Guizhou report: the pandemic’s impacts on the working conditions have weakened, but there are still long-lasting negative impacts on personal livelihood
When we step into 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic has been under control in Mainland China gradually, and the economy also has recovered from a prolonged slump. According to the data collected by the DX Doctor, the number of daily confirmed coronavirus cases in China peaked in February and has dropped down since March 2020. A massive epidemic outbreak has not happened again in Mainland. Meanwhile, the State Council in China published a series of policies to promote work resumption and ensure employment.
 
The information published by China’s National Health Commission showed as of 24:00 on January 19, 2021, 31 provincial-level regions and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps reported 1,473 remained confirmed cases. Furthermore, the Guizhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention did not report new confirmed cases anymore after March 28, 2020. And the number of remained confirmed cases in Guizhou has dropped to zero since April 18, 2020 and zero case maintains today (24:00 on January 19, 2021). 
 
This study focuses on the impacts of the pandemic on workers in Guizhou. Firstly, in the early stage of the outbreak, what are the impacts of the pandemic on the work resumption? During the delay period to work, were workers’ labour rights protected well? Secondly, 10 months after the outbreak, have the working conditions changed? Has the consumption level restored to the level before the pandemic outbreak?
 
Apart from pay cuts, delays in wage payments, and insufficient protection on occupational health and safety, the coronavirus crisis also triggered massive layoffs. The research on the work resumption in the middle area of Guangdong indicates that 35.79% of the companies dismissed part of their employees. Therefore, this research also studies the situation of people who lost their jobs after the pandemic, and tries to answer the following questions: which factors caused unemployment? Did workers receive any relief? Did workers encounter obstacles when they tried to find new jobs? 
 
Part 1: Research methodology
 
This research collected samples through online platforms from November 19 to December 8, 2020. All questionnaires were distributed by LAC’s Guizhou working partners through WeChat (one by one), WeChat groups, and WeChat moments. Besides, this study also adopted the snowball sampling: volunteers got in touch with individual research participants and invited them to distribute the questionnaire to other people.
 
The researchers did not have target groups in mind before, such as the workers in certain industries. Instead, LAC’s working partners distributed the questionnaires through their personal networks, such as their relatives, friends, and colleagues. The non-random sampling may result in high homogeneity of the samples, including their income level, work location, age, education level, and household registration location. On the other hand, regarding the non-targeted distribution, the research participants also have a diverse occupational background (industry, job position, and nature of enterprise).
 
To enlarge the sample size, the researchers rewarded the respondents with WeChat red packet, which was amounted to 0.01 RMB to 20 RMB. It did increase the number of the responses. However, it is easier to attract people who lose their job or have low income to fill in the questionnaire. This research has received 265 valid responses (having excluded the invalid responses) and 110 of them were unemployed.
 
The research covers (1) workers who work in Guizhou; (2) people who live in Guizhou and have lost their jobs after the pandemic outbreak (January 23, 2020). Excluding the respondents who do not work in Guizhou or lost their jobs before the pandemic outbreak, this research retrieved 127 valid responses.
 
Part 2: Background information of the research participants
 
Female respondents are the major group in this research, and the proportion of the female respondents (59.84%) is 19.68% higher than the proportion of the male interviewees. More than half of the interviewees are people aged 18 to 25 years old, and people aged 26 to 35 years old (38.58%) are the second largest group. The people who are older than 35 years old occupy less than 10% of the total interviewees. Therefore, this research mainly depicts the situation of young adults.
 
In this research, the interviewees are relatively highly educated: 61.42% of them enjoy undergraduate education or above, 19.69%, post-secondary education, and only 8.65%, junior high level or below.
 
The interviewees with urban household registration are counted around 50% of the total participants. Nearly 90% of the interviewees have Guizhou household registration and the rest come from inner Mongolia, Henan, Hubei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, and Sichuan. Most of the interviewees are local workers.
 
In number, only 9 research participants were unemployed (see Table 1).
 
Table 1: Background information of the research participants

Type

Option

Ratio

Gender

Male

40.16%

Female

59.84%

Age

<18

1.57%

18-25

51.18%

26-35

38.58%

36-45

3.15%

46-60

5.51%

>60

0.00%

Highest

educational

level

I did not go to school

4.72%

Primary school

1.57%

Junior high school

2.36%

Senior high school

7.09%

Technical secondary school, or vocational school

3.15%

Post-secondary

19.69%

Undergraduate or above

61.42%

Household

register

Urban

46.46%

Rural

53.54%

Household

register

region

(province)

Guizhou

90.55%

Sichuan

0.79%

Inner Mongolian

2.36%

Henan

2.36%

Hunan

1.57%

Shanxi

1.57%

Heilongjiang

0.79%

Employment

status

Unemployed

7.09%

Employed

92.91%

 
Table 2 illustrates that 80% of the interviewees who work in Guiyang, the provincial capital city of Guizhou province, 6.09%, in Bijie, and 4.35%, in Zunyi. The occupational background of the interviewees is also diverse. Household services and repairing and other services industry (22.88%), education industry (16.95%), construction industry (10.17%) are three major industries. Meanwhile, technician (22.88%) is the largest group in this research. And the proportions of the interviewees who chose “worker”, “service and sale”, and “administration” are also around 13%.
 
Most of the interviewees work in small-scaled companies with less than 200 employees. This study also maintains a broad covering of different categories of companies. Around half of the interviewees are employed in “private companies or partnership businesses”. The interviewees who work in “individual ownership”, “government bodies or government-funded units” “state-owned enterprises or collective-owned enterprises” share similar rates, also around 12%. Only a tiny minority works in “non-profitable organizations” and “foreign-funded enterprises or Chinese-foreign joint funded enterprises”.
 
38.98% of the respondents earn 3001 to 5000 RMB per month. Both the respondents who earn 5001 to 7000 RMB or who earn1001 to 3000 RMB per month account for nearly 25% of the total samples respectively.
 
According to the Guizhou Government, in the first three quarters in 2020, the average disposable income of permanent urban residents is 26,959 RMB (2,995.44 RMB/ month). The monthly income level of the interviewees in this study is a little bit higher than the average level of the urban residents in Guizhou.
 
Table 2: The background information of the interviewees in employment

Type

Option

Ratio

Location

of

the

workplace

(city)

Guiyang

80.00%

Bijie

6.09%

Zunyi

4.35%

Suiyang

0.87%

Tongren

1.74%

Anshun

2.61%

Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture

2.61%

Liupangshui

0.87%

Xingyi

0.87%

Industry

Agriculture and husbandry

4.24%

Mining

0.85%

Manufacturing

5.08%

Construction

10.17%

Wholesale and Retail

5.93%

Transportation, warehousing and postal services

2.54%

Household services and repairing and other services

22.88%

Hotel and catering

1.69%

Education

16.95%

Public administration, social security and social organization

4.24%

Others

25.42%

Job

position

Worker

14.41%

Technician

22.88%

Sale, service

16.10%

Clerk

12.71%

Administration

11.02%

Freelancer

8.47%

Others

14.41%

Company

Scale

(no. of workers)

≤20

27.97%

21-100

29.66%

101-200

24.58%

201-1000

8.47%

>1000

9.32%

Nature

of

the

employer

Individual ownership

13.56%

Private company or partnership business

48.31%

Foreign-funded enterprise or

Chinese-foreign joint funded enterprise

0.85%

State-owned enterprise or collective-owned enterprise

11.02%

Non-profitable organization

2.54%

Government body or government-funded unit

11.86%

others

11.86%

Monthly

salary

(RMB)

≤1000

4.24%

1001-3000

24.58%

3001-5000

38.98%

5001-7000

25.42%

7001-9000

4.24%

9001-11000

2.54%

>11000

0.00%

 
Part 3: Analysis
 
1. The labour rights condition of the interviewees
 
a. Nearly 80% of the interviewees have signed labour contracts with their employers, but only 66.10% of them enjoy social insurance protection. The interviewees who work in individual ownerships and private businesses enjoy less labour rights protection. 
 
77.12% of the interviewees indicated that they had signed labour contracts with their employers. Most of the labour contracts were fixed-term and the remaining were open-ended. Only a small group of the interviewees had informal or short-term labour relationship with their employers. The people who signed service contracts with their employers only account for 5.93% of the total interviewees, and the people who did not sign any contract, 12.72% (see Table 3).
 
Table 3: Did your employer sign labour contract with you?

Option

Ratio

Yes, I signed a fixed-term labour contract with the employer

66.10%

Yes, I signed an open-ended labour contract with the employer

11.02%

No, Yes, I signed a service contract with the employer

5.93%

No, I did not sign any contract

12.71%

I do not know

4.24%

 
Which kinds of enterprises are more likely to keep an informal labour relationship with their employees? Table 4 and Table 5 show that company at scale does not matter on the question of employers’ signing labour contracts with their employees, but company at category does so. Only 37.50% of the interviewees who work for individual ownerships signed labour contracts with their employers, 44.96% lower than that in private companies or partnership businesses, the second lowest group in signing labour contracts with workers.  
 
Table 4: Labour contract signing rate (at company scale)

Company scale

Rate

≤20

75.76%

21-200

76.11

>200

80.95%

 
Table 5: Labour contract signing rate (at company category)

Companies

Rate

Individual ownership

37.50%

Private company and partnership business

82.46%

Foreign-funded enterprise, Chinese-foreign joint funded enterprise,

state-owned enterprise, collective-owned enterprise

92.86%

Government body or government-funded unit

92.85%

 
Only 66.10% of the companies have bought social insurance for their employees. 7.63% of the interviewees do not enjoy insurance protection. Alternatives to social insurance include (1) new rural co-operative medical insurance paid by employees (11.86%), (2) commercial insurance for workers paid by employee (2.54%), (3) commercial insurance for workers paid by employers (5.08%) (see Table 6).
 
Table 6: Did your employer buy insurance for you?

Option

Ratio

Yes, my employer bought social insurance

66.10%

Yes, my employer bought commercial insurance

5.08%

No, I bought new rural co-operative medical insurance for myself

11.86%

No, I bought commercial insurance for myself

2.54%

I do not have any insurance

7.63%

I do not know

6.78%

 
A significant difference can be found in social insurance purchase rate at company category. Table 7 shows that individual ownership at social insurance purchase rate is ranked as the lowest (25%), and private company or partnership business come the second lowest (64.91%). The interviewees who work in individual ownerships, private companies, and partnership businesses enjoy less labour rights protection.
 
Table 7: Social insurance purchase rate (at company category)

Company

Rate

Individual ownership

25.00%

Private company and partnership business

64.91%

Foreign-funded enterprise, Chinese-foreign joint funded enterprise,

state-owned enterprise, collective-owned enterprise

92.86%

Government body or government-funded unit

100.00%

 
Table 8 reveals that the smaller company scale the enterprises are, the less the enterprises provide social insurance to workers. Under 50% of the companies with less than 20 workers provided employees with social insurance. 
 
Table 8: Social insurance purchase rate (classified by company scale)

Company scale

Rate

≤20

42.42%

21-200

71.88%

>200

85.71%

 
b. Around 90% of the interviewees still wore masks in workplace, but only 19.33% of them received free protective goods from their employers.
 
In terms of occupational health and safety protection, although the number of standing confirmed coronavirus cases in Guizhou has maintained zero for a long time, 93.22% of the interviewees still wore face masks in workplace. However, only 19.33% of the interviewees said that they received free protective goods from their employers, such as face masks, alcohol, gloves, and so on. As compared with the previous reports, the proportion of the interviewees who received free protective goods is less in this study. This situation may result from the current situation that the pandemic is under control in Guizhou.
 
2. Work resumption in the early stage of the pandemic outbreak
 
a. More than half of the interviewees resumed to work before April 1, 2020, and less than 60% of the interviewees received the same amount of payment as stated in the labour contract during the delayed period to work.
 
Excluding the people who did not have job, 19.83% of the respondents indicated that they had not returned to work by the time of survey. Table 9 presents that most of the interviewees resumed to work in March 2020, and a decreasing trend has been revealed in number of the interviewees who returned to work after April 1, 2020.
 
Table 9: When did you return to work?

Option

Ratio

I have not resumed to work

19.82%

February

10.81%

March

43.24%

April

7.21%

May

7.21%

June

4.50%

After July 1st

7.20%

 
According to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, “if the employer stops work and production within one wage payment cycle, the employer shall pay the workers the same amount as stated in the labour contract. If the suspension of production exceeds one wage payment cycle, and the employee has worked normally, the employer shall pay the wages to the workers not lower than the local minimum wage. If the employee did not work, the employer should pay the employee the living allowances.”
 
Excluding the interviewees who had not resumed to work, 58.72% of the respondents stated that they received the same amount of payment as stated in the labour contract during the delayed period to work. 8.26% of the respondents said that their employers paid their wages higher than the local minimum wage, and 9.17% of them said that their companies paid them the living allowances. Meanwhile, 32.1% of the companies might violate the regulation: 13.76% of them did not pay their workers, 12.84% delayed wage payment, and 5.50% of them paid the wages lower than the local minimum wage. (see Table 10)
 
Table 10: Did your employer pay you wage during the delayed period? (can select more than one)

Option

Ratio

Yes, I received the same amount of payment as stated in the labour contract

58.72%

Yes, my employer paid my wage higher than the local minimum wage

8.26%

Yes, my employer paid my wage lower than the local minimum wage

5.50%

Yes, I received living allowances

9.17%

No, my employer delayed wage payment

12.84%

No, I did not receive any payment

13.76%

 
b. Lockdown, suspension of production, and family care works are three major obstacles to work resumption.
 
23 interviewees shared that the pandemic had had no impact on their work resumption. Among the factors to affect the work resumption, “lockdown and traffic stoppage” is the major reason for delayed work resumption. In this research, around 90% of the interviewees have Guizhou household registration. It shows that lockdown and traffic stoppage still have negative impacts on work resumption for local people. 
 
“Suspension of production, factory closure, and the lack of orders” is another major factor obstructing interviewees from work resumption.
 
In the early stage of the pandemic outbreak, children had to study at home because of class suspension and online teaching. Furthermore, the pandemic imposed huge demand for household hygiene, and then family care works. 23.21% of the research participants stated that they needed to take care of their family members, so they delayed work resumption, but the data do not show a significant gender difference on this question.
 
Table 11: Which factors have affected your work resumption in 2020? (can select more than one)

Option

Ratio

Lockdown and traffic stoppage

67.86%

I need to stay at home to take care of my family members

23.21%

Quarantine

19.64%

Suspension of production, factory closure, and the lack of orders

29.46%

Redundancy

5.36%

Others

14.29%

 
3. The working conditions before and after the pandemic outbreak
 
a. 40% of the interviewees reported a drop of monthly income and 23.16% reported a drop of daily working hours.
 
There has been 10 months after the pandemic outbreak but 40% of the interviewees still indicated that they got lower monthly income after the pandemic. Meanwhile, 58.84% of the participants reported no change in monthly income (see Table 12). As compared with the previous research, this study finds a significant drop of the workers who suffered wage cuts. The previous studies were conducted in Guangdong, Henan, Sichuan, and Chengdu, and the data of the last study were retrieved in July 2020.
 
Table 12: Did your monthly income change after the pandemic outbreak?

Option

Ratio

No

56.84%

Increased

3.16%

Decreased

40.00%

 
23.16% of the interviewees stated that their daily working hours dropped down after the pandemic, and 20% of the participants reported an increase in daily working hours. However, 15.79% of them said that their salary did not go up as their working hours increased. Furthermore, 56.84% of the participants reported no change in daily working hours (see table 13). As compared with the previous studies, this study also finds a higher ratio of the interviewees who reported an increase in working hours. It might be caused by economic recovery.
 
Table 13: Did your daily working hours change after the pandemic outbreak?

Option

Ratio

Working hours decreased and my salary also decreased

23.16%

Working hours increased while my salary did not increase

15.79%

Working hours increased and my salary also increased

4.21%

No change

56.84%

 
Among the interviewees who faced changes in both monthly income and daily working hours, 62.50% of them complained that their employers had not negotiated with them about the change before.
 
b. 24.21% of the respondents claimed of a reduction of company scale mainly due to the fact that part of workers delayed work resumption.
 
As compared with the previous studies, the rate of the respondents who reported no change in company scale (31.58%) is higher in this research. At the same time, 23.16% of the respondents shared of an increase in number of employees in their workplaces (see Table 14).
 
Table 14: Did company scale change in your workplace after the pandemic outbreak?

Option

Ratio

Increased

23.16%

Decreased

24.21%

No change

31.58%

I do not know

21.05%

 
The fact that part of workers delayed resumption to work (47.83%) is the primary reason for change in company scale and economic redundancy (30.43%) is the second one. The results are similar to the data in the previous research (see Table 15).
 
Table 15: Factors that lead to change in company scale (could take more than one choice)

Option

Ratio

Economic redundancy

30.43%

Part of workers delayed work resumption

47.83%

Alternative work on shift

17.39%

Employees resigned their position

26.09%

Others

17.39%

 
4. The condition of the unemployed
 
In this research, 24 interviewees lost or changed their jobs after January 23, 2020. Half of them were men and most of their previous jobs were in Guiyang. Their previous jobs were classified into 6 industries, including manufacturing, construction, catering, etc. Most of them served as general workers in their previous jobs and worked in private companies, partnership businesses, and individual ownership. Only several of them worked in foreign-funded enterprises or Chinese-foreign joint enterprises and government bodies or government-funded units (see Table 16)
 
Because the sample size is small, this research cannot describe a whole picture of the unemployed workers. It can only point out the possible situations the unemployed workers encountered and mark the exact numbers of unemployed workers instead of the rate on each item (see Table 16). 
 
Table 16: Occupational information of the interviewees who lost their job after the pandemic outbreak

Type

Option

Number

Location of

workplace

(22 valid responses)

Guiyang city

19

Liupangshui city

1

Kaili city

2

Industry

Manufacture

1

Construction

3

Wholesale and retail

1

Household services and repairing

and other services

5

Hotel and catering

7

Public administration, social security

and social organization

3

Other

4

Job position

Worker

12

Sale, service

4

Management

4

Other

4

Nature

of

company

Individual ownership

6

Private company and partnership business

15

Foreign-funded enterprise or

Chinese-foreign joint funded enterprise

1

Government body or government-funded unit

2

 
a. Date of departure and reason for departure
 
Most of the interviewees left their previous jobs between January 23 and March 31, 2020, the peak time of the outbreak of the pandemic. As mentioned above in Introduction, the Guizhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention has not reported any new confirmed coronavirus cases since March 28, 2020. Job departures of the workers seem to go along with the trend of the confirmed cases. A clear trend of drop of job departures has been revealed since March 2020, and the last one was in November 2020 (see Table 17).
 
Table 17: When did you leave your previous job?

Option

Number

Between January and March, 2020

15

Between April and June, 2020

3

Between July and September, 2020

5

Between October and November, 2020

1

 
When questioned about the reason for their job departures, most of the respondents answered: “I resigned from my position”. Other reasons include: “the labour contract expired”, “the employer cut the wage or delayed wage payment”, “I suffered from occupational injury or disease”, “I need to stay at home and take care of my family members”. Except the factor, “suffering from occupational injury and disease”, being unrelated to the pandemic, there is no clear evidence that we could identify any causality relationship between other factors and the pandemic. Moreover, Table 18 and Table 19 stated that a slight difference could be revealed on the reason for departures between the interviewees who left their job before and after March 31.
 
Table 18: Why did you leave your previous job? (the interviewees left their jobs between January and March 2020)

Option

Number

I resigned from my position

6

The employer cut the wage or delayed wage payment

1

I suffered from occupational injury or disease

2

Other

6

 
Table 19: Why did you leave your previous job? (the interviewees left their jobs between April and November 2020)

Option

Number

The labour contract expired

1

I resigned from my position

4

The employer cut the wage or delayed wage payment

1

I need to stay at home and take care of my family members

2

Others

1

 
Only two respondents received unemployment insurance benefits and two respondents received compensation from their employers. Other respondents did not get any compensation (see Table 20). This study, however, cannot identify whether or not illegal dismissal happened to the companies.
 
Table 20: Did you receive any relief when you were unemployed?

Option

Number

I received unemployment insurance benefits

2

I received compensation from my employer

2

I did not get any compensation

20

 
b. The process of finding new job
 
Among the 24 interviewees who left their jobs after the pandemic, only 13 interviewees found new jobs. 3 interviewees said that they had not been going to find new jobs in a short term, and 8 interviewees could not find new jobs (see Table 21). Among these 8 interviewees, the first one lost his/her job after the spring festival (January 25, 2020) and the last one did so in November. It means that some workers could have had no income for 10 months if they did not receive any compensation or relief. 
 
Table 21: Did you find another job?

Option

Number

No

8

Yes

13

I am not going to find a new job in a short term

3

 
Among the 13 interviewees who had found new jobs, 9 interviewees spent more than one month in finding new jobs, but 4 interviewees could change new jobs successfully in a week. The respondents said that lack of professional skill and low education made them difficult in finding jobs.  
 
c. Comparison between the current job and the previous job
 
Most interviewees shared that as compared with their previous jobs, their salaries decreased in their current jobs (see Table 22). Besides, all the interviewees claimed of a change in their daily working hours (see Table 23).
 
Table 22: As compared with your previous job, did your salary change?

Option

Number

Increased

3

Decreased

9

No

1

 
Table 23: As compared with your previous job, did your daily working hours change?

Option

Number

Working hours reduced and my salary did not change

1

Working hours reduced and my salary also reduced

4

Working hours increased while my salary did not increase

4

Working hours increased and my salary also increased

4

 
5. The livelihood conditions
 
Although only 9 interviewees do not have job, nearly 20% of them stated that they did not have savings and needed to borrow money to survive. Moreover, nearly 30% of the interviewees said that their current savings could only afford personal expenses for less than a month. Only 11.81% of the interviewees shared that their savings could afford their personal expenses for more than a year (see table 24)
 
The interviewees who left their works after the pandemic outbreak are facing a poorer living situation. 20.83% of them said that they needed to borrow money to survive. 41.67% of them said that their current savings could afford expenses for less than a month, while no one had savings which could afford expenses for more than a year.
 
Table 24: How long can your current saving afford your personal expenses?

Option

Ratio

Less than one month

29.13%

One month to half year

26.77%

Half year to one year

12.60%

One year to two years

4.72%

More than two years

7.09%

I do not have saving and need to borrow money to survive

19.69%

 
When the interviewees were asked to assess the impacts of the pandemic on their livelihood conditions, most of the research participants held the view that the pandemic had had negative impacts on their livelihood conditions (60.63%). However,13.39% of the participants reported no impact, and 25.99% of them claimed that the pandemic had brought positive impacts to their livelihood conditions (see table 25).
 
Table 25: The impacts of the pandemic on the livelihood conditions

Option

Ratio

It has very positive impacts

15.75%

It has some positive impacts

10.24%

It has some negative impacts

47.24%

It has very negative impacts

13.39%

No impact

13.39%

 
Among the interviewees who reported negative impacts caused by the pandemic, only 26.60% of them held the opinion that their consumption level has fully restored to the previous level before the pandemic (see Table 26). The long-term negative impacts on personal consumption level caused by the pandemic are found in this research. 
 
Table 26: Has your personal consumption level restored to the previous level before the pandemic?

Option

Ratio

Fully restored

26.60%

Slightly restored

41.49%

Not yet

31.91%

 
Part 4: Conclusion
 
As compared with the previous studies, this study reveals that the impacts of the pandemic on the working conditions have been weakening when the pandemic has existed for 10 months. It includes (1) a significant drop of the rate of the interviewees who reported wage cuts, (2) a growth of the proportion of the interviewees who reported longer daily working hours, (3) a growth of the proportion of the interviewees who reported no change in company scale, (4) a significant drop of the rate of the interviewees who received free protective goods. 
 
Although the working conditions seem to improve by the following three indicators, monthly income, daily working hours and company scale, there is a high rate of workers whose working conditions have worsen. 40% of the respondents still indicated a decline of monthly income after the pandemic and 23.16% still indicated a decline of daily working hours.
 
The pandemic seems to have brought long-term negative impacts on workers’ livelihood conditions. Nearly 20% of the interviewees stated that they had not had savings and needed to borrow money to survive. Among the interviewees who left their works after the pandemic outbreak, nobody had savings which could afford their personal expenses for more than a year. Among the interviewees who believed that pandemic had negative impacts on their livings, only 26.60% thought that their consumption level could have restored to the previous level before the pandemic.
 
Because the sample size is small, this study cannot describe a whole picture of the people who lost their jobs after the pandemic. It still reveals some difficulties the unemployed workers have encountered, including inadequate relief, taking a long time to find new jobs, and lack of income for a long time. Even though the workers found new jobs, they still suffered lower monthly salary or longer working hours with the same payments.
 
In conclusion, the negative impacts on working conditions caused by the pandemic has weakened. However, it has still created long-term negative impacts on workers’ personal livings. How long have the impacts lasted? Whom likely has the pandemic affected more or most? All the questions demand further studies. It is believed that the impacts of the pandemic will last for a long term. The researchers strongly believe that the government not only ought to have policies for promoting work resumption and ensuring employment at the early stage of the pandemic outbreak, but also take its responsibility to regulate enterprises’ long-term illegal practices, such as unlawful dismissal, outstanding wages, illegal wage cut, and so on.
 
* The author owns the copyright. It is prohibited to reprint this article without the author's permission.
議題聚焦: