Workplace reviews and discussion: 天旭國際科技有限公司

* Environment: Excellent location—101 Tower, 15th floor; spacious and upscale; lunch provided; snacks available

* Supervisor: From Hebei, mainland China; friendly and speaks slowly

* Colleagues: Unknown

* Salary: NT$40,000–45,000

* Performance bonus: 2–6 months

* Benefits: Excellent

Company operations goals and status:

* The group operates in partnership in Cambodia and is listed in mainland China

Interview questions:

They did not ask many in-depth questions about the concepts and processes of interface design.

The supervisor said I could initially choose whether to work on Web or app interfaces (the company is gradually recruiting nine people).

Areas the company needs me to strengthen:

* iOS and Android guidelines

Company equipment: ASUS products

I gave the advantages above an objective evaluation, but below I would like to explain the reasons why I ultimately declined the offer.

I also believe I have a responsibility to share my review here so that people interested in this company can evaluate it carefully.

First, before going to the interview, I had browsed through all the negative reviews about this company on various forums.

My previous company had a long period of severe infighting among employees, and the supervisors were also unprofessional, with policies changing constantly.

I know clearly that these kinds of problems can occur. Sometimes they are not necessarily the company’s fault; the employees’ condition and psychological resilience may also play a role, especially in reviews that use emotional language online. After getting a general understanding of the situation, I went to the interview intending to see the truth for myself. After all, I am accustomed to verifying things personally before commenting.

Without further ado, I’ll begin sharing my “interview” experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------

First, an HR representative briefly introduced the company and got a basic understanding of my salary expectations and whether I wanted to work on Web or app interfaces after joining. Since HR was also somewhat aware that people coming for interviews had likely seen the online reviews and might be influenced by them, they proactively explained the background. They said that initially the owner had chosen a manager who did not understand the various technical aspects well to lead the R&D department in Taiwan. As a result, many technical staff had no one to consult when they encountered problems. Another issue was that there was a large gap between the products developed in Taiwan and those developed by the Cambodian team. The company therefore decided to send Taiwan’s technical staff to Cambodia for exchange and collaboration. They said that the salaries and allowances that should have been provided were all paid, but disputes among the staff continued. According to HR, the technical staff resisted learning new software technologies, so the company had no choice but to let them go.

Hearing this, I roughly understood the situation, but I still remained skeptical and did not accept it all without question.

A short while later, the supervisor came in for the interview. The supervisor appeared to be in their thirties, was from Hebei in mainland China, and spoke slowly. I assumed that was simply a personal habit. However, when reviewing my UI portfolio, the supervisor did not ask the kind of in-depth questions that other companies had asked during interviews, such as questions about the initial concept, color arrangement, or layout issues. At the time, I thought perhaps these things simply did not matter to them. The supervisor said that after joining, I could first choose whether to work on Web or app interfaces, and that I would need to learn more about iOS and Android design guidelines, because even the supervisor had only recently been trying to understand them. It was difficult.

At this point, I began to worry. From beginning to end, this supervisor gave me the impression that many things were uncertain. My supervisor at my previous company had also not come from a professional background, so I often had to solve many things myself. However, if the issue today were simply that I needed to self-study technical matters, I would have been fine with that. What really worried me was an attitude of uncertainty even about policies, because I cannot follow a supervisor who does not know where the train is headed.

After the interview, the supervisor said they would provide a test assignment, mainly to see how I designed an interface. They also looked at the salary I requested and said that, given my abilities, I deserved that salary, and that since the benefits here were so good, I should not hesitate— I should come work for the company.

Finally, I asked the supervisor to show me the office, because I know very well that even in just a few seconds, you can quickly sense certain conditions from the atmosphere among employees, their expressions, and so on—your intuition.

In summary, I am someone who lists all the good and bad conditions of every company after an interview.

When I thought it over again, the salary and benefits were indeed very tempting. Even my boyfriend, upon hearing about the compensation, immediately asked worriedly whether it was one of the “eight major industries,” because only companies in those industries would be so generous. The work location was also excellent, and the office was exactly the kind I liked.

However, looking back, there were three points that conflicted with my principles. First, Tianxu itself is a company that develops gambling games (this is the main point of this article). Based on the information I found about the gambling industry, because conducting R&D in China is illegal, groups generally choose Cambodia, Taiwan, or the Philippines as development bases. But here is the problem: gambling is itself an industry in a gray area. You may work as a technical employee and have no direct relationship with the company’s financial flows or listing operations, but the product is still developed by you. If there were a crackdown, you could not completely escape the connection. You cannot claim that you had no idea, from beginning to end, that you were developing gambling games.

Second, I plan to work in mainland China in the future. I must point out that mainland China is particularly strict regarding applicants’ previous work experience. If your employment record shows that you worked in this kind of illegal industry, it can seriously disadvantage you when looking for a job. (Large Taiwanese companies also investigate this.)

Of course, some online commenters may say, “With that much money, go work there first and worry about it later,” or that during future interviews, you could simply avoid the issue by explaining that it was an online game. But I believe that if the other party is determined to investigate, it would not be difficult to find out.

Third, the supervisor’s uncertainty about technical matters made me question HR’s claim that “each department has found a technically knowledgeable supervisor to lead it.” The other point is more a matter of personal intuition: I tried to imagine working with a supervisor with this kind of style, and I felt that we would not get along very well.

Therefore, this review is only a commentary on my interview experience. It may not be precise or completely objective, but I have one piece of advice for anyone considering joining this company: this is a genuine gambling company. Gambling is a legal industry in Europe and the United States, but it is illegal in Taiwan. If you want to take a gamble and work there to make money, I have no objection. But if, like me, you consider your employment record, the company culture, and having a good supervisor, then do not go.