In practice, it can generally be distinguished according to the subjective degree of the parties. One is that the parties intentionally do it, and the subjective malice of the workers is relatively large. The employing unit can terminate its labor contract according to the Labor Contract Law or the rules and regulations of the enterprise, and at the same time, according to the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law on the principle of liability for infringement, require the workers to bear the compensation responsibility for most or even all of the property losses. The second category is caused by the gross negligence of the parties. The gross negligence here can be understood as violating the safety production regulations or failing to fulfill the obligation of proper storage and reasonable use, resulting in major economic and property losses of the unit. Compared with the first category of "intention", the subjective malice of workers is greatly reduced. In actual operation, the employer may stipulate in the labor contract or rules and regulations the amount of compensation for the direct economic losses of the enterprise caused by gross negligence. In view of the fact that workers and employers are not completely equal civil subjects, it would be unfair to let workers bear heavier compensation. Therefore, the Interim Provisions on Wage Payment stipulates that if workers have to bear the compensation for economic losses, they can be deducted from their own wages, but the monthly deduction should not exceed 20% of their monthly wages and should not be lower than the wage standard. The third category is general fault or even no fault, that is, even after the laborer has fulfilled the obligations of safe production, proper storage and reasonable use, there are still uncontrollable circumstances, resulting in the loss of enterprise property. If the laborer is still required to bear the responsibility of compensation at this time, it is obviously unfair.
Labourers have the right to receive labor remuneration for their work. This right is specially protected by law. Employers are not allowed to deduct or delay labor remuneration without reason. The regulations stipulate that the employer can deduct items from the salary, including: the individual income tax of the worker, the social security and provident fund expenses borne by the worker, the alimony and alimony that are required to be withheld in the judgment and ruling, the compensation expenses that need to be deducted directly from the salary if the employer causes economic losses to the company due to his own reasons, and other expenses that can be deducted from the worker's salary according to the law. The Interim Provisions on Wage Payment also clearly stipulates that "when both parties to the labor relationship rescind or terminate the labor contract in accordance with the law, the employer shall pay the worker's wages in a lump sum when the labor contract is rescinded or terminated". In addition, there are no other additional provisions. As long as the worker personally performs the normal labor behavior, the employer must pay the labor remuneration according to the agreement of both parties, and cannot be deducted or detained for any reason. Therefore, in this case, the company's seizure of Ms. Pang's full salary in the last month has violated the relevant legal provisions. Even if the company's property is damaged due to Ms. Pang's fault, the deduction should not exceed 20% of her salary in the current month according to the legal provisions