‘Is your brain fried?': HR lashes out at sick employee over one-hour leave request
The controversy came to public attention on June 5, after the employee, whose name has not been made public, took to social media to share her experience. She said she had asked for just an hour off due to a 37.9°C fever but was instead met with a barrage of insults from her HR supervisor.
The company, Vision Entertainment, is a multichannel network provider based in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, according to the media outlet. Founded in 2018, it works primarily in the live-streaming e-commerce industry.
Also read: Missiles rain down on Israel in raw footage: Iranian media release video of strikes
Rather than responding with concern, the HR supervisor, identified by her surname, Huang, allegedly subjected the employee to nearly two hours of verbal abuse. Screenshots of their chat circulated online, revealing Huang's harsh tone.
'You're too weak. My goodness, can't even handle 38 degrees?' Huang wrote.
She further added, 'Is your brain fried from the fever today, or is your menstrual period blocked and not arriving, so you can't think before you speak?'
Despite staying on the job and coordinating with her team manager to ensure work continuity, the employee continued to receive messages from Huang.
'You took leave but didn't go; you just stayed there without working properly. Your actions and words don't match – you should see a psychiatrist,' Huang said in another message.
Following the exchange, the employee's work account was deactivated, and she was told her performance-based salary would be withheld.
The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou's Xiaoshan District launched an investigation into the matter. Speaking to Jimu News, a bureau representative said, 'The company initially described the situation as a 'personal dispute' between two employees. It later confirmed that the employee would not face any disciplinary action or financial penalties regarding the performance-based salary.'
According to Tianyancha, a business information platform, Vision Entertainment has officially terminated Huang for violating internal regulations.
The incident has drawn sharp criticism on Chinese social media platforms, where many users voiced concern about the treatment of workers in the entertainment and e-commerce industries.
'How ridiculous! Many entertainment companies treat employees this way. I have decided I will never work in this industry again,' one person wrote.
Another user commented, 'As a human being, you should at least have sympathy and empathy. I urge the entire internet to block this HR supervisor. With such character and conduct, you'll only bring harm wherever you go.'
Also read: 'I plan to do it until…': Why 'Mr Cash Drop' is hiding money across New Jersey?
Chinese labour laws grant employees the right to take sick leave and protect them from being unfairly penalised during recovery, a principle that many online are now urging authorities and companies to enforce more strictly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
37 minutes ago
- News18
Ant Financial exits Paytm; sells 5.84 pc stake for Rs 3,803 cr
Agency: New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) Billionaire Jack Ma's Ant Financial on Tuesday exited One97 Communications, the parent company of Paytm, by selling its entire 5.84 per cent stake for around Rs 3,803 crore. Following the stake sale, shares of One97 Communications fell 1.45 per cent to Rs 1,062.60 apiece on the NSE, while the scrip of the company went lower by 1.23 per cent to Rs 1,065 on the BSE. Ant Group, through its affiliate Antfin (Netherlands) Holding BV, has offloaded the shares of Noida-based One97 Communications. Ant Group, formerly known as Ant Financial, is an affiliate company of the Chinese conglomerate Alibaba Group. According to the term sheet reviewed by PTI, the sale involves up to 37.3 million or 3.73 crore equity shares or 5.84 per cent stake in One97 Communications. The shares were sold at a floor price of Rs 1,020 per share, which represents a discount of up to 5.4 per cent to Paytm's closing price of Rs 1,078.20 on the NSE as of Monday. At the floor price, the deal size is pegged at around Rs 3,803 crore (approximately USD 434 million), as per the term sheet. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities and Citigroup Global Markets India are acting as the placement agents for the deal. The transaction is entirely secondary in nature and took place via one or more share sales on the NSE and BSE. The transaction was conducted as a clean-up trade, and there is no lock-up clause applicable. At the June quarter ending, Antfin (Netherlands) Holding BV owned a 5.84 per cent stake in Paytm. Meanwhile, Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma and his family members own the overseas entity Resilient Asset Management BV, collectively the largest shareholder by holding a combined 19.31 per cent stake in One97 Communications. Additionally, Hong Kong-based private equity firm SAIF Partners, through its two affiliates, owned a 15.34 per cent stake in Paytm as of June 2025, according to the shareholding data on the BSE. In May this year, Chinese fintech giant Ant Group offloaded more than 2.55 crore shares or a 4 per cent stake in One97 Communications for Rs 2,103 crore. Alibaba and Ant Financial were the early investors in Paytm and had infused USD 851 million since 2015. The company had started selling shares in the stock markets after One 97 Communications was listed in November 2021. PTI HG HG DR DR (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 05, 2025, 12:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
India's export basket has no irreplaceables. It's a vulnerability in Trump's power politics
The standard rationale for tariffs is economic. Tariffs have often been used by countries to protect their domestic industry. It is behind tariff walls that industrialisation took off in the United States in the second half of the 19th century. To illustrate this, let us take the example of steel. Since his return to power, US President Donald Trump has issued a series of tariff threats to India. His manner is relentless, and India's discomfort noticeably large, though the Modi government has launched no explicit critique yet. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had celebrated Trump's return to power, fondly remembering their bonhomie during his first term and hoping it would yield benefits. Instead, the India-US relationship has entered an uncertain phase. In 1860, most of America's steel came from Britain. By the first decade of the 1900s, US Steel alone, headquartered in Pittsburgh and protected by a tariff, was not only producing enough for the home market but had also started exporting to Europe. In Japan and South Korea, both big producers of steel today, the steel industry rose in a roughly similar manner. Tariffs fell out of fashion in the most recent era of globalisation, beginning in the 1980s. Economic policymakers came to believe that by stifling competition, tariffs created inefficiencies and restricted economic growth. Think of India. Protected by tariff walls, the steel produced in India in the era of central planning was substandard. India's steel industry finally took off with the lowering of tariff walls after the early 1990s. So, it is not that tariffs have never been used to promote industrialisation (or hinder it in effect). The surprise in Trump's tariff argument is two-fold. Political purpose of tariffs First, it is mostly developing countries that have relied on tariffs to promote industry, as South Korea successfully did in the 1960s and 1970s, and so did post-1865 America, when the US was arguably still a developing economy. Economically developed countries have not generally used tariffs to speed up industrialisation. At best, they have used industry-specific subsidies, not a comprehensive construction of tariff walls. Second, the world had forgotten how to use tariffs for political purposes. In modern history, the most dramatic clash over tariffs led to the two Opium Wars in China during the 1840s and 1850s, when the East India Company sought to open Chinese markets to opium exports from colonial India, and the Chinese emperor resisted the move. To be clear, Trump is not making war threats based on tariffs, but he has used them punitively—raising tariffs on Brazil to attack the Lula government and its courts for prosecuting his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro. He has also issued tariff threats to Russia, but that is a penalty for not ending its war against Ukraine. This raises the all-important question. Can tariffs be more generally used for political purposes? In a political science classic published nearly half a century back, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Robert Keohane and (the recently deceased) Joseph Nye made a famous argument that is highly pertinent today. Their argument also has special relevance to India. Keohane and Nye agreed that tariffs, by restricting competition, caused economic inefficiencies. But they said that the world of politics and power often worked differently, not by the logic of economic efficiency. Though normatively disagreeing with Trump, Keohane and Nye have empirically analysed his tariffs in a recent article ('The End of the Long American Century', Foreign Affairs, July-August 2025). 'The paradox of trade power,' they say, 'is that success in a trading relationship … is a source of vulnerability,' adding that, 'running a trade deficit can strengthen a country's bargaining position. The deficit country, after all, can impose tariffs on the surplus country.' For the applicability of this argument, consider the current trade relationships of the US. Take India first. In 2024, the India-US goods trade was valued at $129.2 billion. India's exports to the US were worth $87.4 billion, and the imports from the US were worth $41.8 billion. Thus, vis-à-vis India, the US had a goods trade deficit of $45.7 billion. India, however, is not even among the ten largest trading partners of the US. The four largest are Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union. All have had to face Trump's tariff ire. And, with the exception of China, all have had to make a compromise, or are well on the road to one. These trade surplus economies (vis-à-vis America) depend on the US market much more than the US does on their markets. Can India follow China and push back against the US? Despite its surplus vis-à-vis the US, China can partially deviate from trade vulnerability because it has, as of now, virtually irreplaceable control over precious minerals, called 'rare earths' today. Newer technologies in the industrial sector critically depend on rare earths. There is nothing irreplaceable in India's export bundle. Thus, India's trade surplus creates vulnerability. Second, in terms of balance of power, the management of India's adversarial relationship with China requires US support. In the past, the Soviet Union helped India manage its security environment. Today, Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union was in the 1970s. Besides, to counter the West, including the US, Russia is also seeking an alliance with China. If India had economically and militarily grown as rapidly as China over the last three and a half decades, there would have been no need to seek the support of the US. India could have stood on its own feet. But to counter China now and manage its larger security environment, India needs powerful allies like the US. Also read: India sees the value of US defence ties, but MAGA-style tariffs threaten long-term stability Imbalance of power Power politics drives Trump's foreign and economic policy. Interests, not the larger principles of democracy, now shape America's bilateral relationships. Both adversaries and the so-called allies – think of Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea—are subject to the same master narrative of power politics. Unless the courts force him to drop the Presidential construction of tariff policy, leaving it to the US Congress, or the MAGA consumers are hurt by his tariffs, forcing him to change, India will have to develop a response from a position of imbalance or relative weakness. That is not the way international relations should be. But that is how they often are. Trump is only the most recent example of power politics in international relations. Ashutosh Varshney is Sol Goldman Professor of International Studies and the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Brown University. He tweets @ProfVarshney. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Antfin exits Paytm in Rs 3,800 crore bulk deal. What zero-Chinese ownership means for investors
Marking a complete exit for Chinese investors from fintech One 97 Communications, which runs the payments platform Paytm, Ant Group's Antfin on Tuesday sold its entire 5.84% stake in large bulk deals valued at around Rs 3,800 crore. ADVERTISEMENT Antfin (Netherlands) Holding B.V., which is considered a Chinese entity as it is backed by Alibaba, is understood to have undergone a clean-up trade in Paytm this morning. It had appointed Goldman Sachs and Citi for the bulk deal, which was executed at a floor price of Rs 1,020 per share, market sources said. Following the deal, Paytm shares fell up to 1% to Rs 1,058 on BSE, but brokerages said the stock can also get some buoyancy considering the end of the Chinese overhang and could even be a precursor to the company receiving certain regulatory approvals. Antfin is the last remaining Chinese shareholder, and now Paytm will no longer have any Chinese ownership. "With the long-standing overhang from a major Chinese investor now removed, Paytm's stock could see a positive reaction as ownership concerns ease and supply pressure decreases. Such clean-out trades often provide clarity to the market, allowing investors to refocus on fundamentals and future growth. The exit also aligns the cap table more closely with regulatory expectations, which could be viewed favourably in the context of Paytm's pending payment aggregator license," said JM Financial's Sachin Dixit. With the exit of Antfin, Paytm's pre-IPO cap table has seen a near-complete churn. Major early backers, including Alibaba, SoftBank, and Berkshire Hathaway, have all exited fully over the past two years. Elevation Capital (formerly SAIF Partners) now stands as the only significant pre-IPO investor still holding a stake of 15.4% as of June 2025. ADVERTISEMENT "The current block deal removes Antfin from Paytm's cap table entirely, reducing its holding to zero. This exit aligns with broader regulatory and geopolitical dynamics with a more India-dominated shareholding structure as the company has faced scrutiny in the past over foreign ownership and data localisation concerns," JM Financial said. Also Read | Paytm Q1 Results: Co swings to black, logs Rs 122 crore profit vs YoY loss; revenue jumps 28% ADVERTISEMENT As far as Paytm's operating performance is concerned, the fintech has seen a sharp reversal from the regulatory disruption in January 2024 to report PAT profitability in the improvement in contribution margin (mid-high fifties) along with a controlled rise in indirect expenses can potentially trigger a rapid rise in absolute profits for the company, with focus reverting to sustainable growth, it said. ADVERTISEMENT Last month, Jefferies had upgraded Paytm shares to 'Buy' and raised the target price to Rs 1,250 per share. The stock has more than doubled in the last year. (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times) (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel)
