深圳易力声3000工人重启罢工：否认“贪心要加班”，直指变相裁员（2025.12.08）

「深圳易力声3000工人重启罢工：否认“贪心要加班”，直指变相裁员（2025.12.08）」经过周末两天的休整后，广东深圳易力声科技有限公司的3000名工人本周一继续罢工。期间，愤怒的工人一度走上街头表达抗议，但很快遭到警察拦截。另据工人透露，在此前的维权行动中，多名工人遭到当地警察恐吓并试图让他们放弃罢工。

这场大规模工人抗争始于2025年12月4日。当天，深圳易力声科技有限公司约3000名一线员工集体停工，聚集在工厂大门附近，抗议公司以“长期低薪”的方式变相裁员。罢工持续两天后进入周末，工人在短暂休整的同时，也对外界舆论作出集中回应，公开发布《易力声员工联合声明》，澄清维权并非“索要加班”，而是为讨薪、讨尊严、讨知情权。

员工澄清：不是要加班，而是反对“隐性裁员”

针对网络上流传的“罢工索要加班”的说法，员工在联合声明中明确否认，指出工人的核心诉求绝非追求额外的加班时长，而是反对公司借产能转移和股权变更之机，进行“隐性裁员”和压迫。

据工人们透露，早在2024年母公司被收购前，易力声就开始将深圳工厂的核心生产订单向越南转移。截至2025年11月，深圳厂区产能已缩减超过60%，曾经繁忙的产线如今仅保留了一款苹果蓝牙耳机的生产。

产能的被架空直接导致了严重的“僧多粥少”局面。公司随后推出“5天8小时”工作制，成为了引爆此次罢工的导火索。对于长期依赖“基本工资+加班费”维持生计的一线工人而言，这一制度意味着收入瞬间腰斩。

声明强调，在深圳这样的一线城市，仅按2750元/月的标准发放基本工资，工人实际到手仅2000元左右，根本无法覆盖房租和基本生活开支。工人们认为，这并非公司经营困难，而是刻意通过制造无法生存的低薪环境，“合法合规”地逼迫老员工主动离职，从而规避法定“N+1”经济补偿。

股权变更被长期隐瞒，员工知情权遭漠视

此外，声明还揭露了公司对重大股权变更的隐瞒。2024年下半年，华勤技术完成了对易力声母公司的控股收购，但这一关乎数千名员工命运的重大变动，全程未向员工告知，直到2025年11月员工才偶然发现。工人们认为，这种漠视员工知情权的行为，进一步印证了公司试图低成本清理人员的意图。

双重压力下的艰难维权：警察上门与公司威胁

最后，声明还透露，在此前维权期间，多名员工曾在半夜遭遇警察上门以普法、反诈名义进行恐吓，导致工人们人心惶惶。除了来自当局的压力之外，易力声也不停对工人施加压力。有工人爆料，公司内部群已下达指令，要求所有员工必须到岗，否则将按旷工处理。更为恶劣的是，在本周一上午罢工重启时，公司竟出动人员阻止工人进行刷卡操作，意图人为制造工人“旷工”的事实，为后续的处罚或解雇制造借口。

员工呼吁：要的是尊严、保障与公正

在联合声明的最后，员工表示，他们并不反对企业进行全球化布局，也不反对产业转移，但无法接受以牺牲老员工权益为代价的“隐性裁员”。员工呼吁社会各界关注事件真相，督促企业与华勤控股正面回应核心诉求：公示产能转移与股权变更的完整方案，按法律规定给予被影响员工合理经济补偿，明确深圳基地的岗位保障措施。

此外，尽管当局出动警察威胁工人并大量删除工人发布到网络上的信息，不少工人仍顶住压力，在网络上表达了坚决维权的决心。截至8日下午，工人的维权行动还在持续。

中共再次站在了劳工的对立面

不出意外，在此次易力声罢工事件中，自称“代表工农利益”的中共，再一次精准地站到了工人权益的对立面。面对企业通过转移产能、恶意压低工资、逼迫员工离职等一整套所谓“合法化裁员”操作，当局不仅没有介入调查企业是否侵权违法，反而第一时间选择出动警察，对维权工人进行恐吓、拦截与驱赶，同时启动审查机器，对工人在网络上发布的求助信息进行大规模封杀。

近年来，从富士康到比亚迪再到外卖骑手等一系列重大劳工维权事件中可以清楚看到，中共几乎一次不落地站在了资本一方，而不是工人一边。这并非偶然失误，而是赤裸裸的利益选择。一个在现实行动中长期背离其所宣称的“阶级基础”、系统性打压劳动者正当权益、没有任何合法性的政权，也终将被历史所清算。

Shenzhen Yilisheng: 3,000 Workers Resume Strike, Deny “Greedy Overtime Demands,” Point to Disguised Layoffs

(2025.12.08)

After two days of rest over the weekend, 3,000 workers at Shenzhen Yilisheng Technology Co., Ltd. resumed their strike on Monday. During the protest, angry workers briefly took to the streets to voice their demands but were quickly blocked by police. Workers also reported that during earlier rights-defense actions, several employees were intimidated by local police in attempts to force them to abandon the strike.

This large-scale labor struggle began on December 4, 2025. On that day, approximately 3,000 frontline workers at Shenzhen Yilisheng collectively stopped work and gathered outside the factory gates, protesting the company’s use of “long-term low wages” as a form of disguised layoffs. After two days of striking, the action entered the weekend. During their brief rest, workers issued a unified public response to outside opinion by releasing the “Joint Statement of Yilisheng Employees,” clarifying that their protest was not about “demanding more overtime,” but about fighting for unpaid wages, dignity, and the right to know.

Workers Clarify: Not Demanding Overtime, but Opposing “Hidden Layoffs”

In response to online rumors claiming that the strike was about demanding more overtime, the employees explicitly refuted this in their joint statement. They stressed that their core demand is not to pursue more overtime hours, but to oppose the company’s use of production transfers and ownership changes to carry out “hidden layoffs” and systematic pressure on workers.

According to workers, even before the parent company was acquired in 2024, Yilisheng had already begun shifting key production orders from Shenzhen to Vietnam. By November 2025, production capacity at the Shenzhen facility had been reduced by more than 60%. What was once a busy production line now retains only the manufacturing of a single Apple Bluetooth headset product.

The hollowing out of production capacity directly created a severe situation where “too many workers compete for too little work.” The company subsequently introduced a “five-day, eight-hour” work schedule, which became the direct trigger for this strike. For frontline workers who have long relied on a combination of base pay and overtime wages to survive, this policy meant their income was instantly cut in half.

The statement emphasized that in a first-tier city like Shenzhen, a base wage of only 2,750 yuan per month leaves workers with take-home pay of around 2,000 yuan—far from sufficient to cover rent and basic living expenses. Workers believe this is not due to business difficulties, but rather a deliberate attempt to create an unsustainable low-wage environment to force veteran employees to resign “legally and compliantly,” thereby evading the statutory “N+1” severance compensation.

Ownership Change Concealed for a Long Time, Workers’ Right to Know Ignored

The statement also exposed the company’s concealment of a major ownership change. In the second half of 2024, Huaqin Technology completed a controlling acquisition of Yilisheng’s parent company. However, this major development—one that directly affected the fate of thousands of workers—was never disclosed to employees. It was not until November 2025 that workers discovered it by chance. Workers believe this disregard for their right to know further confirms the company’s intention to clear its workforce at minimal cost.

Rights Defense Under Dual Pressure: Police Visits and Company Threats

Finally, the statement revealed that during earlier rights-defense actions, several workers were visited by police late at night under the pretext of legal education and anti-fraud campaigns, effectively intimidating them and spreading fear among employees. In addition to pressure from authorities, Yilisheng has continuously exerted pressure on its workers. Some employees reported that internal company groups issued orders requiring all workers to report to work immediately, otherwise they would be treated as absent without leave.

Even more egregiously, when the strike resumed on Monday morning, the company reportedly deployed personnel to block workers from clocking in, attempting to deliberately fabricate “absenteeism” records in order to create grounds for later punishment or dismissal.

Workers’ Appeal: Dignity, Security, and Justice

In the final part of the joint statement, workers said they do not oppose corporate globalization or industrial relocation. What they cannot accept is “hidden layoffs” carried out at the expense of veteran employees’ rights. They called on all sectors of society to pay attention to the truth of the incident and to urge the company and Huaqin Holdings to directly respond to their core demands:

- Publicly disclose the full plan for production transfer and ownership changes

- Provide fair and legal economic compensation to affected workers

- Clearly define job security measures for the Shenzhen facility

Moreover, despite police intimidation and the large-scale deletion of workers’ online posts by authorities, many workers have continued to withstand the pressure and express their determination to defend their rights online. As of the afternoon of the 8th, the workers’ rights-defense action was still ongoing.

The CCP Once Again Stands Against Labor

As expected, in the Yilisheng strike, the Chinese Communist Party—despite claiming to “represent the interests of workers and peasants”—has once again positioned itself squarely against workers’ rights. Faced with the company’s use of production transfers, wage suppression, and forced resignations through so-called “legalized layoffs,” the authorities did not investigate whether the company violated labor laws. Instead, they immediately dispatched police to intimidate, block, and disperse striking workers, while simultaneously activating censorship mechanisms to carry out large-scale suppression of workers’ online appeals for help.

In recent years, from Foxconn to BYD, and from J&T Express to food delivery riders, nearly every major labor rights movement has shown the same pattern: the CCP consistently stands on the side of capital rather than labor. This is not an accidental mistake, but a naked choice of interests. A regime that systematically suppresses workers’ legitimate rights, while long betraying the “class foundation” it claims to represent, has already lost any basis of legitimacy—and will ultimately be judged by history.