Oracle has secured approval for the deal to become a trusted technology provider for the embattled Chinese video app, TikTok.

The bidding for the purchase of TikTok’s US operations involving Microsoft, Walmart and Oracle came to an end on Sunday, after Microsoft acknowledged in a statement that ByteDance has rejected its bid, and Oracle confirmed it has struck a deal with the short video company.

The development caused a twist in the existing situation between White House and the Chinese technology. Donald Trump had said earlier he wanted a total sale of TikTok’s US operations and wouldn’t condone anything less. The ByteDance deal with Oracle means it will become a “trusted security provider” not a purchaser of the video app, and Washington seems to be in agreement with the new deal even though it clearly goes against Trump’s executive order.

China has been kicking against forced sale of TikTok’s US operations. Last week, Beijing reviewed its technology export laws to require a government’s license for a deal such as the sale of TikTok, in an attempt to stall the sale.

The US appears to be reneging on its earlier stand on the matter, bowing to pressure from China and tech industry players who have vocally condemned the move to ban TikTok from the beginning, saying it will set a very negative trajectory.

China on the other hand would prefer closing TikTok down in the US to a ‘forced sale’ that would involve transferring its algorithm and artificial intelligence technology to a foreign buyer.

The twist in the plot is said to have come from Oracle’s personal relationship with the White House. CNBC noted that Oracle’s leadership has maintained a close relationship with the Trump’s administration, with the CEO Safra Catz previously taking part in Trump’s transition team and Chairman Larry Ellison hosting a fundraiser for Trump’s reelection campaign earlier this year.

Trump’s attack on TikTok has been based on national security concerns, as the US government is worried that the app may be harvesting private data of American users, and will not hesitate to share it with Beijing at request.

TikTok had tenaciously dismissed the possibility of sharing users’ private information with Beijing. In a bid to avoid a divestment of its US operations, the parent company, ByteDance said it would explore other options, part of it is to lobby the US government to change its position from ‘forced sale’ to partnership.

That appears to be the reason Oracle was chosen over Microsoft, to use its personal relationship with Washington to get TikTok a “no sale” deal. Oracle said the “trusted technology provider” was part of a proposal submitted by ByteDance to the US Treasury Department over the weekend.

But while the deal must have saved the United States a new phase of spat with China, it is causing division within Washington officials.

The deal is currently awaiting a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin thinks it’s a great deal, while Republican senator Josh Hawley is calling for its rejection.

“CFIUS should promptly reject any Oracle – ByteDance collaboration, and send the ball back to ByteDance’s court so that the company can come up with a more acceptable solution. ByteDance can still pursue a full sale of TikTok, its code, and its algorithm to a U.S. company, so that the app can be rebuilt from the ground up to remove any trace of CCP (Chinese communist party) influence,” Hawley said in a letter to CFIUS.

Hawley added that the new deal will not eliminate the threat of national security.

“Perhaps, given constraints imposed by Chinese law, the only feasible way to maintain Americans’ security is to effectively ban TikTok app in the United States altogether. In any event, an ongoing ‘partnership’ that allows for anything other than the full emancipation of the TikTok software from potential Chinese Communist Party control is completely unacceptable, and flatly inconsistent with the president’s Executive Order of August 6,” he said.

Trump is expected to receive the CFIUS’ recommendation later this week and make a decision based on that. The fate of the deal will however lie on whatever he chooses to do.

Most times, we tackle private business owners as if they deliberately wished to use their employees without paying them well for their services. I know that many employers are ruthless. Some of them have a way of owing their workers until those workers resign and they bring in new ones, who will not know the organisation’s “no-steady-salary” culture. We also have those that look for every little opportunity to slash employees’ salaries so that they can reserve some of their money. I know all these, but they are not my focus in this article.

I met the son of a former neighbour, who did his house job in a federal medical centre, somewhere in the eastern part of the country, and is now working in a private hospital. When I asked him how he is enjoying his new job, he hissed and said what everybody that works in the private sector says, “They are stressing me yet they won’t pay me well.”

Well, that private sector stresses employees is a cliché; even private business owners are stressed out too. So being an employee of a business owner that wants to make his profit is naturally stressful in itself. What we need to address here is the “not paying me well” ideology.

When my neighbour’s son was done with complaining of how “low” he earns compared to his expectations or allowances during the house job, I asked him one question that threw him into a reflection. I will still mention the question I asked him later, but first let’s look at this scenario.

A private school just opened and it has to employ qualified teachers even before it enrolled its first student. It is almost impossible for a school to open today and be filled with students tomorrow (unless in rare cases where there are no schools in the town). People will give the school a chance to balance first. Within that period, its standard will be scrutinised and when it is found satisfactory, parents will start bringing in their children to the school, gradually. So, it is possible that this school owner will have to run the school from her pocket until it stabilises and starts making profits. Believe me, this can last for years.

Now, for this school to be considered of good standard, it has to employ qualified teachers. But because it is yet to make profits, it will pay them lowly and also overwork them. If the owner decides to start off with unqualified teachers, its standard will be considered low, hence the reputation of the school will be dragged on the mud.

Why am I saying all these? Teachers in this school will complain that their proprietor is “wicked”. People that know how much these employees are paid will say their employer is using them for cheap labour. Those of us out here will say that private business owners do not pay their workers what they deserve. What most people do not sit back to ask themselves is how much the employer is generating from the business.

Another thing you would have noticed from the case given above is that the employer went for qualified staff. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are graduates. But let’s say they are graduates, is it wrong for this employer to go for the best even when he or she knows that the business cannot afford it? Let’s rephrase it, if you were the employer, will you go for the best even if they come cheap? Your answer is a reflection, which will explain the nucleus of this essay.

The truth of the matter is this, a lot of businesses do not make as much profit as we assumed. Business owners need to pay their employees from the profits they generated and the only way for these employees to make profit is by putting in their best. So when someone says his boss isn’t paying him the salary of a PhD holder, remind him that he has to make profit for his boss like a PhD holder so that his salary can come out.

Finally, the question I asked my neighbour’s son was, “When you open your own clinic, will you pay your workers more than your boss pays you?” I believe we should also ask ourselves this question when next we make comments about “stingy” and “wicked” employers.