It is a company with organizational divisions and teams.

1. The HR representative I encountered was not very flexible—more like a mouthpiece who did not think things through, had poor communication and coordination skills, blindly followed orders, and even conveyed messages incorrectly.

2. After calling the Legal Aid Foundation regarding the contract, I received the advice that it would be better not to join. Based on past experience, more unreasonable issues may emerge after joining under this kind of contract. We are all literate adults, but I am not sure whether each applicant’s position matches the contract they received. The one I received did not quite match. Remember to read your own contract very carefully.

3. During the interview, they may tell you that all the benefits listed on 104 are real and that everything will follow what is stated on 104, making you think, “Wow, the benefits are great.” However, if certain resources that are essential for some basic positions are not listed on 104, confirmation revealed that they deliberately intend to shift the costs onto job seekers, with no room for discussion. Basically, it means you really will not receive them~

4. Simply put, although the operator runs a business related to intellectual property, they do not have much understanding of the rule of law and have relatively weak concepts regarding “employment,” “outsourcing,” and “intellectual property rights.”

5. The contract provided to successful applicants also shows that the company places limited importance on its employees and talent; presumably, its turnover rate is not low either. A company that frequently signs contracts with external partners cannot possibly fail to understand the importance of contracts, yet it blatantly asks future employees to sign an absurd contract that harms their own rights and interests. What exactly are they up to?