Dong Mingzhu stated during an interview: "I do not advocate overtime; giving employees a salary increase can be considered."

On March 5th, Gree’s Dong Mingzhu stated in an interview that she does not advocate overtime; she believes that with the development of intelligence, many simple and heavy labor tasks have already been replaced by machines.

When asked whether there will be salary increases for employees in 2026, Dong Mingzhu said, “It can be considered.”

The “overtime culture” has troubled many workers. Why should they work extra hours beyond their scheduled time? If it’s for higher pay, then it can be considered—note the key point: it can be considered. Whether employees are willing to work overtime should respect their own opinions. Under reasonable overtime compensation, there are still some employees who, due to family or health reasons, are not suitable for overtime. Therefore, whether to work overtime should respect employees’ choices, and appropriate compensation should be provided for overtime work.

However, in reality, employees often have no choice.

If companies require overtime, employees have no option but to comply; otherwise, they risk being excluded, ultimately leading to resignation.

Thus, overtime has become the norm.

But is such overtime meaningful?

Recently, CCTV reported on “anti-involution” efforts. I believe that such overtime is also a form of involution; forcing employees to work overtime in disguise is essentially ineffective overtime—except in frontline production roles. The root of “ineffective overtime” lies in passivity. Passive overtime inevitably causes employees to lack initiative; ultimately, it turns overtime into a performance, creating illusions for companies about employee productivity, which leads to incorrect assessments in R&D, production, sales, and other areas, slowing down the company’s overall pace and resulting in more effort with fewer results.

Overtime is a foolish management practice.

In frontline production roles, overtime does not reflect the company’s stupidity but rather its indifference to social responsibility. Caring for employees is an important part of corporate social responsibility. This includes ensuring working hours, proper leave, welfare systems, and more. Allowing employees to work overtime clearly demonstrates a lack of social responsibility.

It also reflects the degree of “involution” within some companies.

To cut labor costs, companies compress the “24-hour three-shift” workload onto two employees. While it appears they are paying higher overtime wages than normal hours, in reality, the company saves on the base salary and related costs for one employee. Having two employees work overtime is cheaper than having three employees rotate shifts. However, a company that shows such indifference to social responsibility and extreme cost-cutting by reducing human resources—can it still produce quality products?

Its original goal is maximization of profit, and the products it produces are unlikely to inspire consumer confidence.

At the same time, employees working overtime in factories or companies also play the role of consumers in different scenarios. If many employees are stuck at their posts outside working hours, do they have time and energy to consume?

If not, who will buy the products they produce?

Therefore, overtime is a systemic mistake. It not only reflects poor management but also has far-reaching impacts. Dong Mingzhu’s view is correct: regardless of whether basic positions will be replaced by machines, companies should not require employees to work overtime or excessively cut labor costs.

Treat employees as living individuals, not as “beasts of burden.” Recognizing employees as vital drivers of industry and economic development is essential.