"Meituan" asked the delivery staff to sign a "voluntary waiver" of social security and other benefits. Is this rule reasonable?

Mr. Chen from Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province came to Zhongshan, Guangdong Province to apply for the "Meituan" delivery staff. When he reported to the Sansha construction site in Henglan, he found that the salary was different from the recruitment information. The company asked him to sign an agreement and voluntarily give up social insurance and other benefits during his work. The reporter contacted the person in charge of the Sansha site, and the other party said that it is "you love me" that the two sides do not buy social security for the riders. Lawyers said that "voluntarily giving up buying social security" in labor relations itself is a violation of the agreement. For the car compensation and telephone compensation shown, the relevant person in charge said that they have been included in the salary of each order, and they were asked to see the salary details before admitting that they did not have these benefits.

I have to say that the divine operation of the US Mission is a kind of bullying and fear of hard work, and it is possible to take up legal weapons to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. On the other hand, this phenomenon is widespread, and such deception exists in large enterprises like Meituan, not to mention those unknown small enterprises! It is estimated that the takeaway riders of the US Mission will rotate a group of people in three months or even six months. Paying social security is not unwilling to pay, and there are not many riders who pay with the enterprise (the key point is: riders are unwilling). If the enterprise really pays social security completely, then the enterprise is estimated to break even, especially labor-intensive enterprises. Profits are really as thin as paper! A single profit is estimated to be only a few cents. There are many people on the internet who say that enterprises that don't pay social security are not responsible! I want to ask you, if there is no money to earn, why can this enterprise still sit still? Having no money is like not paying someone to work. Would you like to?

There are only two cases of scolding social security: I think I'm cheating him, and I'd rather not deduct money and get full salary. But once he was old and had no social security money, he cursed the government for abandoning him. When he retires and gets social security, he will scold the money a little bit, which is enough to drink fart. In short, the government will always treat him badly. My idea is simple. Pay less at the front and more at the back, which means that the state should allow enterprises to pay social security according to the minimum standard, so that enterprises can be willing to use new people and new people can get more money when they start. After all, mortgage and car loans all need money! ! In the later period, the hands are very plentiful and the pressure is not great. At this time, the state should let enterprises pay on time and let individuals pay more! This is people-oriented and comprehensive. Regarding social security, it is suggested to solve the regional differences first, unify the national urban levy standard and retirement wage base as soon as possible, and then solve the urban-rural differences.

If these real interests conflict, many people who go out to work will still choose to pay less or not. Imagine that you come from a fourth-tier town, work in a first-tier city, and pay social security in a first-tier city. In the future, the base of your retirement salary will be calculated according to the fourth-tier towns. what do you think? If you come from the countryside, pay according to the social security of urban workers, and receive a pension according to the rural social security after retirement, you will also feel that you are losing money.