When starting out in the workplace, be careful when choosing state-owned enterprises zz
Thread Content
The financial crisis of the past year has suddenly made state-owned enterprises popular in this section. When it comes to state-owned enterprises, a few key terms come to mind: monopoly, benefits, and ease. But monopolies will eventually be broken, welfare will disappear rapidly as companies decline, and easy, simple jobs will undermine a person’s competitiveness. What should middle-aged people with specialized skills, but no job prospects, in state-owned enterprises do if, in a few years, those enterprises face large-scale layoffs as in the early 1990s? Opposition 1: **It will protect monopolistic state-owned enterprises. In the 30 years since the reform and opening up, has China ever gone back on its path?** Monopolistic industries are disappearing one after another, and the trend is clear: in the early 1990s, the textile industry, bicycle manufacturing, and home appliance sector suffered massive bankruptcies; after 2003, state-owned mobile phone manufacturers all collapsed. Today, the postal service is experiencing heavy losses and rapid decline amid the fast development of the express delivery industry. It is evident that in every industry where regulatory protections have been removed, state-owned enterprises collapse at an astonishing pace. Moreover, **there is a firm commitment to breaking monopolies, splitting up telecommunications industries, opening up the market to foreign and private banks; even subway services are being entrusted to Hong Kong-based companies. **Is it not clear enough that they keep saying “deepen reform” all day long? Argument 2: State-owned enterprises will undergo reforms and survive; there are many successful examples such as A/B/C/D, like Lenovo. But do people want to work at Lenovo these days? I don’t like it because of the associations it brings: poor benefits, no allocation of separate housing units, stress, and a lack of monopoly. If they want to survive in market competition, state-owned enterprises that undergo successful reforms will adopt a style similar to that of foreign companies, or in other words, a \"modern corporate\" style. Argument 3: Foreign companies are laying off employees. Businesses come and go; when companies like Moto and Nortel are poorly managed, layoffs occur. However, employees of foreign companies don’t really end up unemployed, as they retain their skills. When Moto laid off employees, didn’t Huawei step in and try to recruit those people? But what if, on the other hand, state-owned enterprises lay off employees, what will happen to these people? If you don’t believe it, ask people who are now 50 to 60 years old; they all went through the large-scale layoffs in state-owned enterprises during the 1990s (which was referred to as being laid off at that time). Therefore, I advise those who are looking for a job to keep a calm mind. The quality of a job depends on whether it contributes to your personal development; don’t focus only on the immediate situation, but rather have a long-term plan for your career. In a word: Relying on companies is not as good as relying on oneself.
Since we are comparing state-owned enterprises with foreign companies, I think the entities being compared should be on an equal footing. For example, Fortune 500 companies with significant operations in China as foreign enterprises, versus central state-owned enterprises; or smaller foreign companies versus provincial or municipal state-owned enterprises. Only by making such comparisons can the results be convincing. If it is true that China’s large state-owned enterprises are inferior to the Fortune 500 companies among foreign firms in every aspect, or that smaller state-owned enterprises are at a disadvantage compared to smaller foreign companies, then the outcome is self-evident. And if the comparison is not equal, then it makes no sense. Rather than saying that it is the state-owned enterprises that are being protected, it is actually the industries that are being protected – those industries that are vital to the national economy. Among central state-owned enterprises, there are also those that are considered key and those that are not; this classification is not determined by the size of their assets but rather by the industry in which they operate. For example, China Iron and Steel Corporation is not considered a key enterprise, while Sinosteel is. It is clear, then, that there is a firm and definite commitment to protecting certain industries and companies. The industries mentioned by the original poster – textiles, bicycles, home appliances, and mobile phones – are none of them considered key industries; it is therefore not surprising that these companies go bankrupt due to a lack of protection, and this does not indicate that state-owned enterprises are on the decline. As for the postal system mentioned by the original poster, I haven’t studied it in detail and therefore dare not offer comments. However, I know that postal services in Japan are losing money, those in the United States are also losing money, and the same is true in Germany. It is therefore unreasonable to attribute all the losses of postal services to the fact that China Post has lost its monopoly status and can no longer withstand external pressures. Japan pursued postal privatization during the Koizumi era, but now finds itself in a difficult situation; this shows that the reasons for this issue are not as simple as the original poster assumes. If we talk about \"licenses,\" then the licenses for key industries will never be revoked, as long as the Republic exists. We cannot imagine a situation where all gas stations along the roads are owned by Shell and there are no Sinopec or CNPC stations; we cannot imagine having to buy flour only from \"Meiliang\" brands while being unable to find products from \"COFCO\"; we cannot imagine foreigners controlling the Three Gorges Dam in the same way they control the Panama Canal; we cannot imagine foreigners investing in the construction of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway; we cannot imagine foreigners trying to take control of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation… The very fact that these scenarios are unimaginable shows that we are unable to use money to solve problems related to food, energy, **and other major technological challenges. It is precisely for this reason that state-owned enterprises that survive after deeper reforms are necessary. Therefore, **the purpose of deepening reforms is to reposition state-owned enterprises, rather than blindly breaking up monopolies and digging their own graves. We should see that China’s central state-owned enterprises are gradually emerging from difficulties, and the closure of those smaller state-owned enterprises represents a reasonable price to pay for reform. We cannot conclude that state-owned enterprises will gradually collapse just because the \"Panda color TVs\" were unable to withstand the competition from \"Samsung LCD TVs\" after the reform and opening up. This commits 3 mistakes: 1. It fails to view the issue from a developmental perspective; today’s state-owned enterprises are no longer the same as those of the past, and their role has changed significantly ； 2. The main aspect of the contradiction isn’t being seen; it’s true that a number of small state-owned enterprises have closed down, but this doesn’t mean that all state-owned enterprises are on the path to decline – the overall trend remains positive ； 3. There is no “equal comparison,” so the conclusion that foreign companies are better than state-owned enterprises is clearly unconvincing. There are numerous successful examples of state-owned enterprise reform. Clearly, Lenovo is not in key industries; its initial investment came from the Institute of Computing Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and it has now become a joint-stock company. In terms of importance, origins, and current status, it has gradually moved away from the definition we have of state-owned enterprises today. On Baidu Know, netizens provided three answers regarding the nature of Lenovo as a company: private joint-stock, semi-state-owned and semi-private, or publicly owned with private management. It is clear that in the eyes of the public, Lenovo is no longer considered a state-owned enterprise; so what sense does it make to use Lenovo as an example to illustrate the pressures and poor benefits faced by state-owned enterprises these days? For foreign and private enterprises to thrive, it depends on “competence”” ； For state-owned enterprises to thrive, it depends on \"competence\". This is one of the most incisive statements I’ve ever seen. As for what is more important, superior, or inferior in terms of abilities and skills, opinions vary, and no discussion will be held on this. But one thing is certain: working in a state-owned enterprise doesn’t mean losing the ability to make a living and relying on others for survival, nor does working in a foreign company mean gaining more power and rising higher and higher. Huawei competing to take away customers from Moto is similar to someone leaving China Metallurgical Group to work at another steel factory – why is there any difference? Moreover, Huawei’s status in people’s minds is probably far lower than that of Moto; it’s clearly a position of lower rank – so what is there to be proud of? Looking at the current financial crisis, with foreign companies laying off employees, state-owned enterprises, in order to fulfill their social responsibilities, have called for no layoffs – is there still any need for comparison? Also, people aged 50-60 today have experienced **going to the countryside or losing their jobs; how many of them work in foreign companies?** Is it that meaningful? I also advise those who are looking for jobs to consider issues not only in a profound and long-term manner, but also to fully understand the impact of \"Chinese characteristics\" on each of us. In a word: Those who know when to act wisely are truly great.
But in private companies, nothing is guaranteed; it’s better to work in a state-owned enterprise
A post like this by a moderator will only confuse those who are looking for work even more! This post was last edited by dlut200248148 on 2009-2-20 14:31.]
The OP’s question is whether to choose state-owned enterprises or give them up?:)
I only know one thing: it’s better to rely on oneself than on heaven or earth. Whether it’s state-owned enterprises or private companies, good progress depends on one’s own abilities and the courage to seize opportunities
I shared this post; everyone’s situation is different, so it’s necessary to analyze the actual circumstances. However, I think first-class state-owned enterprises are still the best choice – some of my classmates who work at Sinosteel or Minmetals are doing much better than those working in foreign companies.
This post was first posted on Shuimu, and I’d like to share a few of my opinions: 1. Lenovo is not a state-owned enterprise. 2. Companies in the textile, bicycle, and home appliance industries are also not state-owned enterprises. 3. Even among state-owned enterprises, there are differences in quality; those that engage in monopolistic activities are the best, while some inferior state-owned enterprises are even worse than private companies. 4. Working in a state-owned enterprise doesn’t necessarily mean one can slack off; the workload in such companies is just as heavy as in foreign companies. 5. Attitude determines everything; a lazy person will be ineffective whether working in a foreign company, a state-owned enterprise, or a private company. 6. For those without any special connections, it’s more important to do their job well; every organization and company needs people who are willing to work hard
Anyway, small state-owned enterprises certainly have no future; or rather, state-controlled enterprises are not diverse. No sense of crisis, no ambition, no potential for development.
It seems the original poster has a very limited understanding of state-owned enterprises; I know that many experts actually work in such enterprises
The issues need to be not only profound and long-term, but we also need to thoroughly understand the impact of \"Chinese characteristics\" on each of us. In a word: Those who know when to act wisely are truly great. End with this sentence~@
Relying on companies is not as good as relying on oneself. I’ll go with that too~! However, it is best to combine one’s own development with the needs of the company~~
State-owned enterprises also play a role in nurturing people; it depends on oneself.
It’s true, but experts in state-owned enterprises can also easily feel frustrated; especially when it comes to salary payments or promotions, there isn’t much difference between experts and less experienced workers, and sometimes the situation is even reversed
Every pack of cigarettes bought by people when they go out, every drop of fuel used for driving, and the trains or flights taken for long trips – all of this money does not end up in the pockets of state-owned enterprises. While salespeople from private or foreign-owned companies travel around the world to sell their products, the job of salespeople in monopolistic state-owned enterprises is simply to sit in the factory waiting for money to come in. Is this a difference?
For recently graduated students, choosing a state-owned enterprise is the right decision. Although private and foreign companies offer higher salaries, they also bring greater pressure, which is almost unbearable for fresh graduates. If you’re willing, you can choose state-owned enterprises first, as they provide a relatively more relaxed environment for newcomers to grow. As long as you’re determined and not satisfied with the status quo, you will eventually achieve the salary you desire
With the situation this year, it’s already good enough to get a job in a state-owned enterprise!
Don’t forget there is another state-owned enterprise that cannot be shut down or dismantled, and that is **the power sector**; its full-time employees enjoy very good benefits. It’s a pity I just came out of there