The Art of Shifting Blame Behind a Cup of Milk Tea: Unraveling the Employee Rights Protection Incident at “Yidianidian”
Hello everyone, I’m your financial journalist friend. Today, we’re not talking about whether a cup of milk tea tastes good or not, but about how a chain giant with over 5,000 stores navigates the gray areas of management, law, and ethics.
Recently, the incident of “Yidianidian threatening employees” made headlines, with 420 million views. Many people’s first reaction was, “Oh my god, a big brand would actually send people to employees’ homes to cause trouble?” But if you only see that aspect, you’re missing the core business logic and systemic flaws behind it.
In this article, I’ll break down the situation into five parts in plain language to show you what really happened and what it means for us ordinary workers and consumers.
---
I. Event Review: A 133-Day “Rashomon” – Money Was Paid, But the Issue Remains
Let’s first clarify the timeline to understand the whole situation.
1. The Beginning: Stones in the Tea
In March 2026, the employee started working at a direct-operated store of Yidianidian in Sanming, Fujian. Less than two months later, he found stones and plastic strips in the tea.
- Employee’s Perspective: This is too dirty! According to industry standards, any foreign objects should render the entire batch unusable.
- Company’s Perspective: The tea is naturally picked, and it’s inevitable to have some impurities. As long as they can be removed, it’s still usable; there’s no need to waste it. Moreover, he only took photos and didn’t follow the procedure by recording a video of the tea being brewed, so it doesn’t count as evidence.
**2. The Outbreak: Resignation and the “Home Visit”
At the beginning of August, the employee resigned, claiming that social security wasn’t provided and no formal labor contract was signed. He then realized he had signed a “third-party flexible employment agreement” (in other words, he was an outsourced worker, not a regular employee).
On August 13, the situation escalated:
- Employee’s Claim: The company sent three people to his hometown, approached his grandparents, and used surveillance footage to imply he was extorting money, making threatening statements.
- Company’s Claim: The local staff in Fujian “handled the matter on their own” and brought milk as a gesture of goodwill; there were no threats.
- Police’s Statement: No violence was used, and the visit didn’t constitute a violation of the law.
3. The Outcome: Money Was Paid, but Not an Apology
Through labor arbitration, the company compensated the employee 15,900 yuan (salary + compensation). The money was transferred, but the employee didn’t receive an apology, and the truth about the tea impurities wasn’t clarified, nor was the nature of the company’s visit defined.
Core Conflict: Money can end a labor relationship, but it can’t erase public doubts about the brand’s ethical standards.
---
II. Employment Practices: 5,426 Stores, but Only 2 Employees with Social Security at the Headquarters?
This is the most alarming statistic in the whole incident.
The operating entity of Yidianidian on the mainland is “Genshen Catering Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.” According to Tianyancha data, this company only had 2 employees with social security in 2025.
Meanwhile, Yidianidian has 5,426 stores nationwide.
What does this mean?
1. Extreme Asset Lightness: The headquarters hardly employs anyone. Personnel, finance, supervision, and even regional managers are likely managed by affiliated companies, outsourcing firms, or franchisees.
2. Responsibility Shield: When employees seek rights protection, the headquarters can say, “We didn’t hire them directly; they’re from a third-party company.” When food safety issues arise, the headquarters can say, “It’s the store or franchisee’s problem.”
3. Management Black Box: How can a company with only 2 employees with social security at the headquarters manage over 5,000 stores? It relies on layers of subcontracting and authorization. In this structure, the “headquarters” becomes a “shell” that only collects brand licensing fees and hardly assumes any management responsibility.
Simple Explanation: It’s like a contractor with only two accountants managing 5,000 construction sites. If an accident happens, the contractor says, “It’s the sub-contractor’s problem; I’m not responsible.”
---
III. Legal Battle: Have New Regulations Made Shifting Blame Ineffective?
Many people ask, “Doesn’t the government regulate this?” Yes, and it does, quite strictly.
The “Regulations on the Supervision and Management of Food Safety Responsibilities of Catering Service Chain Enterprises” came into effect on December 1, 2025, and it specifically addresses this kind of shirking of responsibility:
> Article 9, Paragraph 4: “The company headquarters shall not use contracts or other means to reduce or exempt itself from its legal food safety responsibilities.”
> Article 27: Violators can be fined up to 50,000 yuan.
The Intent of the Regulations is Clear:
Previously, chain brands used methods like franchising, outsourcing, and flexible employment to shift responsibility. Now, the authorities say, “No more! As the brand owner, you are fully responsible for food safety. You can’t say, ‘It was the franchisee’s fault’ or ‘It was the outsourced workers’ to avoid responsibility.”
Back to the Yidianidian Incident:
- If the regulatory authorities determine that the tea impurities were due to the headquarters’ low quality control standards (allowing the use of substandard products) or lack of control over stores, the headquarters will be held accountable.
- Currently, the local regulatory authorities have conducted an investigation, and the results are pending. If the conclusion is that there was a management lapse, the headquarters’ defense that they’re just a brand owner won’t hold up in court.
Key Point: The law is tightening to prevent the loophole of multiple layers of subcontracting and shifting responsibility. However, enforcement often depends on individual cases.
---
IV. Brand Crisis: From an “Apology Letter” to the Top of the Hot Searches – The Chain Reaction of Trust Erosion
This isn’t the first time Yidianidian has had issues.
- May 2026: A store in Rugao, Jiangsu, was fined 6,000 yuan for using expired pearl powder in its products.
- June 2026: The “China Food Safety News” exposed issues such as arbitrarily changing product expiration dates, using leftover ingredients, and employees not wearing masks or gloves. The brand issued an apology and promised a comprehensive inspection.
- August 2026: The employee rights protection incident erupted.
Where’s the Problem?
1. Superficial Reparations: The June apology sounded good, with a promise to inspect each store found to have issues. But three months later, similar problems (quality control, employment) recurred, indicating that the reforms didn’t address the root causes—the management system remained the same, relying on manual checks rather than systematic controls.
2. Poor Response: When faced with employee complaints, the brand’s first reaction was to send people to the employees’ homes, which is a huge mistake in business ethics. It sends the message that the brand values controlling public opinion and suppressing individuals over solving problems and respecting employees.
3. Trust Gap: Consumers buy milk tea for peace of mind. When the brand is found to allow substandard tea, use outsourced workers to avoid social security, or send people to pressure employees, they wonder, “Could the tea I drank also have substandard ingredients? Is my health at risk?”
The Iron Law of Brand Crisis Management: In the age of social media, attitude is more important than facts. Yidianidian’s denial of threats is irrelevant; what matters is the action of sending people to family homes.
---
V. Deep Insights: How Can Ordinary People and Consumers Protect Themselves?
What can we learn from this incident?
For Workers:
- Understand the Nature of Flexible Employment: If you’re hired through a contract with a “human resources company” or “technology company” rather than the brand headquarters or direct-operated store, be aware that you’re not a regular employee but an outsourced worker.
- Social Security is a Minimum Standard: Regardless of the contract, if you work at a store and are under the store’s management, you have a de facto labor relationship. The company’s failure to provide social security is illegal. Keep records of your salary, ID, and shift schedules as evidence for rights protection.
- Rational Rights Protection: Try internal communication first; if that fails, seek labor arbitration. Avoid emotional confrontations and focus on factual issues such as lack of social security, no contract, or quality control violations.
For Consumers:
- Evaluate Brand Trustworthiness: If a chain brand has thousands of stores but few employees with social security at the headquarters, it indicates high reliance on outsourcing and franchising, increasing the risk of quality control issues.
- Watch How the Brand Responds to Crises: Do they delete negative posts, ignore the issue, or shift blame to franchisees? A brand that publicly apologizes, provides detailed reforms, and takes responsibility is more trustworthy.
- Observe Employee Conditions: When visiting stores, check if employees follow safety protocols (masks, gloves). Their well-being reflects the brand’s management and care for its staff. A brand that exploits its workers is unlikely to ensure food safety.
For Regulators:
- Penetrative Supervision: Future regulations should not only focus on whether stores comply but also on whether the headquarters fulfill their management responsibilities.
- Clearer Definitions and Penalties: There needs to be a clear distinction and stricter penalties for the misuse of flexible and outsourced labor in the catering industry.
---
Conclusion
The Yidianidian incident is, on the surface, an employee rights dispute, but it’s actually a reflection of the conflict between China’s “light-asset expansion” in the catering industry and the need for stronger responsibility management.
Brand owners use flexible employment to cut costs, outsourcing to shift risks, and standardized processes to cover up management flaws. However, when conflicts intensify, this system exposes its weakness: no one is ultimately responsible for the outcomes.
The regulatory authorities’ decision will determine whether this system complies with the law. Regardless of the outcome, this incident serves as a wake-up call for all chain brands:
“You can use contracts to avoid legal responsibilities, but you can’t use them to avoid damage to your brand reputation.”
In the eyes of consumers, Yidianidian is no longer just a milk tea brand; it’s a metaphor for the question of whether we’ve lost the basic human warmth and food safety in our pursuit of efficiency and profit.
This question is harder to answer than whether there were threats, and it’s worth deeper reflection for all businesses.