深圳易力声3000人大罢工，工人为何要抵制“5天8小时”（2025.12.04

「深圳易力声3000人大罢工，工人为何要抵制“5天8小时”（2025.12.04-05）」周四（12月4日）起，位于广东深圳宝安区的易力声科技有限公司爆发大规模集体抗争行动。约3000名一线工人集体罢工，抗议公司长期实行“五天八小时”工作制。截至12月5日上午，工人的抗争行动仍在继续。

工人为何要抵制“5天8小时”工作制？

“五天八小时”本是国际通行的劳动标准，也是无数劳动者梦寐以求的工作节奏。但在易力声，工人们却为了反对它走上罢工——难道工人不喜欢休息？当然不是。

据多名工人透露，自2025年10月易力声取消加班以来，在扣除社保、公积金后，他们每月到手工资不足2000元，甚至低于深圳最低工资标准。根据深圳市政府2025年3月1日开始实施的标准，全日制就业劳动者最低工资标准不得低于2520元/月。

易力声曾是著名的“万人大厂”，因女性员工众多而被称为“女儿国”。随着产业转移和工厂规模收缩，如今只剩下约3000名员工，许多当年的年轻女工已步入中年，肩负着沉重的家庭负担。“在深圳，一个月两千块钱连自己都养不活，怎么养家？”对她们而言，加班费是维持生存所必须的口粮。

罢工导火索：长期“5天8小时”公告

12月3日，易力声公司发布的一则公告成为了此次大罢工的导火索。公告称受海外需求疲软影响，核心客户订单减少约20%，决定未来几个月继续维持“五天八小时”工作制，暂无加班安排。作为补偿，公司仅承诺在十二月为未加班的员工发放200-300元不等的一次性生活补助。

这则通知彻底点燃了工人的怒火。据工人透露，早在2024年，易力声母公司香港易路达国际的股权就已发生重大变更，其80%的股份被华勤技术收购，但公司并没有在易主后对工人作出赔偿。工人们认为，所谓“订单减少”，不过是订单向越南工厂转移。长期实行5天8小时，目的是以低薪逼走工人，逃避法定的N+1遣散费。“厂里用五天八小时的方式来耗着我们，想让我们自己走人，不想赔钱，”一位工人愤怒地表示。公司此时严格执行“国际标准”，并非为了员工福祉，而是将原本保护劳工的条款“武器化”，作为逼退员工的合法手段。

12月4日上午，罢工爆发，数千名工人聚集在工厂大门附近，阻拦了拉货车辆，高喊“赔钱、坚持”等口号。期间，一名工人与保安发生冲突，警察在试图抓走该工人时一度被围堵。工人们的诉求非常明确：要么恢复正常的加班以保障基本收入，要么就按照工龄进行合法赔偿。

僵局持续：工人坚持核心诉求

面对压力，易力声公司于4日下午发布通知，声称经与“部分员工代表”商讨，提高了未来几个月的月补贴标准至400-500元，并承诺在12月和明年1月有限增加周末加班工时，同时强硬要求员工于5日早8点前复工，否则按旷工处理。

然而，这份新提议遭到工人一致抵制。他们认为几百元的补贴杯水车薪，且对公司承诺的加班表示强烈不信任。更重要的是，工人们否认了所谓“员工代表”的合法性，因为他们并没有经过员工推选，而是易力声自行选定的。工人们仍坚持自己的诉求，要么恢复正常的加班以保障基本收入，要么就按照工龄进行合法赔偿。截至5日中午，工人们的抗争还在继续。

此次易力声罢工事件，也暴露了中国制造业工人面临的普遍困境：他们的生存高度依赖“超时劳动”。许多工厂为了控制成本并确保赶工能力，刻意将正常工作时间的薪资压低至仅能糊口的水平，迫使工人为了获取更高工资，而不得不接受长时间工作。而当企业将“遵守8小时工作制”作为变相裁员的工具时，工人们为了最低的生存底线，被迫陷入了抵制休息权、争取“加班权”的悲壮抗争中。毕竟，如果基本工资足以维持体面生活，没有人愿意每天工作12小时做“牛马”。

Shenzhen Yilisheng 3,000-Worker Strike: Why Are Workers Resisting the “Five-Day, Eight-Hour” Workweek?(Dec 4–5, 2025)

Starting Thursday, December 4, a large-scale labor action broke out at Yilisheng Technology Co., Ltd., located in Bao’an District, Shenzhen, Guangdong. Around 3,000 frontline workers went on strike, protesting the company’s long-term enforcement of the “five-day, eight-hour” workweek. As of the morning of December 5, the workers’ protest was still ongoing.

Why Are Workers Resisting the “Five-Day, Eight-Hour” Workweek?

The five-day, eight-hour workweek is an internationally recognized labor standard and a work schedule many employees dream of. But at Yilisheng, workers went on strike to oppose it—does this mean they dislike rest? Certainly not.

According to multiple workers, since Yilisheng canceled overtime in October 2025, after deductions for social insurance and housing fund contributions, their take-home pay has dropped below 2,000 yuan per month—below Shenzhen’s minimum wage. According to the Shenzhen municipal government, as of March 1, 2025, the minimum monthly wage for full-time employees is 2,520 yuan.

Yilisheng was once a well-known “10,000-worker factory,” often called a “women’s kingdom” because of its high proportion of female employees. As production shifted and the factory downsized, it now employs only around 3,000 people. Many of the former young female workers are now middle-aged with heavy family responsibilities. “In Shenzhen, 2,000 yuan a month isn’t even enough to support yourself—how can you support your family?” For them, overtime pay is not a bonus—it is a lifeline.

Trigger: Announcement of Continued “Five-Day, Eight-Hour” Schedule

On December 3, the company issued a notice that became the spark for the strike. It stated that due to weak overseas demand, core client orders had dropped by around 20%, and the five-day, eight-hour schedule would continue in the coming months, with no overtime arranged. As compensation, the company promised a one-time allowance of 200–300 yuan for daily-wage employees who did not work overtime in December.

This announcement ignited workers’ anger. Workers noted that as early as 2024, the parent company—Hong Kong Yiluda International—underwent a major ownership change, with 80% of shares acquired by Huaqin Technology, yet no compensation was provided to employees. Workers believe the so-called “order reduction” is actually a shift of production to factories in Vietnam. Maintaining the five-day, eight-hour schedule is a tactic to push employees out at low pay, avoiding legally mandated N+1 severance. “The factory is using the eight-hour schedule to wear us down, hoping we quit on our own—they don’t want to pay,” one worker said angrily. The strict enforcement of “international standards” is not for employee welfare, but a legal tool to force out workers.

Strike Erupts: Thousands Block Factory Gate

On the morning of December 4, thousands of workers gathered at the factory gate, blocked delivery vehicles, and chanted slogans such as “Pay us, we insist.” During the protest, a worker clashed with security, and police attempting to detain him were temporarily blocked by fellow workers. The workers’ demands are clear: either restore normal overtime to ensure basic income or provide lawful severance according to years of service.

Standoff Continues: Workers Hold Firm

Under pressure, Yilisheng issued a notice on the afternoon of December 4, claiming that after consulting “some employee representatives,” monthly allowances would be increased to 400–500 yuan for the coming months, and limited weekend overtime would be added in December and January. Employees were also required to return by 8 a.m. on December 5, or face disciplinary action for absenteeism.

The workers unanimously rejected this proposal. They consider a few hundred yuan insufficient, mistrust the promised overtime, and do not recognize the so-called “employee representatives,” who were selected by the company rather than elected by staff. Workers continue to insist on their demands: either restore normal overtime to ensure basic income or provide lawful severance according to years of service. As of midday December 5, the protest was still ongoing.

A Broader Picture: The Plight of Manufacturing Workers in China

The Yilisheng strike also highlights a broader issue faced by China’s manufacturing workers: their livelihood heavily relies on “overtime labor.” Many factories deliberately suppress regular wages to bare-minimum levels to control costs and meet production targets, forcing workers to accept long hours to earn enough to survive. When companies weaponize compliance with the eight-hour workweek as a tool for de facto layoffs, workers must fight to defend their basic survival, often resisting rest in order to demand “overtime rights.” After all, if basic wages were sufficient for a decent life, no one would willingly work 12 hours a day like a “beast of burden.”