1. Cats and dogs are cute

2. Most employees are easy to get along with

3. The association’s mission is very good

1. Regarding working hours

1) Working hours are overly flexible, and overtime (including holidays) is frequent, with no overtime pay—only compensatory leave is offered.

2) During leave, employees are often required to be on call or handle tasks via messaging apps, which is equivalent to having no days off all year.

3) However, members of the leadership can take leave whenever they want. They can freely change the time of meetings, press conferences, and other events according to their preferences or ask someone else to attend in their place, and can adjust their own working hours whenever they feel like it.

2. Regarding the intern system

1) Interns currently receive only NT$500 per day for transportation expenses, but are required to work eight hours a day. In addition to being exploited as cheap labor, they are treated by the leadership as though NT$500 is too much.

2) When recruiting interns, the association emphasizes that there is a “chance to become a full-time employee,” but the leadership does not open full-time positions. Interns often have no choice but to leave after completing their internships, and vacancies are filled only when a full-time employee leaves (it is entirely a matter of luck).

3. Regarding pet sitters

1) The leadership treats pet sitters as cleaners, continually expanding their duties (including cleaning tasks), while constantly complaining that things are dirty and smelly.

2) Because pet sitters work shifts every day, they are required by the leadership to “help” with tasks outside their responsibilities whenever other people are on leave or off work.

4. Regarding the dogs and adoption

1) Employees may bring their own dogs to work, but the leadership’s dog does not get along with the association’s dogs. The leadership nevertheless continues bringing their own dog to work instead of prioritizing the association’s dogs, restricting the areas where the association’s dogs can move. When the association’s dogs fight with their own dog, they blame only the association’s dogs. They become angry when the association’s dogs bark, but their own dog is allowed to bark freely (and is noisier than the association’s dogs).

2) The organization’s mission is to rescue abused animals. However, because the leadership may be concerned about maintaining a certain public image, whenever celebrities or friends rescue or encounter stray animals on the street and ask the association to take them in, the association accepts them all without exception. As a result, most of the dogs currently at the association are not dogs rescued from abuse cases. This also means that some dogs from actual cases cannot enter the association’s office for care, and money donated by the general public for abused animals cannot be used entirely for abused animals.

3) Some dogs have serious behavioral problems, causing fights or damage to property. The leadership only criticizes the adoption department and pet sitters for failing to care for the dogs properly, while refusing to spend money on behavioral correction. They also become angry about medical expenses when dogs are injured in fights, and only lose their temper when dogs fight or make noise—yelling at or frightening the dogs, among other things (which is no different from how the dogs were treated in the cases). They then dump the mess on the adoption department, demanding that it train the dogs, take proper care of them, or make them stop barking, while providing neither manpower nor resources.

4) The leadership has stated that it does not want to focus on the adoption department and only wants to cooperate with other adoption organizations (such as pet hotels). Therefore, it provides the adoption department with neither manpower nor resources. At external events, it only wants to raise funds, hold charity sales, or otherwise make money. The dogs’ appearances are essentially just window dressing. The leadership does not want to use resources to hold adoption-department activities that allow the dogs to meet and interact with the public (which would greatly help with adoption). Its only requirement for the adoption department is whether the “adoption posts” are written well, while it continually complains that the dogs cannot be adopted.

5. Regarding task allocation and staffing

The division of responsibilities is unclear. In simple terms, there is not enough staff, but the leadership is unwilling to open positions (because it does not want to spend money, which is why it recruits disposable interns). This keeps everyone extremely busy, after which people who happen to be less busy are pressured into supporting other departments. If they are unwilling or express different opinions, the leadership criticizes them as people who lack compassion and perseverance.

6. Regarding financial matters

The leadership often does not want to spend money where it should be spent (for example, on staff and dogs). Another example is that the dogs have damaged the floor, causing excrement to frequently remain on it, but the floor has still not been replaced after a long time (the excuse is that the association is poor). At the same time, the leadership often complains that the pet sitters do not clean properly and that the place therefore smells terrible. At events, it continually wants to sell things, seek sponsorships, and so on. Some other examples have been mentioned above.

7. Regarding the leadership

1) The previous points are all closely related, so it is impossible to separate every issue completely. The biggest problem lies with the leadership. Simply put, the leadership loves animals, but only its own animals. It does not want to spend money, so it exploits the existing manpower and resources, yet merely gives orders for everyone to do everything perfectly. It also takes the idea of “compassion” to an extreme: it is fine for the leadership to dislike dogs because they are dirty or smelly and to yell at them.

2) The leadership has severe germophobia and is also afraid of noise. It once wanted to move all the dogs to another place for housing (in the manner of a dog shelter), as long as this meant it would not be inconvenienced, while dumping all the trouble on others. However, these problems were caused by its own management strategies, and it stubbornly refuses to listen to advice. For example, one of the association’s dogs that was not from an abuse case was brought in by the leadership itself and has become a major problem. It currently attacks other dogs and is aggressive toward other colleagues. The leadership itself complains that the dog is noisy, dirty, smelly, and aggressive, but only tells the pet sitters to resolve everything. It also orders one department head around and treats them like a general manager.

3) The leadership is very good at putting on a show, but privately has an entirely different attitude. There are also many other problems; please refer to the previous comments.

Because of the problems with the leadership, many people have wanted to leave the association. However, the association’s polished public image also attracts many people to join. The association’s mission is good, but it would be better with a more even-tempered leader. The leader’s current behavior makes many people feel that they do not genuinely love dogs, but merely rescue dogs on the side while making money. Although the leadership has serious problems, “many” of the employees underneath are very dedicated and work hard for the association’s mission. They have simply become discouraged because of the leadership, yet they continue striving for the animals despite the lack of manpower and resources.