Workplace reviews and discussion: 數聯資安股份有限公司

None

1. Unwarranted moral coercion

They treat the working hours stipulated by the Labor Standards Act as a lower limit, claim that employees owe working hours, and even say that the company is doing employees a favor by not holding it against them. In fact, there is absolutely no issue of owed working hours (I consulted a lawyer: he was talking nonsense!).

2. Obstructing employees from exercising their civic rights

Using the above claim about owed working hours to exchange for employees’ rights, they refused to let employees leave the workplace on election day, and even said that if they wanted to leave, the company would demand compensation for the working hours from them (make-up hours or money). There were no owed working hours in the first place, yet they still threatened employees. Absurd.

3. Lying during the labor inspection

They shifted the blame onto the employee, saying that the employee had not raised the issue again and that shift changes had been available and not refused.

If it was refused, why should it have to be raised again? Whether shifts were changed or not would not alter the fact that they “refused to let employees leave on election day.” If it had not been refused, would there have been any need to explain all that nonsense about owed working hours? They completely contradicted themselves.

A company that dares to do things but does not dare take responsibility, covering up the facts.

4. Senior personnel who petulantly repeat themselves, and supervisors who dare not address the issue directly

During mediation, they sent out a “he can criticize you, but you cannot criticize him” thin-skinned senior employee, who kept mechanically denying everything. The supervisor who started it all only dared to sit “very badly” beside him, afraid to address the issue directly, saying things like shifts could be changed and that previous leave requests had been approved. Whether shifts were changed has nothing to do with his illegal conduct; his illegal conduct exists regardless of whether shifts were changed. Previous leave approval was in the past and has nothing to do with this incident either.

5. Rock-bottom intellectual standards

They deflected by claiming that everything was an issue of the employee’s interpretation, saying that “no” did not mean refusal, and that “exchanging it for owed working hours” and “I can’t let you do that” did not mean refusal either. What is there to interpret about something so obvious? That whole discussion about working hours was the reason for the refusal; its meaning requires no interpretation.

6. After they found out that I had recorded the conversation, they even came to warn me to be careful on the way home. Those petty people are the ones who should be careful.