Workforce reductions — closing a line, downsizing a plant — costlier in China or Vietnam? The answer isn’t as simple as “which severance is higher”: the two countries use different formulas, for different cases, with different procedures. This article compares the severance formulas, models costs for typical scenarios, and flags the “hidden costs” investors miss when budgeting reductions.
The formulas: half-month vs one-month — but don’t jump to conclusions
Vietnam: severance and job-loss allowances
The 2019 Labour Code provides two allowances: severance allowance = half a month’s salary per year of service (on expiry, lawful unilateral termination by the employee, etc. — for service of 12+ months, excluding unemployment-insurance-covered periods); job-loss allowance = one month’s salary per year (minimum two months) on structural/technological change or economic reasons. Unemployment insurance is paid by the SI fund (not the employer directly) — insured workers draw benefits by contribution period.
China: one month per year with a high-earner cap
China’s 2007 Labor Contract Law sets statutory severance (经济补偿) at one month’s salary per year of service (over-6-month years round up; under 6 months count as half). The salary base is the 12-month average before termination — but for high earners (above 3× the local average wage), the base is capped (3× average, max 12 years). Unlawful unilateral termination triggers double damages (赔偿金 = 2× severance).
Modelling typical scenarios
Scenario 1 — laying off 100 workers with 3 years’ tenure: in Vietnam (job-loss allowance): 100 × 3 months’ salary = 300 months’ salary; in China: 100 × 3 = 300 months’ salary — formula-identical, but different average salary bases mean different absolute costs. Scenario 2 — dismissing a highly-paid manager with 10 years: in China the cap (3× local average, 12-year max) can materially cut cost versus actual pay; Vietnam has no equivalent cap — though senior managers often have bespoke agreements. Scenario 3 — plant closure (hundreds): both countries require a workforce plan (reduction plan, union/worker consultation) — in Vietnam the plan must be built and notified; in China, cutting 20+ people or over 10% of headcount requires advance reporting to labour authorities.
Hidden costs and procedures — the real expense
Procedure: neither country allows “cut and done” — lawful grounds (restructuring, economic reasons), consultation with worker representative organisations, and notification/reporting to regulators are required. Procedurally flawed cuts in China may be deemed unlawful termination → double damages + forced reinstatement. Hidden costs: (1) management and counsel time for mass-reduction processes; (2) collective dispute/strike risk — the biggest cost is usually not severance but production disruption; (3) Vietnamese severance uses the last-6-month average salary including allowances — many companies undercount allowances and get reassessed; (4) PIT on above-threshold severance amounts.
Which country is “cheaper” to downsize in? A decision lens
The honest answer: it depends on the scenario. For mass layoffs of mid-tenure production workers, the formulas converge — the cost difference comes from the salary base, which is lower in Vietnam, making Vietnam cheaper in absolute terms. For high-earning long-tenure managers, China’s cap can make China cheaper per head than Vietnam’s uncapped formula. For procedurally complex cases, China’s unlawful-termination double damages create a fat tail risk that Vietnam’s framework lacks — one flawed mass layoff in China can cost multiples of a compliant one. Strategic takeaway: don’t choose the reduction country on severance formulas — choose it on business grounds, then execute the reduction flawlessly under that country’s rules. And whatever the country, the cheapest reduction is the one done right the first time: lawful grounds, proper consultation, correct calculation, full payment on time. The most expensive words in workforce reduction are “we’ll fix the paperwork later”.
China vs Vietnam severance costs: where is downsizing pricier?
Vietnam’s formula: simple, forecastable
Vietnam: severance = half a month’s salary × years of service (for periods without unemployment insurance), plus job-loss allowances in some cases. Key: insured periods are paid by employment service centres (not the company) — companies pay only for pre-UI periods (pre-2009) or special cases. Reality: for newer workers (post-2009), company severance costs run low — UI “carries” most of it.
China’s formula: higher, more complex
China: termination compensation = 1 month’s salary × years (double Vietnam), and double (2N) for unlawful unilateral termination. Caps: for high earners (above 3× local average), computed at 3× average × max 12 years. Reality: Chinese downsizing costs much more — especially for senior, high-paid staff.
Two-country downsizing strategy — three principles
(1) Cost before cutting: build a cost table per option (cutting in Vietnam costs X, in China Y) — never “cut first, discover costs later”. (2) Prefer voluntary: voluntary separation packages (mutual agreement, extra support) usually cost less than unilateral termination (avoiding lawsuits and China’s 2N). (3) Timing: in Vietnam, pre-Tet cuts cost more (morale, Tet bonuses) — schedule post-Tet where possible; in China, avoid year-end cuts (annual bonuses + morale). Principle: downsizing is a finance + HR equation — not just “firing”.
Mass-layoff procedures — hidden costs exceed payouts
Severance money is only half — procedure is the other half: (1) Vietnam: consult unions/workers, notify labour authorities, 30-day sequences — skipping steps voids dismissals (reinstatement + back pay); (2) China: 30-day union notice plus labour-bureau reporting (20+ workers) — unreported layoffs are unlawful. Timeline: lawful mass layoffs take 2–4 months in both countries.
Communication — the difference between orderly and chaotic
How layoffs are communicated decides whether they stay orderly: (1) tell affected workers first (face-to-face, with reasons and packages explained) — never let them hear from rumours; (2) tell remaining workers same-day (survivors’ anxiety kills productivity — honest “who’s affected, who’s safe, why” briefings); (3) support transitions (job placement help, reference letters, extended insurance) — generosity here buys goodwill that lawsuits destroy. Measure: dispute rates post-layoff (well-run processes: <5% challenge; botched: 30%+). Reality: the cheapest layoff is the fairest one — cutting corners on fairness multiplies costs.
Workforce reduction checklist (China vs Vietnam)
(1) Establish lawful grounds per country (restructuring/technology/economic reasons); (2) compute severance under each formula (note China’s cap, Vietnam’s allowance-inclusive base); (3) build the workforce plan and consult unions/worker representatives; (4) complete notification/reporting to regulators (especially mass cuts in China); (5) provision hidden costs (counsel, disputes, disruption); (6) compute PIT on severance; (7) pay in full, on time, and close SI books. Principle: a lawful reduction from day one costs far less than “cut sloppily, pay double”.
Contact us
FLAT Law Firm advises Chinese investors in Vietnam across the full lifecycle: investment structuring, IRC/ERC procedures, tax, labour, intellectual property and dispute resolution. Contact us for advice tailored to your case.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
