“放弃社保”协议无效，9月新规如何改写劳资博弈？

Group 1 - The Supreme Court has clarified that any agreement to not pay social insurance is invalid, allowing workers to terminate their contracts and demand economic compensation from employers [1][5][8] - The new regulation, effective September 1, aims to protect workers' rights and promote social fairness, despite concerns from some workers about reduced take-home pay and increased costs for small businesses [2][9][10] Group 2 - The prevalence of "non-payment" agreements has been noted, particularly among small and emerging businesses seeking to reduce labor costs, which undermines the integrity of the social security system [4][11] - Data shows a steady increase in the number of individuals covered by social insurance over the past five years, indicating a growing compliance with social security regulations [12][13] Group 3 - The new judicial interpretation raises the compliance costs for businesses, compelling them to include social insurance expenses in their operational budgets, which may lead to a shift towards more compliant labor practices [10][15] - There is a need to balance the financial burden on individuals and businesses, as the requirement to pay social insurance may reduce immediate income for workers while increasing operational costs for employers [16][17] Group 4 - Experts suggest that reforms are necessary to optimize the social insurance system, including lowering rates for small businesses and creating more flexible payment mechanisms for individuals [17][18]