I previously worked on-site at this company; the following are my impressions:

1. During a work-allocation meeting, a male graphic designer sarcastically commented that a newly hired contractor was being paid 100,000. Although the person who made the comment has since left, it was still unpleasant for the contractors who heard it.

2. Because the work environment provided by the company was very poor, I proactively emailed the supervisor whose name begins with “Ho,” thinking I could spend my own money to make up for the lack of resources. (I was willing to use my own money because of the kind of company this was, and I wanted to make things more convenient for the company.) In the first email, I suggested handling the matter verbally, but that approach was actually inappropriate. To avoid having no record afterward, I continued reporting the issue by email several times, but received no response. Apparently, the supervisor does not usually check email. If the supervisor is like this, it is hard to imagine how regular employees cope. Much later, my original employer asked me to attend a meeting, and I then realized that this person may have reported me behind my back. Regarding this company’s system, I personally do not feel that this is a company at all. The first and second times in my life that I was reported behind my back were both given to me by this company.

3. According to the schedule planned in the meeting, I had one week to complete the work. However, because some PG functionality had not been completed, it took up my time. The supervisor whose name begins with “Vi” called to reprimand me, saying that it was my professional responsibility, and also sarcastically asked what my previous job had been.

Sometimes encountering the two supervisors, Ho and Vi, is truly exasperating. If they do not know how to be supervisors, they could resign and give the opportunity to people who are capable. In Vi’s case, they should have confirmed with me whether the work could be expedited and completed within the timeframe. If not, they should have proposed extending the deadline. After all, quality comes first—not Vi’s career prospects. By disregarding quality, you not only insult other people’s professional expertise, but also damage the company’s image.

That is all I have to say. Let’s just assume that Vi’s career prospects are more important than the company’s image.

I hope this company can strengthen its ethics training.