Directly using vouchers from the "Youshang" online shopping platform to pay employees? The seemingly 'win-win' operation is actually neither suitable nor legal. Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, concluded a labor contract dispute case and found that the practice of employers issuing seniority subsidies in the form of consumption vouchers without consultation and restricting withdrawals, consumption platforms and methods violated mandatory legal provisions and infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of workers. The court ruled that the company should pay the difference in seniority subsidies in monetary form in accordance with the law. In July 2018, Xiaoliu joined a supply chain company under a large online platform enterprise. The labor contract stipulated that the length of service subsidy was 500 yuan per month, and since then, this amount has been paid in monetary form along with his salary. In January 2023, the company adjusted the form of seniority subsidy and changed it to be distributed in the form of consumption vouchers to Xiao Liu's account on the shopping platform of the company's affiliated group. These consumption vouchers cannot be withdrawn and can only be used to purchase products on the platform. In July 2023, both labor and management terminated the labor contract, and Xiaoliu's account on the group company's online shopping platform was shut down. There were still more than 2000 yuan of consumption vouchers in his account that could not be used or withdrawn. Xiaoliu believes that the company's illegal termination of its labor contract while distributing wages in the form of consumption vouchers is also illegal, so he filed an arbitration and lawsuit to the court. Both the first and second instance courts of this case found that the termination of the labor contract with Xiaoliu by the aforementioned supply chain company on the grounds of serious violation of the company's red line system was a legal termination, and rejected Xiaoliu's relevant claims in accordance with the law. However, regarding the company's practice of "using vouchers to offset wages" to issue seniority subsidies, the court found after trial that seniority subsidies are part of the salary component, and Article 50 of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that wages should be paid to the worker in monetary form on a monthly basis. Employers shall not substitute physical objects, securities, or other forms, shall not require employees to consume at designated locations or occasions, nor shall they specify the consumption methods of employees. In this case, the supply chain company issued Xiaoliu's seniority subsidy in the form of consumption vouchers from January to June 2023. The vouchers could not be withdrawn and could only be consumed on designated platforms, which violated the mandatory provisions of the law. Therefore, both the first and second trials ruled to support Xiaoliu's demand for the supply chain company to pay the difference in seniority subsidy of 2065.53 yuan in monetary form. According to the judge's statement, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers to receive remuneration according to their work, the supply chain company in this case may have converted a portion of their wages into consumption vouchers for the purpose of reducing operating costs and stimulating consumer enthusiasm. Although the amount appears to be the same, the nature is different. This practice violates the regulation of "paying wages in monetary form" and infringes on the rights and interests of workers to receive remuneration for their work. Wages are the right of workers to receive remuneration through labor, and are the main source and basic guarantee of their livelihood. Paying wages in monetary form is necessary to ensure that workers can receive remuneration through labor and can circulate and use it normally and widely. It is necessary to regulate the wage payment behavior of employers in accordance with the law. Consumer vouchers are usually used to exchange goods or services on specific platforms or venues and do not have the liquidity of legal tender. This case provides a negative evaluation of the illegal payment behavior of employers using vouchers to offset wages, and has exemplary significance for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers to receive remuneration according to their work in accordance with the law. Here, it is necessary to remind employers that any other non monetary form of wage payment is explicitly prohibited by law. Employers must "pay money" when paying wages, that is, in monetary form, and cannot use non monetary forms such as coupons, shopping cards, vouchers, or physical goods as substitutes. (New Society)