4 Employees in Jilin Took Unauthorized Leave, Some for up to 16 Years, Company Issues Notice to Return Within a Limited Time, Why Weren't They Dismissed After Such a Long Absence? How Will This Matter Be Held Accountable?
Concerning the notice requiring four colleagues, Ren Shouzhi and others, to return to work at the company within a limited time： 1. Ren Shouzhi, gender： male, ID number： 220621190513, leave time： January 2020; 2. Wang Liang, gender： male, ID number： 220621190515, leave time： October 2018; 3. Yan Shiqiao, gender： male, ID number： 220621190514, leave time： April 2015; 4. Zhang Yuhua, gender： female, ID number： 220621190567, leave time： August 2008. The above four colleagues took unauthorized leave without company approval and have not come to work at the company to this day. During this period, the company tried to contact the above colleagues in various ways without success. Now, the above four colleagues are notified by public announcement to return to work at the company before October 21, 2024. If they fail to return on time, they will be dealt with according to the ‘Labor Law’ and the ‘Notice on Carrying out Special Rectification of the ‘Eating Empty Bowls’ Problem’ issued by the Jilin Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission and relevant regulations.
The recent news from Jilin Senke Group Quanyang Springs Beverage Co., Ltd. about four employees who took unauthorized leave for up to 16 years without being dismissed has sparked widespread discussion and raised questions about the management practices and accountability within the company.
Based on the details provided, the four employees in question - Ren Shouzhi, Wang Liang, Yan Shiqiao, and Zhang Yuhua - left their posts without company approval between 2008 and 2020. Despite the company’s repeated attempts to contact them, they failed to return to work. Now, after a prolonged absence ranging from 4 to 16 years, the company has issued a public notice demanding their return by October 21, 2024, or face consequences per labor laws and regulations on “eating empty bowls” (getting paid without working).
This incident exposes glaring issues in the company’s management and oversight. How could employees be allowed to remain absent for over a decade without any disciplinary action? In most private enterprises, unauthorized absence for even a short period would result in dismissal. The fact that these employees were able to “eat empty bowls” for so long suggests a lack of proper governance and potential abuse of power within the organization.
Some speculate that these individuals may have had strong “connections” or “backers” that shielded them from repercussions. In state-owned enterprises, such practices of keeping “ghost employees” on payroll due to relationships were not uncommon in the past. While reforms in recent years have tried to curb this, the deep-rooted culture of cronyism and the “iron rice bowl” mentality still persist in some corners.
The company’s belated attempt to rectify the situation now, after tolerating it for so long, also raises eyebrows. It’s possible that a change in leadership or external scrutiny finally forced them to take action. But the drawn-out timeline allowed by the notice - giving the absentees months to return - seems to indicate a reluctance or inability to take swifter, more decisive measures. It makes one wonder about the strength of the new leadership’s reform resolve.
Ultimately, while the individuals in question should be held accountable for job abandonment, the lion’s share of responsibility lies with the company’s management at all levels over the years. Lax supervision, turning a blind eye to misconduct, and failure to establish sound HR policies enabled this “empty bowl” phenomenon.
To truly address this, a systematic overhaul is needed, not just in this company but in many state-owned enterprises. Stricter attendance tracking, performance audits, limits on leaders' discretionary powers, and a culture of professionalism over personal ties must be cultivated. Offenders should face proportionate penalties, from salary deductions to dismissal to legal action in severe cases.
The government’s state enterprise reform push is well-intentioned but faces an uphill battle against entrenched interests. Dislodging “empty bowl” employees who are shielded by powerful connections will take strong political will. Transparency and public oversight, as seen in this case, can be an important impetus.
Ultimately, for China’s economy to be globally competitive, its state sector cannot afford to be dragged down by deadweight “empty bowls” and the legacy of the “iron rice bowl”. Enterprises should be empowered to replace unmotivated, unproductive personnel with driven talent. Only by resolutely uprooting these practices can a true meritocracy and culture of competitiveness take hold. The road ahead for reforms is long, but with sustained efforts, it’s a goal within reach.