1) The "majority" of the employees here are fairly capable and can keep the association’s basic operations running. As for the small number of others, let them go.

2) The atmosphere during office hours is generally quite good, without too much pressure.

1) The association’s leadership has a strong tendency toward authoritarian, personality-based management and lacks the ability to communicate with employees. Leaders make erroneous decisions based on their own will, leaving those responsible for implementation with little room for communication. Yet the leaders lack professionalism, have narrow vision, and refuse to respect professional opinions, relying solely on their own judgment. How can one expect the association to be a long-term positive force for Taiwan’s animal protection movement?

2) The association’s leadership is poor at assigning and managing personnel. Its staffing arrangements and performance evaluations can make people feel that things are unfair and that certain individuals are favored over others. It is impossible to tell which employees lack ability and are drawing salaries without doing their jobs, and which employees are genuinely hardworking; instead, those who work diligently are subjected to all kinds of nitpicking. I believe the reason is that the leaders do not sufficiently understand the actual work carried out by the association’s various departments, yet still want to intervene and impose their own subjective ideas.

3) The treatment of association employees does not comply with the Labor Standards Act. Employees cannot claim overtime pay for extended working hours and can only choose compensatory leave, which must be used within a specified period. (Even when choosing compensatory leave, employees may still be given a hard time by the employer.) In contrast, the leadership, who receive full salaries, do not have to arrive at and leave work on time every day and often do not even come to the office to work. How can they command the respect of others?

4) After the CEO’s own dog was bitten by a dog housed by the association, the CEO prohibited the shelter dogs from coming upstairs from the basement, where they never saw daylight, on the grounds that these dogs had already interfered with work. This is not how the CEO of an animal protection organization should act. For dogs with behavioral problems, the CEO’s approach was not to ask a behavior trainer to train them, but to scold and dislike them. In short, the CEO seemed to lack the basic professional competence expected of an animal protection organization.

5) The association treats interns as cheap labor for clerical work, miscellaneous tasks, and cleaning, and lacks a systematic education and training program. The learning outcomes of interns are not a consideration for the association. Interns do not enjoy basic labor rights. They originally received NT$200 per day as a transportation allowance, which was only raised to NT$500 after they advocated for an increase. (The allowance was paid reluctantly and was sometimes even forgotten.) There was no labor insurance, health insurance, or other insurance, yet interns were required to accompany full-time staff when going out, including on investigations, exposing them to excessive risks.

6) All these problems are kept hidden from outsiders, because the leadership is very good at packaging things and pays great attention to its image, so people continue to flock to the association. I only hope that people who intend to devote themselves to animal protection will see this review from an insider and reflect on it: Is this a good association? Is it worth investing your time and effort here?