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

None

1. Unwarranted moral coercion

Treating the hours stipulated by the Labor Standards Act as a minimum, they said employees owed work hours and that the company not holding it against them was a benefit. In reality, there was no issue of owing work hours at all (I consulted a lawyer: he was talking nonsense!).

2. Obstructing employees from exercising their civic rights

Using the claim above about owing work hours to bargain away employees’ rights, they refused to let employees leave the workplace on election day to vote, and even said that if they wanted to leave, the company would demand repayment of the work hours from them (by making up the hours or paying money). There was no such thing as owing work hours in the first place, yet they still threatened employees. Absurd.

3. Lying during a labor inspection

They shifted the blame onto the employee, saying that the employee had not raised the matter again and that shift changes could have been arranged but were not refused.

Why would I raise it again after they had refused? Whether a shift change was made or not would not change the fact that they “refused to let an employee leave on election day to vote.” If they had not refused, would they still have needed to explain all that nonsense about owing work 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

At the mediation, they sent out a “he can criticize you, but you cannot criticize him” thin-skinned senior employee, who petulantly denied everything on repeat. The supervisor who started it all only dared to sit “very uncomfortably” beside him and refused to address the issue directly, saying things like the shift could have been changed and that previous leave requests had been approved. Whether the shift was changed has nothing to do with his illegal conduct; his illegal conduct existed regardless of whether the shift was changed. Previous leave approvals were previous approvals and had nothing to do with this incident.

5. An astonishingly low level of intelligence

They dodged responsibility by claiming it was all a matter of the employee’s interpretation, saying that “no” did not mean refusal, and that “using owed work hours as an exchange” and “I can’t let you do that” did not mean refusal either. When something is so obvious, what is there to interpret? That whole spiel about work hours was the reason for the refusal; there was no need to interpret its meaning.

6. After learning that I had made a recording, they even came to warn me to be careful on the road. They’re the ones who should be careful.