Summary of the Key Points
A 39-year-old programmer in Shenzhen died suddenly while using the restroom on the second floor after clocking in at the company building. The labor department refused to recognize it as a work-related injury, arguing that he had not reached his workstation or engaged in any work-related activities. The author believes this is a mechanical application of legal provisions that goes against the spirit of guiding cases from the Supreme People's Court—using the restroom is a necessary physiological need for workers and a natural extension of their work. The author emphasizes that the law should protect the dignity of workers throughout the entire process from entering the workplace to reaching their workstation, not just focusing on the code being written at the workstation.
I. The Logic of the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau: Fragmenting Work and Ignoring That Humans Are Not Machines
The labor department’s reasoning seems logical: a work-related injury requires three elements: working hours, the workplace, and a work-related cause. Since the programmer did not reach his workstation, it was not considered a work-related injury. However, this logic makes a mistake of “mechanical segmentation”—it treats work as a series of steps that must be precisely connected: clocking in = starting line, reaching the workstation = finish line, and writing code = actual work, with activities such as using the restroom and walking being excluded.
This is like treating people as “switched-on machines”: only when you press the clock-in button do you enter “work mode”; otherwise, you are in a “non-work state.” In reality, humans are not robots and cannot instantly switch states. Walking from the parking lot to the building, using the restroom, and then reaching the workstation are all natural parts of the workday—how can these be considered unrelated to work? If we follow this logic, should employee bathroom breaks also be deducted when calculating overtime pay? This clearly does not make sense.
II. The Supreme People’s Court Has Already Provided a “Standard Answer”: Using the Restroom Is Part of Work and Should Be Recognized as a Work-Related Injury
In fact, the Supreme People’s Court has already provided clear rulings on similar cases:
- In the 2004 He Wenliang case, an employee died suddenly while using the restroom before entering the workshop after the start bell rang. The labor department initially did not recognize it as a work-related injury, but the court ruled that using the restroom is a necessary physiological need and inseparable from normal work.
- In the 2006 Sun Lixing case, the court further clarified that the “workplace” includes reasonable areas for employees to move between different work locations (such as the path from the workstation to the restroom).
The Shenzhen case is almost identical to the He Wenliang case: both deaths occurred while using the restroom after clocking in but before reaching the workstation. Even ordinary people can see the similarity between these cases, so why does the labor department ignore the guidance from the Supreme People’s Court? This gap in understanding is worth reflecting on.
III. Using the Restroom Is Not a “Casual Matter”; It Is a Fundamental Right of Workers
Why must using the restroom be protected? Because it is a physiological need essential to being human—people need to metabolize and rest to continue working. Scholars say that the right to rest is a fundamental human right, and using the restroom is part of that right.
The purpose of the work-related injury system is to protect workers from harm during “occupational activities,” which includes not only direct tasks like writing code or doing physical labor but also preparatory activities (such as changing into work clothes) and reasonable activities to meet physiological needs (such as drinking water or using the restroom). If these are not protected, the purpose of the work-related injury system is lost.
IV. The Warmth of the Law: Don’t Use Technological Precision to “Calculate” the Dignity of Workers
Technology is becoming more advanced; surveillance can accurately record the time spent using the restroom, and clock-in systems can locate a person on every floor of the building. However, if these technologies are used to precisely exclude workers from being recognized as having work-related injuries—such as saying that a death is unrelated to work just because someone did not reach their workstation—the more precise the technology, the colder the law becomes.
Tocqueville once said, “The degree of a nation’s civilization can be measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Workers are already in a vulnerable position in labor relations: they cannot control when they need to use the restroom or whether they will suddenly fall ill. The law should stand on their side, protecting every step from home to the workstation, not using precise measurements to determine whether someone has reached the workstation.
The ideal of the rule of law is not to confine people with rigid laws but to make the law warm and protective—it should safeguard not just the code written at the workstation but the entire dignity of each worker’s life, from birth to death.
V. The Essence of Work-Related Injury Recognition: Protecting the “Whole Process of Occupational Activities,” Not Just a “Moment at the Workstation”
Work-related injury recognition should not focus on whether someone is at the workstation but on whether they are engaged in activities that serve the work. When a programmer clocks in and enters the company building, they have entered the employer’s premises and begun the workday—using the restroom is a natural part of this process.
If we define the “workstation” as the only “safe zone,” then would falls in the parking lot or sudden illnesses in the elevator not be considered work-related injuries? That would be unreasonable. The law should expand the “workplace” to include the entire area controlled by the employer and the “working hours” to the entire period from entering the workplace until leaving, thereby truly protecting workers’ rights.
In the end, the law is not a set of cold provisions but a tool for protecting people. When a worker enters the company building for work, their safety should be protected by the law—whether they are writing code or on their way to the restroom.
The core of this article is a question: Whom does our law really aim to protect? The rigid provisions, or the living, breathing individuals? The answer should be clear.