Taiwan case

A woman lay on the ground in front of a shop, her head was being covered by a hat, for four days straight, refusing to get up.

The shop owner, at a loss, put up a sign next to her explaining the situation: the woman was a former employee who had resigned, but was now trying to extort twelve thousand dollars in China reminbi yuan, threatening to refuse payment if refused.

Relevant authorities came to communicate, but the woman neither got up nor spoke. What should one do when faced with such a shameless person?

This incident in Shangqiu, Henan, did not initially escalate to this point.

The incident occurred in January 2026 at an ordinary restaurant, not in a remote location. Starting in mid-January, a person appeared in front of the shop.

It was a middle-aged woman, wearing a black hat pulled low, lying directly on the ground in front of the shop entrance. She did not shout or cause a disturbance; if someone asked, she would simply say, "The boss owes me money," and then remain silent.

A red sign stood next to her, stating that she had previously worked there, her wages had been settled, and she had returned to claim compensation due to a dispute.

This woman, surnamed Li, started working at the shop in early January, responsible for making noodles. When she first arrived, she was enthusiastic, arriving early every day and seemingly willing to work. However, in practice, many of her methods differed from the shop's procedures. The kitchen had reminded her several times, but the effect was minimal.

The real problem arose on January 9th. That day, she did not control the rising time of a batch of flatbreads properly, and a customer complained on the spot after they were served. The head chef became agitated and said some unpleasant things in front of several kitchen staff. Ms. Li immediately said she wouldn't work there anymore, put down her things, and was about to leave. The head chef didn't say much, only replying, "Then you can leave."

That evening, the owner, Mr. Cui, still settled her salary according to procedure. Ms. Li had worked for a total of 17 days, and the money was paid in full via bank transfer; the records were all there. In Mr. Cui's view, the matter ended there; the employment relationship was terminated, and the payment was settled.

But the next day, Ms. Li returned to the shop, changing her story and claiming she had been fired, demanding 12,000 yuan in compensation. Mr. Cui immediately denied this, believing she had resigned voluntarily. The two argued at the door for a while, but could not reach an agreement.

Afterwards, Ms. Li began lying down at the shop entrance. Her behavior was very "restrained"—she didn't block the kitchen, cause trouble in the store, or engage in physical altercations with employees. She would lie down at the entrance whenever the store was open; she would leave when it closed, only to return the next day and repeat the same action.

For the restaurant, the impact was direct. Customers, seeing someone lying at the entrance from afar, mostly instinctively avoided it; some turned away halfway through their walk. After a few days, customer traffic noticeably decreased, especially during mealtimes, with tables that should have been full remaining empty.

To avoid misunderstandings, Mr. Cui put up a sign nearby clearly stating the situation: the employee resigned voluntarily, her salary had been settled, and there was a dispute over compensation. He hoped passersby would understand it was not about unpaid wages. However, the effect was minimal; most people glanced at it quickly, or did not even read the content, and their instinctive reaction upon seeing someone lying at the entrance was not to go in.

After the police were called, they came several times, each time following a similar procedure: understanding the situation, questioning both parties separately, and attempting to mediate. Since there was no violence or obvious disturbance of public order, the police found it difficult to take forceful action and could only advise both parties to pursue legal channels.

An ambulance was called several times. Each time the paramedics arrived, Ms. Li would sit up and say she was fine, only to lie back down after they left. This repeated itself until eventually no one called again.

Judging from her behavior, she knew exactly what she was doing. She avoided direct confrontation, simply creating an impact by "reserving space." She could afford to waste time, while the shop owner suffered real losses daily.

Mr. Cui also calculated clearly: if he paid her, the matter might be resolved that day. But in his view, accepting compensation was tantamount to acquiescing to the other party's version of events. It would be difficult to refuse in similar situations in the future. For someone running a small business, this precedent was too risky.

Thus, the two sides reached a stalemate. The mall management came, and mediators intervened, but Ms. Li remained largely uncooperative, neither expressing her opinion nor changing her behavior. She did not argue or make a scene, but she also did not back down.

The difficulty in resolving this matter was not the amount of money involved, but rather that both sides were stubbornly clinging to their positions in ways they could afford. On one side, there was the daily loss of revenue; on the other, there was the use of time and health as bargaining chips.

If legal proceedings are pursued, it will take at least several months. During this time, the shop will have to continue operating and bearing the impact. Ms. Li is also suffering losses, though these losses are difficult to quantify.

To date, this matter remains unresolved. Both parties have already paid a price far exceeding the initial costs of the dispute. One is bogged down in business operations, the other is stuck in practical matters. At this point, it's difficult to say who has benefited.