On 20 May 2025, a catastrophic fire broke out at the Sichuan Jinyu Textile Company factory in Pingshan County, Sichuan. Allegedly started by a 27-year-old worker named Wen, the blaze destroyed two workshops and burned for over 30 hours. During the incident, Wen also stabbed and injured the factory’s finance manager, Mr Lei.
Screenshot circulating on Chinese social media showing smoke from the Pingshan textile factory fire
Local authorities were swift to frame the incident as the isolated act of a mentally unstable individual. A public security notice claimed Wen had "psychological problems" and acted out of personal despair, rather than as a result of any labour dispute. The Pingshan County Public Security Bureau denied online reports that Wen was owed 800 yuan in unpaid wages, dismissing them as "rumours" and threatening punishment for spreading false information. Wen was arrested at the scene, and officials urged the public not to speculate while the investigation continued.
Pingshan police notice on the 20 May factory arson, attributing the incident to personal distress and denying wage arrears
Wage Arrears and Legal Contradictions
Wage arrears are a widespread issue in China, representing 76% of the incidents on CLB's strike map since 2011. In 2024 alone, over 88% of the recorded incidents were related to unpaid wages. The police’s denial of wage arrears stands in stark contrast to both China’s labour laws and the known facts of the case. According to Article 9 of the Provisional Regulations on Wage Payment, when a labour contract is terminated, “the employer shall pay the worker’s wages in one lump sum at the time of dissolution or termination”. In other words, any outstanding wages must be paid immediately upon an employee’s departure.
Wen resigned on 30 April. By the time he completed his departure procedures on 15 May, the factory owed him 5,370 yuan. Wen requested immediate payment, but the finance office refused, citing internal approval procedures. Although the amount was confirmed, Wen left empty-handed. After requesting the payment again from his supervisor without success, Wen reportedly grew increasingly frustrated. According to the police report, this delay led him to develop "thoughts of revenge."
The factory’s refusal to pay Wen on the day of his resignation was a clear breach of labour regulations. Calling it a rumour is misleading. The dispute was not over 800 yuan—it involved 5,370 yuan that should have been paid by law. Internal procedures do not override legal obligations. By failing to comply, the factory triggered a wage dispute that local authorities now appear keen to minimise.
Ignored Structural Issues
The official narrative focuses heavily on Wen’s personal background—poverty, dropping out of school, and a withdrawn personality—painting him as emotionally unstable while avoiding any scrutiny of the factory’s role. This narrative risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes: that migrant workers with similar life experiences are prone to violence. Yet, as CLB’s report on migrant workers and their children highlights, these workers often face systemic discrimination, harsh working conditions, limited social protection, and inadequate support. These are not personal failings, but structural problems rooted in China's model of economic development.
Equally troubling is the total absence of trade union support. From Wen’s resignation on 30 April to the fire on 20 May, more than 20 days passed. During that time, both the enterprise and local unions had multiple opportunities to support Wen’s wage claim as he left the company. No union—neither at the enterprise level nor from the local federation—stepped in. As CLB’s research shows, enterprise unions are often controlled by management and rarely advocate for workers in disputes. Local unions tend to prioritise formalities over meaningful engagement. Wen’s case is a clear example of how this system fails those it is meant to protect.
Public reaction reflects widespread frustration with these systemic flaws. Online, Wen is known as “Brother 800,” referencing the alleged 800-yuan wage arrears. Despite official denials, many netizens view Wen as a desperate victim and hero, not a criminal. One viral comment asked, “Why would a man burn down a factory over 800 yuan unless he was truly at his breaking point?” Others decried the double standard: workers who protest are branded troublemakers, while employers who withhold wages face little accountability.
In the comments under the Pingshan police notice, netizens directly accuse the authorities of siding with the employer and denying wage arrears.
Pingshan’s Lesson: Reform or Repeat
The Pingshan fire shows the serious consequences of failing to protect workers’ rights. This was not simply a case of individual instability—it was the result of a breakdown in the legal and institutional systems meant to support workers. Wen’s wage dispute should have been resolved swiftly through lawful and proper procedures. Instead, it was met with delays and indifference.
The fallout has been severe. Wen now faces prosecution. The factory suffered major losses. Thousands of workers have lost their jobs. And the unions that should have intervened stayed silent. No one won.
This tragedy cannot be dismissed with vague claims of psychological distress. It calls for accountability and reform. China must ensure strong enforcement of labour laws, create genuinely independent trade unions, and establish fair and accessible mechanisms for resolving disputes. The Pingshan fire, if not properly learned from, could see its underlying problems resurface everywhere.