This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
According to the material, Zhang Dandan, an economics professor at Peking University, proposed that “flexibility itself is a form of welfare,” a claim that quickly sparked public discussion about the difficulty of finding employment. Since the full text of the original article provided cannot be accessed normally, the complete context of the remarks remains to be verified; however, the controversy itself has already exposed an important issue: when workers lack stable jobs, social security, and effective channels for defending their rights, describing “flexible employment” as a form of welfare may amount to using a concept to package real-world pressures.
True welfare should mean that workers have access to a choice of jobs, reasonable compensation, safe working conditions, adequate social security, and the right to reject unfair treatment without having to fear retaliation. If so-called “flexibility” merely means that employment relationships are fragmented and responsibilities shifted, while workers bear income volatility, workplace-injury risks, and the burden of old-age and medical care, whereas platforms, companies, and regulators possess greater bargaining power, then this kind of “flexibility” is primarily the flexibility of employers or platforms—not necessarily the freedom of workers.
What deserves even more scrutiny is why workers so often can choose only between insecure forms of employment and unemployment. Why do relevant discussions so easily remain focused on terminology and statistical definitions while avoiding questions concerning trade unions, collective bargaining, labor inspections, and workers’ participation in rule-making? This is not merely a dispute over economic views; it is also a struggle over power structures. Without independent and effective workers’ organizations, individuals can hardly engage in equal dialogue with capital and administrative power; without freedom of the press and expression, the true conditions of employment are also difficult to expose continuously; without an independent judiciary, even when workers’ rights are harmed, they may lack fair and affordable remedies.
The common underlying ailment behind these phenomena is the absence of genuine checks on power. Under one-party rule, public policy, regulation, and the space for public discourse have difficulty developing sufficient competition and accountability, while workers’ basic rights can easily give way to growth targets or administrative convenience. The solution is not to repackage “flexibility,” but to establish constitutional democracy, separation of powers, and judicial independence; guarantee the rights of association, expression, the press, and labor; allow trade unions and civil society to exercise independent oversight; and require the government to remain subject to voters and the law.
Workers are not “human resources” passively accepting policy terminology, but citizens with dignity, freedom of choice, and statutory rights. A truly civilized society should ensure that “flexibility” is built on free choice and adequate protection, rather than on helplessness.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at Deutsche Welle: DW-WORLD.DE。