Just north of $1500 per employee if the interwebs is right about their employee count.
Huawei, America's favourite bogeyman, is to dish out ¥2bn (£219m) as a reward to employees working their arses off on contingency plans to mitigate the anti-China rhetoric coming from the US government. In May the US barred Huawei from buying American components and software without a special licence, though certain suppliers …
Tuesday 12th November 2019 23:59 GMT Mark 85
Wednesday 13th November 2019 09:57 GMT JetSetJim
I have known a few from their network infrastructure biz in the past and a lot of them are actually paid not too shabbily nowadays. Too much job competition from other competitors in the area, plus the tendency for company IPR to occasionally wander off with the employee, plus the steeply rising cost of living, means they try hard to keep their employees.
Chine isn't a "low-cost" centre for everything any more - that title has moved on elsewhere
Tuesday 12th November 2019 20:54 GMT Chris G
Tuesday 12th November 2019 21:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wednesday 13th November 2019 00:01 GMT Mark 85
A true capitalist would have declared that the company was actually still suffering from the blacklist, despite the efforts of workers, and used that as an excuse to cut their pay rather than reward them.
However, the C-Suite would be getting large bonuses because of all their valuable service in moving the company through the "hard times".
Wednesday 13th November 2019 07:55 GMT Ubermik
The thing most people miss is that china isnt really "communist" as well as the fact that unregulated capitalism invariably tries to get as close to slavery and indentured workers as a legal system allows whilst lobbying incessantly to remove laws and restrictions that stop it getting even closer to slavery
Niether full blown communism or unregulated and unrestricted capitalism are good for a society, the "best" choice is NEVER one of the extremes for ANYTHING EVER, yet full blown communism or full blown capitalism are the ONLY two options people are led to believe exist, when the BEST choice is ALWAYS somewhere near the centre between the two extremes
Wednesday 13th November 2019 08:56 GMT MyffyW
Wednesday 13th November 2019 10:01 GMT JetSetJim
> Government governs best (*) when it governs least
(*) - For some values of "best". The Tories would deregulate everything and flog off all nationally held infrastructure/institutions, given half a chance. That would minimise government, but not sure it would be governing "best".
Capitalism is a broken system that encourages wealth and power to migrate to the few, neglecting the poor. "Maximising shareholder value" is an out-dated maxim that should be reworked.
Wednesday 13th November 2019 14:30 GMT julian.smith
Wednesday 13th November 2019 16:17 GMT JetSetJim
Re: American neo-consrvative nonsense.
> If you don't want to govern, don't stand for election.
Part of the problem is that a few/some/all (*) people want to govern for the wrong reasons, and it is often the case that the ones who want to govern really shouldn't be put in charge of anything more complicated than sweeping leaves
(*) select one option
Thursday 14th November 2019 09:06 GMT MyffyW
Re: American neo-consrvative nonsense.
- every country where government does everything has turned out to be a lousy place to live.
- every country that actually lacks a government has turned out to be a lousy place to live.
- the small number of countries which have had government limited to guarding the coastlines, keeping the judiciary honest and delivering the mail have generally been the places people from the first two want to move to.
I'm a soft-left-liberal-libertarian-feminist if that helps orientate me on the riemann geometry of modern politics :-)
Wednesday 13th November 2019 07:38 GMT W.S.Gosset
Previous Bonus/$Participation initiatives
p19-20: Huawei China announces its formal policy of a Bonus Program (monthly and annual) "to reward employees who stole confidential information from competitors":
"Under the policy, HUAWEI CHINA established a formal schedule for rewarding employees for stealing information from competitors based upon the confidential value of the information obtained."
Wednesday 13th November 2019 10:17 GMT Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?
Re: Previous Bonus/$Participation initiatives
That is an indictment, to which Huawei has plead Not Guiltiy. The trail has been scheduled to start in March 2020, so this is an accusation, nothing more. Until something has been proven in court, this does nothing to aid any argument for or against Huawei.
Frankly the more I hear about this company, the more I like them. Not only have they taken the US ban on the chin, they are working around it and being financially successful in the process, while offering (apparently) significant bonuses to their employees for their part in the companies success. Anyone who can make the current US administration look even sillier that it manages to make itself look is fine with me.
Wednesday 13th November 2019 07:52 GMT Ubermik
Wednesday 13th November 2019 10:36 GMT Unep Eurobats
Wednesday 13th November 2019 12:35 GMT ArildVollan
Ericsson and Nokia are also Chinese
Boycotting Huawei will simply lead to employees and expertise leaving one Chinese company for another.
Oddly enough, the Trump administration doesn't understand what's going on. Huawei is only used to give the world a new Cold War. Therefore, everyone should support that Huawei is trying to defend itself.
Even if Europe and Australia opts for Ericsson or Nokia, it will still use Chinese 5G products. All technology companies have one thing in common, much of their equipment is produced in Chinese factories.
Nokia and Ericsson have 12,000 employees in China for the production of the companies' 5G networks. In addition, they have cooperation agreements with many Chinese factories for delivering components to the companies' 5G networks.
American inspectors have probably not called in at Nokia Shanghai Bell or they would have realised that Nokia is, in a real sense, a Chinese company. Most 5G components are produced in China anyway, so it is puzzling that the US insists Europe and Australia cannot use Huawei technology.
Ericsson has six R&D centers in China, with totally 5000 R&D engineers. 90% of Ericsson product involved five Chinese R&D center. Nanjing Ericsson Panda has developed into the world's largest supply center for Ericsson. 40% of Ericsson's global shipments come from here, and the localization rate of products is close to 100%.
Ericsson even owns 5G patents together with Huawei. Therefore, based on the American mindset, Ericsson must also be boycotted by the US. By using Ericsson, the US also gets a Chinese-made 5G network. What, then, is the point of boycotting Huawei?
For Nokia 7,000 employees in China focusing on customers, service, R&D, manufacturing and supply chain. Nokia has six R&D innovation hubs and three manufacturing facilities. If Europe boycotts Huawei, Nokia has the plans ready: Adding 2500 new Chinese employees.
Way should Europe and Australia just to support the US’ new-found policy of protectionism?
Why should Europe and Australia pay the costs, take the risks and gamble with their economic development and growth?
Blindly following the US will have enormous consequences for European business. It will delay the development and deployment of artificial intelligence and the next generation of wireless services, just to support the US’ new-found policy of protectionism.
United States influence
Over the past year, countries all over the world have been visited by President Trump's envoys. The message is threatening: We must choose: Either China or the United States. Which has led to debates and fears. We are moving away from "one world, one system".
Common cyber security and global standards will be reduced. Our world is hardly more secure if we contribute to a polarized world. Especially smaller countries, with an open economy, rely on fewer trade barriers, not more. We should not help to tear down the trade regime created after World War II.
Europe and Australia must work for common international standards, joint efforts on cyber security, and work with several global players.
Neither Europe nor Australia can boycott a company because it has an ethnic Chinese origin. Ethnic discrimination has been tried by Europe (before the Second World War) .
The purpose of developing technologies is to give people more options, and greater diversity.
Technological advances, such as AI and 5G, must be used to create a more peaceful world. And do not be abused, as the United States now does, to establish a new Cold War.
Just to make the US Great again...
Please see my article in South China Morning Post: https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/united-states/article/3002164/price-europe-following-us-huawei-boycott-may?fbclid=IwAR0WiZEMR0CafMqX3_lJjA7QlaymaW9qfZY8KGqVoGJN370I28xHD8yjAuw
Thursday 14th November 2019 16:17 GMT wscull
Re: Ericsson and Nokia are also Chinese
Isn't this really about who has access to any potential backdoors in the 5G systems? The US want US suppliers like Cisco because they have the backdoors from them; and they don't for Chinese suppliers like Huawei. So ban Huawei and push US suppliers.....