HONG KONG -- The term “flexible employment” has gone viral in China after a prominent economics professor described gig work as a form of “welfare,” drawing widespread public anger and highlighting deep anxieties over job insecurity. Zhang Dandan, a professor of economics and deputy dean at Peking University’s National School of Development, made the remarks during a discussion on social protection for gig workers, on the popular financial show “Let’s Talk” last week. She argued that from the perspective of labour economics, “flexibility itself is a form of welfare.” While regular employees trade schedule flexibility for pensions and other benefits, flexible workers enjoy greater control over their time at the cost of weaker social protections, Zhang said. The comments triggered a fierce backlash over the weekend, with social media users accusing Zhang of being oblivious to the harsh realities of the gig economy. Zhang did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The controversy has struck a nerve for many in China, where a cooling economy has made secure, full-time employment harder to find. The China New Employment Forms Research Centre, a think tank, estimates the number of flexible workers — those without permanent full-time contracts — will rise to 320 million this year from 280 million in 2025. That represents about 44 per cent of China’s urban workforce and is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the United States. ‘Rubbing salt into wounds’ The rise of gig jobs in China, where employers are not mandated to make social insurance contributions, heightens long-term risks for China’s already strained welfare and pension systems, some industry experts have warned. Prominent nationalist commentator Hu Xijin, a former editor at the state-backed Global Times newspaper, called Zhang’s remarks “shocking” and “unacceptable.” “She has paid the price for her reputation for speaking this way, and the responsibility lies with her,” Hu wrote on his Weibo account, adding that she should “respond to public opinion, explain where necessary, and apologize where appropriate.” Despite the backlash, some social media users pointed out Zhang’s academic career had focused largely on documenting the struggles of gig workers and advocating for their social security. Zhang noted last year that on-demand workers made up about 31 per cent of the workforce in China’s manufacturing sector. During peak seasons, that proportion can rise to as high as 80 per cent for large manufacturers with more than 10,000 workers, she said. Nevertheless, Zhang’s framing of “flexibility” as a benefit was seen as insensitive. “Such comments from experts are no less than rubbing salt into the wounds of those without job security,” one Weibo user wrote. Another user pointed out the relentless pressure faced by delivery drivers and couriers: “Every day, they are racing against the platform’s algorithm at all costs, without rest... [flexible work] is precisely the most unavoidable of choices, not a preference.” (Reporting by Farah Master; Editing by Kate Mayberry)
