"The idea that 'not taking leave is dedication' needs to be left behind. Multiple media outlets list the reasons why employees are afraid to take time off."

Recently, four departments including the Guizhou Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security issued a notice on further advancing the implementation of staggered paid time off for employees. Among the expressions in it, such as “discarding the one-sided view that equates not taking leave with ‘dedication and selfless service,’” which has been widely regarded by public opinion as directly hitting the core issue.

Why emphasize “Not taking leave ≠ dedication and selfless service”? After the subsequent coverage by CCTV’s “News 1+1,” Li Ying, deputy director of the wage approval center for government agencies and public institutions in Guizhou Province, said that in our initial survey we found that many employees harbor concerns in their hearts: My work is already so busy—if I take a vacation, will my leader think I’m not hardworking enough? During year-end performance evaluations and awards, will I be excluded as a result? Even some people worry that if I use up all my leave days, will my leader think I’m being slack in my work and not having a positive attitude? These mental burdens make employees “dare not take leave.” From the perspective of companies: Some small and micro enterprises often treat paid leave as a kind of “benefit” given to employees by the unit, rather than as a “right” employees are entitled to under law. This kind of mistaken understanding directly leads to a discount being applied to the leave system during implementation.

She explained that precisely because of this, this time we specifically wrote in the notice in black and white, “discarding the notion that employees who do not take leave are equating it with dedication and selfless service.” The purpose is to create a good social atmosphere around taking vacation and to change people’s long-formed, entrenched way of thinking.

An article from the Elephant News “Fengping” column said: “In our generation, from childhood on, we’ve especially admired phrases like ‘working without complaint, serving quietly, forgetting oneself in one’s work, and staying up to exhaustion.’ Whether reading news or watching novels, whenever they mention role models—on holidays when families reunite like Spring Festival and National Day—they stick to their posts and don’t even take a single day off; whenever they talk about advanced individuals, it’s all about going to work while sick and staying on the front lines with minor injuries. Such an image is the ‘old ox’ byword for diligence, selfless service, and responsibility.” The article said that this notice from Guizhou, which appears to be regulating the leave system, is in fact turning around an outdated perception: Dedication is not about consuming yourself with no time off all year round.

In response to the distorted beliefs currently existing in the workplace, a Beijing News editorial titled “Discarding ‘Not taking leave equals dedication’ is necessary to correct the course” also mentioned that our society has long prized a hardworking culture of grinding it out and giving without self-interest. Over time, the idea of “working overtime is glorious” has gained a strong social foundation. Companies may also, without realizing it, link employees’ overtime work directly to their sense of responsibility, dedication, and even loyalty to the company. Moreover, many employees have gradually developed, almost imperceptibly, a sense of “vacation shame,” feeling uneasy or guilty about what is originally normal leave, or not daring to take leave.

The article points out that in fact, in recent years, the phenomenon of “ineffective overtime” has triggered increasing skepticism. For example, some companies force employees to work overtime for long periods that lacks actual job content, including “camping and wasting time when a leader is around,” or repeating low-efficiency labor to show dedication. Such conduct not only damages employees’ right to rest, but also brings no benefit to the company’s own development. Because it likely conceals real problems that need to be addressed, such as low management efficiency and a distorted workplace culture. At the same time, against the current backdrop of “anti-involution,” employers should reach a consensus: a development model driven solely by “low employee rights and interests” dividends is becoming less and less workable. Changing employment concepts and confronting employees’ right to rest are unavoidable parts of how companies pursue long-term competitiveness and sustainable development.

Also, according to a commentary article on Southcn.com, in the office, there are always people who are proud of working without rest year-round and treat overtime hours as a measure of loyalty. In the eyes of some managers, employees who voluntarily give up their time off and stick to their posts seem more “reliable” than those who take leave on schedule. This kind of distorted value system creates an invisible pressure that makes many people develop “vacation shame,” as if enjoying legally mandated holidays is tantamount to slacking off at work and “betraying” the collective. “Annual paid leave” often turns into “paper benefits,” and in the dilemma of “not daring to take leave, not being able to take leave, and taking too little leave,” countless workers silently endure physical and mental exhaustion.

The above-mentioned articles state that not taking leave is not the same as dedication, and excessive consumption is not selfless service. This certainty is a wake-up call that hits “involution” culture—one that ties employees’ health and time to the unlimited. For a laborer who is exhausted and living on borrowed health, how can they maintain sustained creativity and efficient output? Equating not taking leave with dedication is essentially a short-sighted management mindset; what it covers up is low efficiency in work processes and unreasonable manpower allocation. If such an idea becomes prevalent over the long term, it will not only damage workers’ physical and mental health and family happiness, but also erode an organization’s vitality, leading to a depletion of innovation capacity.

The vitality of a policy lies in its implementation.

A Hongwang commentary article said that in some units, “the leader doesn’t take leave, so I don’t dare take leave” has become an unwritten rule, and some even simply equate “not taking leave” with “dedication.” Under this influence, some employees, in order to “keep up with” their leaders, do not dare to proactively submit leave requests, fearing that they will be labeled as “not ambitious enough.” The article calls for, in this context, unit leaders and cadres to take leave first. This is a way of treasuring one’s own legally mandated right to rest; it helps eliminate employees’ concerns about “wanting to rest but not daring to rest,” and it can also clearly convey the correct value orientation: The standard for measuring an individual’s work performance lies in actual results, not in unilaterally showcasing a “dedication and selfless service” persona by giving up rest. Leaders and cadres should keep up with the times and change their mindset. By taking reverence for the Constitution and the Labor Law as the basic basis, and while coordinating and advancing all kinds of work, they should take the lead in implementing the leave system. This is not only a legally mandated right, but also a duty.

A Jiupai News article analyzed that how far Guizhou’s attempt can go depends on two levels: first, whether employers are willing to “loosen the rules,” and second, whether employees dare to “seize it.”

On the employer side, the concerns are nothing more than fear of affecting work. But work can be arranged, and production can be scheduled. What is mentioned in the document—“by department, in batches, with flexible rolling adjustments”—is a practical plan. What is truly difficult is changing managers’ mindsets: letting go of the rigid impression that “taking leave means being lazy,” and returning the right to take leave to employees for real.

On the employee side, there are also many concerns. Worrying about affecting wage income, about losing out in evaluations for awards and selections for excellence, about promotion opportunities falling through… these worries are not groundless. What is needed is institutional protection, and also a supportive atmosphere. Guizhou has clearly required the selection, establishment, and promotion of typical cases that safeguard employees’ rights to rest and take leave—so that by using role models nearby, employees’ concerns can be dispelled.

The article points out that the right to take leave is a mirror that reflects a unit or a locality’s attitude toward its employees. Guizhou has taken a step this time. This step is worth affirming and worth expecting.

A massive amount of information and precise interpretation—available in the Sina Finance app

Edited by: Liu Wanli SF014