixed amount. Anyway, because the article writes that this allowance is for visiting clients and varies based on whether a job type has a frequent need to visit clients or not, suppose the company does not cover all of the commuting expenses, this difference in the amount of the car allowance based on the level of degree will be ridiculous.
The car allowance for business trips and visiting clients should be either given on how much it is needed and actually spent, not a fixed amount that won’t be changed, and not given the same amount of money regardless of job level and job type, unless “all of” the expenditure of commuting for visiting clients will still be paid by the company while it’s just a regular allowance for every employee. For instance, suppose a Customer Service Engineer actually spent $30K to visit clients this month, she/he should get $30K instead of getting only $15K or $10K regularly to subsidize her/his expenditure and cover the exceeding expenditure with his/her salary. In another instance, suppose there is an engineer who only has a Bachelor’s Degree and spent $20K on the commuting expense of visiting clients 20 times this month, while the other engineer who has a Master’s Degree also spent $20K on the commuting expense of visiting clients 20 times this month, why does someone have to pay more himself/herself for doing the work that the company requires him/her to do only because he/she doesn’t have a Master’s degree? Even if someone’s position is a job type that is different from an engineer’s and rarely has business trips – for example: An administrator, why does that person have to pay more herself/himself when she/he is required to visit clients and spent the equal amount of money? It’s ridiculous. Because different levels of value to a company that different people bring, salaries vary depending on positions, but a commuting fee is not like salaries; a commuting fee for visiting clients is a fee that should be reimbursed equally regardless of job level or job type. Treat every employee equally: Just pay all of the expenditures from every employee on visiting clients or pay the same amount of commuting fee for every employee.

Second, suppose the case is the first possibility that I describe at the beginning of the first point: “The car allowance described in this article on PTT is a regular allowance with a fixed amount paid to employees without requiring the receiver to account for how it is spent, but the expense of an employee for visiting clients is additionally reimbursed for one’s actual expenses by the company”, the regular car allowance with a fixed amount among employees still needs to be paid equally to employees regardless of whether an employee possesses a Master’s Degree or not, as long as they are in the same position. If a person whose position is different gets a different amount of regular car allowance – For example, an administrator gets a lower regular car allowance, or a VP gets a higher regular car allowance, that’s understandable to some extent: Because the commuting expenses for visiting clients is additionally paid by the company; the higher amount of regular car allowance here is a type of extra benefits that are given to higher-ranking employees. However, if there are two employees doing the same job since it’s named “Car Allowance”, why should there be any difference in “the amount of car allowance” when people are having the same level and type of job position, simply because someone possesses a Master’s degree while the other person doesn’t? It’s ridiculous. If you really value employees with Master’s degrees over employees with Bachelor’s degrees, the difference in pay should only exist in the salary, not in the “regular car allowance”, as both people are having the same level and type of job position.

Different Base Salary For The Same Job Based On The level of Degree

Let’s talk about another common different treatment in Taiwan based on the level of degree an employee possesses: Employees in Taiwanese companies get different base salaries for the same Job based on the level of degree. In a job review on Glassdoor from an American engineer who works in TSMC, a Taiwanese semiconductor company, the American engineer writes, “They overvalue education here. So if you have a Ph.D., this place will definitely overpay you for it and you start as a principal engineer.” As his explanation only covers a small aspect of the situation, here is a detailed explanation: Principal engineer is a type of engineer that is higher-ranking than an entry-level engineer^[2]https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1445839936.A.E32.html . If someone has a Ph.D., he will be hired as a principal engineer at the beginning in many Taiwanese companies even if he doesn’t have any work experience, and therefore his/her salary will be higher than entry-level engineers^[3]https://www.dcard.tw/f/tech_job/p/238694884  ^[4]https://www.dcard.tw/f/tech_job/p/238250405 ^[5]https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=651&t=4089891. What is missing in this job review but equally important is that there is a difference in base salary for the same job in the same ranking based on the level of degree in TSMC and many other Taiwanese companies, when other conditions among candidates are equal. I partly agree with this American engineer’s thought: TSMC overvalues education. In my view, not only TSMC, many companies in Taiwan overvalue education, including Taiwanese company TSMC and the Taiwan subsidiary of the Netherlands company ASML.

Before I start, I need to clarify one thing. What I want to discuss here is not the Ph.D. case that the American engineer talks about, although it is indeed a topic that is worth to be discussed. Some people indeed get higher salaries with a Ph.D. in the U.S because they are hired in high-ranking positions with a Ph.D., not a position that entry-level engineers do. For example, TSMC’s case that freshmen with a Ph.D. can be hired as Principal Engineer at the beginning is similar to the case I am mentioning here that someone with a Ph.D. is hired in high-ranking positions. Such a case including TSMS’s Principal Engineer case is not the topic I want to discuss here. Here what I want to discuss is the case that the difference in base salary for the same job in the same ranking based on the level of degree in TSMC and other Taiwanese companies, when other conditions among candidates are equal.
Ok, let’s discuss the issue now: Many companies in Taiwan overvalue education, including Taiwanese company TSMC and the Taiwan subsidiary of the Netherlands company ASML.

First, certainly that if someone possesses a Harvard degree while the other person doesn’t, the employee with a Harvard degree may get a higher salary, even if doing the same job, because that person is from Harvard – She/He probably is smarter and probably can contribute more value to the company than her/his colleagues do even in the same position. However, treating an employee with a Master’s degree and an employee with a Bachelor’s degree is not the case. What is the difference in “value” to the company between an employee with a Master’s degree can bring and an employee with a Bachelor’s degree can bring when “doing the same job”? In many cases in Taiwan, there is no difference. For example, the major and common difference between a student studying for a Master’s degree and a student studying for a Bachelor’s degree in Taiwan is that the student study a Master’s degree has to write a thesis independently without writing it with a group of peers to graduate, while the student studying a Bachelor’s degree in some cases don’t have to write a thesis at all, or can write a thesis with a group of peers even if she/he is required to write a thesis. Is there any difference in value brought to the company between someone who can write a thesis independently and someone who can’t write a thesis when both are doing the same job as entry-level engineers? No. There is no difference in many cases, as they are only “entry-level” engineers. In some cases, according to the tasks that are required in the jobs, some jobs may need someone who has experience in writing a thesis to perform the job; the employee with a Master’s degree certainly can be offered a higher salary in such a case. However, in many cases, tasks that are required in many jobs don’t need someone who has experience in writing a thesis to perform the jobs; the crucial knowledge and skills required by such jobs lie in other aspects that are “irrelevant to“ writing a thesis or a Master’s degree. Hence, the difference in the base salary for the same job based on the level of degree is meaningless; it is actually unfair treatment for employees who don’t have a Master’s or higher degree.

Second, suppose that you still think that someone with a Master’s degree possesses deeper knowledge or better skills that is required to perform the job than someone with only a Bachelor’s degree does for some reason, here are two things you need to do:
One, during an interview, you should evaluate whether a candidate with only a Bachelor’s degree or lower-level degree possesses the deeper knowledge or skills possessed by candidates with a Master’s degree that are required for this job. If a candidate indeed possesses such knowledge or skills, you should just give him/her the salary that an employee with a Master’s degree gets, as the candidate already proves he/she possesses the relevant deeper knowledge and skills that are required. Although schools don’t teach that knowledge or that skill, maybe the candidate learns it in other ways.
Two, even if you can’t identify whether a candidate with only a Bachelor’s degree or lower-level degree possesses the deeper knowledge or skills possessed by candidates with a Master’s degree that are required for this job, after a certain amount of time, you should increase the base salary of an employee with a Bachelor’s degree to the amount that is as same as / higher than the salary of the employee with a Master’s degree if his/her work performance is as good as or better than the work performance of an employee with a Master’s degree. Otherwise, you are treating your employees to an unfair standard, as the employee already uses his/her abilities to prove he/she is as good as employees with Master’s degrees, or maybe even better than them. Although many Taiwanese companies do consider relevant work experience to evaluate the base salary when a candidate has relevant work experience, such unfair treatment still exists to some extent, according to an article on the Internet ^[6]https://ptthito.com/tech_job/m-1527896728-a-db6/ .

Given the above reasons, many companies in Taiwan indeed overvalue education. Except for the unfair treatment, I additionally have an important point to make regarding this issue here.

As I mentioned earlier, such unfair treatment happens not only in TSMC (a Taiwanese company), but also in other Taiwanese companies and some Taiwanese subsidiaries of Western companies, including ASML, a Netherlands company. It’s highly possible that the difference in salary and car allowance is designed by Taiwanese HRs, not Netherland HRs, as paying different salaries to employees in the same position based on the level of degree they possess is a common practice in Taiwanese companies. Let’s focus on the difference in base salary here, the difference in base salary for the same job shouldn’t exist. ( Although whether a commuting expense for visiting clients is additionally reimbursed for one’s actual expenses by the Netherlands company or not is a question, the car allowance shouldn’t have such a difference between employees who do the same job and in the same ranking, too. )

The design of the difference in base salary is a problem. The Netherlands headquarter probably gives Taiwanese HRs full freedom to design the salary and benefits of employees in the Taiwanese subsidiary. However, such a design of salary rules is a disaster. Because the such design of salary rule comes from some Taiwanese companies, and the common practice of these Taiwanese companies is just bad when giving different salaries to different people for the same job based on the level of degrees, such a design of salary rule is an unfair treatment while employees in the headquarter or other Western subsidiaries have a much fair treatment. Accordingly, such a design of salary rules undermines the rights and interests of many Taiwanese employees. The only people who benefit from such a design of salary are probably Taiwanese HRs, as they can design the rule of salary and the benefit from scratch – It’s quite good work for HRs.

Because such a design of salary rule undermines the rights and interests of many Taiwanese employees who receive unfair treatment, I suggest that the Netherlands headquarters of ASML and any other headquarter of Western companies must review and make adjustments to the salary and the benefits of subsidiaries in other countries. You shouldn’t give HRs in other countries full freedom to design the salary and the benefits; you can still let local HRs freely design the salary and the benefits, but you have to review, think independently, and make adjustments if something is wrong or even totally revoke the design if the whole thing is trash – You can’t just approve whatever they design and think it suits local culture because local HRs may not do a great job and therefore undermine the rights and interests of employees, or local HRs may apply their past experience from local companies, but sometimes the local practice in some countries may be illogical and a disaster, and undermines the rights and interests of some employees which they deserve to have.

19. Fight Against Work Discrimination

An American on Quora said, “My boss asked me to get lunch for him and a couple of other coworkers. He gave me money to pick it up. Apparently, he was lazy and wanted to see if I was a people-pleaser. I did it that one time. I thought maybe that would be the end of it…The next day he asked again.” The American said to his boss, “I guess you need to find another gopher”. The boss asked, “How badly do you want this job?” The person said, “I don’t need it that badly and I can report you to the union for harassment”. The boss started getting his own lunch. ^[7]https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-weirdest-non-work-related-thing-that-your-boss-has-said-to-you/answer/Steve-Beebe-5?ch=99&share=0509c585&srid=uzPvp 

Judging from this Quora answer, there are some ugly discriminations at workplaces that are irrelevant to race or gender even in the U.S, but this American fought back and got back the dignity he deserved. The point I want to make for this topic is very short and simple:
First, I have seen many Taiwanese just tolerate and accept it. Words to Taiwanese: Just fight back if you can when you receive harassment or discrimination at work. This American is a good example. Even if your company doesn’t have such a union, you can report it with evidence to a higher-ranking supervisor or the boss. In the worst case, you can leave, because there are already many Taiwanese who won’t do such a terrible thing to other colleagues. Whatever way in the above is better than tolerating such discrimination, as you shouldn’t tolerate such discrimination.
Second, as such discrimination or harassment shouldn’t be accepted at all, Taiwanese bosses and high-ranking Taiwanese executives should ditch the old traditional concept: Tolerance and they should fire employees who harass or discriminate against other employees when someone reports with evidence.

20. Fight Against The Labor issues in Taiwan

A councilor in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, Jie Huang said on Facebook, “A few days ago, I received a complaint from a civilian that a long-term care organization in Kaohsiung was suspected of not paying wages and not insuring its employees with labor and health insurances, blatantly violating various labor laws and regulations and treating them as if they were nothing! I asked Labor Bureau to inspect the situation and found that 9 out of the 21 employees registered in the organization did not have labor and health insurance and the salary of one of them was underreported^[8]https://www.facebook.com/FongshanHuangjie/posts/560040428813829 .” The councilor immediately contacted Labor Bureau to protect the rights and the benefits of the employees in that organization. A Taiwanese replied to the post, “There are many companies in Nantou that violate the Labor Law, but no civil representative is willing to supervise the county government to face the problem directly, and what’s even more ridiculous is that the contractor of the Labor Department even sent the information of the whistleblower to the employer by mistake, which led to the exposure of the whistleblower. The Nantou Independent Commission Against Corruption unit said there was no way to check if there was proof of interest, but only the employees could testify with evidence, or maybe there were too many cases and the address of the whistleblower and the whistleblower were mistakenly planted. It is because the Nantou County government is not committed to labor rights, and the Nantou County legislators are not committed to it, either. That’s why there are so many cases in which the contractors are so tired that they send the letters to the wrong addresses. Perhaps these government officers and legislators are afraid that if they offend the bad bosses of middle-size and small-size organizations, it will be difficult to raise election funds afterward.”

Not only the long-term care organization in Kaohsiung and organizations in Nantou, but Taiwanese organizations in many counties also violate the Labor law in Taiwan and undermine the rights and benefits of employees; it’s a common problem in Taiwan. Here is my suggestion.

First, unlike the Nantou case that the replier points out, many Taiwanese employees do not think of reporting to Labor Bureau. They only think of “tolerance” because of two reasons:
One, many Taiwanese employees lack knowledge that they can report to Labor Bureau when their rights and benefits as laborers are undermined.
Two, the traditional concept in many Taiwanese minds when encountering unpleasant matters is “tolerance”. This way of thinking more often happens in old Taiwanese, though some young Taiwanese have similar thoughts. One suggestion: Why don’t you fight back by reporting to Labor Bureau with evidence when you don’t even get the minimum wage in Taiwan, you aren’t insured with labor or health insurance, or you receive other bad treatments that violate labor law? Some Taiwanese often complained that the Labor Law in Taiwan has become an empty one, but the truth is that some of them never report their cases with evidence to Labor Bureau. Let me ask you: How will Labor Bureau know a company in Taiwan violates labor law when no one reports that? Also, your boss didn’t give you even the minimum wage in Taiwan; it’s still pretty obvious to everyone who never study laws that this behavior violates one of the laws in Taiwan even if you never read any word of the Labor law in Taiwan, isn’t it? Moreover, the minimum wage in Taiwan is often written with the word “the law-regulated”. Since it’s “the law-regulated”, your boss violates one of the laws in Taiwan when he/she didn’t give you at least the minimum wage in Taiwan.
If you don’t know whether the bad treatment you receive violates the labor law in Taiwan or not, you can always consult with Labor Bureau by calling or writing an email to Labor Bureau. The contact information of the Labor Bureau can be obtained by Googling and visiting the website of the Labor Bureau. Even if you are too old to think of Googling and visiting the website of the Labor Bureau, why don’t you try the old-fashioned way: Call directory inquiries or check out the telephone Directory of Taiwan to get the phone number of the Labor Bureau? You simply never think of trying or don’t dare to try. If you don’t try, your bosses will keep treating you badly.
In addition, the Nantou case that the reported cases in Nantou are often mistakenly sent to the employers is indeed terrifying if the speculated reason is true; however, even if the speculated reason is true, it’s possible that other counties don’t have such a problem. Why don’t you just report to Labor Bureau with evidence when you receive bad treatments that violate labor laws?
In conclusion, let me emphasize again: Just report to Labor Bureau with evidence when you don’t even get the minimum wage in Taiwan, you aren’t insured with labor or health insurance, or you receive other bad treatments that violate labor law.

Second, except for reporting a case with evidence to Labor Bureau on your own, you can also report to Labor Bureau with your colleagues together. Such unity can prevent a boss from targeting a specific individual or firing him/her, so please unite in such a case of undermining the rights and benefits of laborers. Also, the unity will gather more evidence and make a strong force to make the officials in Labor Bureau examine your case more carefully. As I said, you simply never try it, or you don’t dare to try.
One example worth mentioning, I once saw that a Taiwanese said on the Internet that his colleagues and he collectively reported to Labor Bureau that their employer (boss) did not give them the minimum wage in Taiwan; however, although Labor Bureau came and fined their employer, the fine was very small, and the employer decreased their wages in the next month to “compensate” the salaries he was asked to give employees by Labor Bureau previously. Therefore, the Taiwanese complained that reporting to Labor Bureau is useless. Although the problem is that the boss, in this case, is really bad, let me ask you: Since your salary decreased to “compensate” for the salary of last month that finally meets the amount of the minimum wage, your salary for this month which decreased must not meet the minimum wage. Then why don’t you just report the case “AGAIN” and particularly mention in the report that because your employer “decrease” the salaries to “compensate” the salaries of last month he was asked to give employees by Labor Bureau, your salary in the next month did not meet the minimum wage? Report your case “again and again” and let the Labor Bureau fine “again and again” to make your employer not dare to violate the law again, then your employer will finally regularly at least give you the minimum wage. It’s your right as a laborer. The Labor law in Taiwan may have some flaws so that the employers receive very insignificant amounts of fines or punishment and therefore dare to keep exploiting employees after then; nevertheless, for this case that I mentioned here, except for the fine being small, the employer also thought Labor Bureau won’t examine again as the case is finished with fine. So you can always report your case “again and again” to make your employer not dare to violate the law again.

Third, even if the officials from Labor Bureau did not deal with your case properly or the Labor law in Taiwan has some flaws, you can still try to report your case with evidence and the company’s real name to the media when your case is severe, either anonymously or with your real name. If your case is about you aren’t paid at least the minimum wage or you aren’t insured with labor and health insurance, your case is severe, as these are all very “basic” things that an employer (boss) should do. Let the public and the media condemn that company until the boss apologizes and is willing to fix the mistakes so that your company or your boss won’t dare to exploit you again. If your case is about there is a flaw in the Labor law in Taiwan, the Labor law in Taiwan may be revised because of the widespread public reactions toward the case. In addition, Taiwanese, do not join that company if you see such news. Let the employer tastes the pain of hiring no employees for him in case he fires the employee who reports the case to the media.
As the above violations are the most basic things that an employer should comply with, if the media didn’t report such a severe and ridiculous case, that’s the media’s problem.

Fourth, the Labor law in Taiwan may need to be revised as the punishments for many violations may be too insignificant. Many Taiwanese often said on the Internet that for many violations, the law only fines a small amount of money with a few days of training joined by HR. I didn’t understand the labor law in Taiwan, so I am not sure if one of the violations of the labor law in Taiwan indeed is too insignificant. However, if it’s indeed too insignificant, a legislator should demand to increase in the amount of fine for some violations that severely undermine the laborer’s rights and benefits, such as the salary does not meet the minimum wage, or an employee not insured with labor and health insurance – these are all the very basic of laborers’ rights and benefits and therefore shouldn’t happen often.

Fifth, if you are an employee in a big company, or you are a worker with a specialized skill or specialty such as a construction worker, you can form a union with your colleagues or other people who do the same job with the same specialty as you do. A union has a force of the group and therefore can have a stronger force when it comes to fighting against unreasonable treatment toward members in the union. Many Americans have used unions for a long time to fight against unreasonable treatment from the companies they work for. For example, the warehouse workers at Amazon have formed a union to fight for proper treatment this year. Forming that union wasn’t easy and encountered a lot of obstacles from Amazon, but the Amazon workers insisted, didn’t give up, and finally made it ^[9]https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60944677 . What is the lesson you should learn from this example here? The lesson is this: The required work to form a union is already not an easy job themselves; both gathering enough people and doing other required work to form a union is all not easy. Still, the Amazon warehouse workers not only complete the required work of forming a union but also overcame many obstacles from Amazon. Sometimes fighting for your right and benefits is never supposed to be easy, but you may make it: You simply never dare to try, never try, and never persist.

Sixth, the environments of many factories in Taiwan have safety concerns or environmental pollution problems. If you spot a problem in the factory you work for that will endanger the worker’s safety or cause environmental pollution, and that problem is forbidden by the law in Taiwan, you should stand up and report the case to the Labor Bureau or Environmental Protection Bureau ( depending on the type of the case ). Especially the safety problem in many factories endangers your and other workers’ safety, many Taiwanese know but never report their cases to Labor Bureau. I don’t understand. Why do you want to work in a place that may kill you or make you injured without saying anything? It’s ridiculous you know? The safety problem exists not only in Taiwan but also in Europe and the U.S; the safety problem simply more often happens in Taiwan, and some cases in Taiwan exist in a more severe and exaggerated way. However, the factory workers in Europe and the U.S. will stand up and fight against the factory for the safety problem. They report to their local governmental agencies; they form unions; they protest. Why don’t you stand up and fight against the safety problem than may endanger your personal safety at work?
In addition, words to the boss of factories in Taiwan: No one should be killed or injured by working for you. You should seriously consider the worker’s safety issue in your factory.

To conclude, if the first three points of the above six points look very simple to you, that’s because the root causes of many labor issues in Taiwan are just that simple – Many Taiwanese don’t think of reporting or don’t dare to report their cases to Labor Bureau. It’s ridiculous that I have to make my article longer because I have to write this problem.

I also have some words for Taiwanese:
One, many Taiwanese think that you should just leave the job if your boss doesn’t obey the law and give you the proper treatment you deserve according to the law in Taiwan; if you can’t find a better job, it’s your problem as your ability can only use in working for such a bad boss. I don’t fully agree with this thought. There are many jobs at different levels, and everyone is not supposed to have abilities to do high-level jobs that only some people can do. Not everyone can do a high-pay or middle-pay job well. Every job at different levels including even a job with the minimum wage has its purpose, and that’s what keeps society running. For example, if no one does the entry-level factory job, how can you have the product you are currently using right now? Another example, many entry-level construction workers and entry-level nurses have low salaries or only the salaries of average wages. However, without them, we won’t have houses to live in, and we won’t receive good care when we are hospitalized. Therefore, although it’s reasonable that some jobs may only worth minimum wages as they don’t require any professional ability or knowledge ( For example: Entry-level factory worker ), every job deserves to be respected; it’s that bosses should respect at least the rights and the benefits that the law protects, and it’s that Taiwanese workers should stand up, report the cases to relevant agencies, and fight against the problem. Saying its employees’ problem of not having enough abilities to find a better job is essentially discrimination toward people whose abilities or skills aren’t as good as yours.
In addition, certainly, you can leave the job if you have a better option; however, since you have a better job and therefore can leave this job, why not report your case to Labor Bureau or Environmental Protection Bureau? With cases accumulated, the work environment in Taiwan may become better in the future. Many Taiwanese are afraid that their former bosses will talk bad mouth of them (Employees) in the industry. If your former boss talks bad mouth of you in the industry for doing that, you can say in the interview and even in the resume that your bad reputation results from your report of the violation of the laws of the company, not to mention that leaving a company because there is a violation of the law is supposed to be a good cause to be stated in the reason for leaving a former company. Moreover, in many cases, the case can be reported anonymously. As for Taiwanese bosses/supervisors, I suggest you just accept that reporting the violation of the laws is the right thing to do; otherwise, you look like an idiot because you can’t even comprehend providing the rights and the benefits for employees that the law regulates is “the most basic” thing an employer should do regardless of whether a company earns any profit or not.

Two, the rights and benefits of American laborers were earned by many fights on their own. You are already blissful that there is a “United States” or a Europe country that fought a lot, thought a lot, and established their Labor law to protect laborers in the last century or decades ago that other countries had not established. Taiwan just follows such a law and enacts a similar one. Hence, Taiwanese, you must fight for your rights and benefits as laborers, so you can enjoy the rights and benefits you deserve, and the next generation won’t have to experience such exploitation again.

21. The career of employees who are over 30 in China

The final issue I would like to talk about is an issue that often happens in China: If an employee hasn’t been promoted to supervisor after the age of 30, he/she is considered to lose their competitiveness, no matter which type of job he/she does, including the engineer. In my view, this mindset needs to be changed.

Although people over 30 with years of work experience are more likely to be promoted as supervisors in every country including the U.S, there are also many engineers still doing engineer’s jobs instead of being promoted as supervisors in the U.S, and they are managed by people who are younger than them but are promoted as supervisors. Both the engineers and the younger supervisors do great jobs in their positions. What’s wrong with being an entry-level employee instead of being promoted? As long as you are happy when you are doing that job, and you are okay with the current salary, it’s okay to stay in the current position instead of being promoted. Many engineers love doing engineering jobs instead of management and leadership jobs. What’s more, not everyone is good at management and leading people. Some engineers are only good at doing engineering jobs but are suck at management and leading people; nevertheless, they do a perfect job in engineering jobs. Why not just let them stay in their current positions and do what they are good at? Meanwhile, some young people are exceptional in management and leading people, why not give them chance by promoting such young people? They will do a better job than employees who are suck at management and leadership ( regardless of their age ) : You should evaluate and promote employees based on abilities, not age. Let people do what they are good at and what they like to do, rather than forcing everyone’s life must be the same by turning into a supervisor when their age meets 30.
( Note: Just to be clear, I am not saying every person over 30 sucks at management and leading people, nor am I saying that every young person below 30 must be good at those. I simply say you should evaluate and promote employees based on abilities, not age. )

In addition, I am not clear about the salary in China. Yet, if the salary of entry-level employees who work in positions that require specific specialty such as engineers, is too low to make them have a proper and comfortable modern life and save money for retirement, the salary needs to be adjusted. Since it’s a job that requires specific professionalism – such as an engineer in the tech industry, the salary shouldn’t be so low that they can’t even have a proper and comfortable modern life and save enough amount of money for retirement. Many engineers in the U.S. have a decent amount of salary without being a supervisor and can retire peacefully. There is no reason that China companies especially China companies in the tech industry can’t do that since many China companies in the tech industry develop well because of China’s big economy.

Although the case here is about China, the same thing actually also happens in Taiwan, too – Simply it’s not as severe as the case in China. Taiwanese should adopt my suggestions, too. Despite the that Taiwan’s economy can’t be compared with China’s big economy because of the amount of the population, the suggestions that employees over a certain age shouldn’t be required to be promoted or be viewed as having no competitiveness, and that promoting the right person instead of old employees because of age are still important.

This is the end of this article with 9 parts. I hope you enjoy this article.

If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people. 
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.

Chrissy Slora

The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin