神達電腦股份有限公司

The environment is clean.

1. Managers lack management skills, accountability, and basic ethics

Some managers are frequently unable to provide clear direction in a timely manner when decisions need to be made. They fail to make decisions when necessary and are unwilling to take responsibility when required, ultimately pushing the pressure and problems onto their subordinates. Employees not only have to carry out the work but also bear the risks resulting from unclear decisions, while lacking sufficient authority to make decisions themselves.

The attribution of work成果 is also difficult to accept. Some tasks are clearly carried out and completed by other colleagues who spend the time and effort, yet the person receiving recognition in the end is not necessarily the one who contributed the most. When problems arise, someone may not necessarily be willing to take responsibility; when成果 are achieved, the credit may not necessarily be distributed accurately. If managers cannot even properly handle basic divisions of responsibility and recognition of成果, they will only make the people who genuinely do the work increasingly disappointed.

A manager’s job should not merely be to assign tasks. They should also make decisions at critical moments, take responsibility, and provide subordinates with the necessary support. If they only pass work down to employees and push the pressure downward whenever problems arise, employees will ultimately bear even more unnecessary burdens.

2. A closed organizational culture that values self-presentation over ability

The company culture feels quite closed, with limited acceptance of differing opinions. Compared with the ability to solve problems, professional performance, and actual work成果, the company sometimes seems to place greater emphasis on appearances and on whether someone knows how to present themselves and cater to others.

People who are genuinely willing to work and have professional abilities are not necessarily recognized. Those who are good at packaging themselves and performing in front of others may instead be more likely to receive attention. Over time, this can make people feel that doing their work well is not necessarily useful, and that knowing how to promote oneself is more important.

Such an environment makes it difficult to focus on doing one’s work well and is unfavorable to the development of professionals. When actual ability and work contributions are not given the attention they deserve, people who work seriously will naturally gradually lose their enthusiasm.

3. Unfair work allocation: doing more does not mean receiving more

In terms of work allocation, people who are more capable, work efficiently, or have a stronger sense of responsibility are often assigned more tasks and may even have to deal with problems left behind by others. However, although their workload increases and their responsibilities become heavier, their compensation, performance evaluations, or promotion opportunities do not necessarily improve.

Doing more does not necessarily earn recognition, and taking on more responsibility does not necessarily lead to reasonable returns. Those who are genuinely willing to work can easily be treated as an unlimited source of labor simply because they are capable and efficient, and are continually given more tasks. Yet how much they have actually contributed and how many problems they have solved may not be appropriately reflected in performance evaluations.

If employees voice opinions about work arrangements or question management practices, they may also face negative evaluations or even be unreasonably questioned about their work performance. When managers cannot handle issues objectively and lack fair, consistent evaluation standards, it is difficult for employees to believe that working hard alone will earn them the treatment they deserve.

4. I sincerely do not recommend it; investing a year may waste even more time

What is most disappointing about this job is not merely that it is demanding, but that spending time and effort on it may not bring corresponding growth or returns. One may initially hope to gain experience and improve professional abilities through the job, only to end up expending substantial energy dealing with management problems, taking on additional work, and coping with unreasonable work arrangements.

After a year, if one’s professional abilities have not improved significantly and work成果 have not received fair recognition, while this experience has also caused one to miss out on better job opportunities, the loss is truly not worth it. On the surface, one may have stayed for only a year, but the actual time and career opportunity costs may be far greater.

Even more difficult to accept is that the sincerity of the company culture is questionable. During the job search, interviews or prior inquiries may not provide a true understanding of internal management problems and actual working conditions. What is heard during interviews may differ considerably from what one personally experiences after joining the company. Some problems only become apparent after actually starting work, so the value of prior inquiries as a reference is quite limited, and one should not assume the company is truly as described based solely on promises made during interviews.

If you value professional ability, fair treatment, and career development, it is recommended that you carefully consider whether to join. Managers’ unwillingness to take responsibility, the possibility that work成果 will not receive fair recognition, the lack of reasonable rewards despite doing more, and an organizational culture lacking sincerity will all make the work draining. Rather than spending time joining only to discover these problems later, it would be better to reserve the opportunity for a work environment more deserving of your investment.

I sincerely do not recommend it.

Pros:

1. Dinner is free (regardless of whether you work overtime).

2. Flexible start and end times (07:30–09:30).

3. Leave and overtime are calculated by the minute—that is, minute by minute—so there are no situations where being five minutes late requires taking half an hour of leave.

4. Overtime is paid, and you can continue reporting overtime beyond the 46-hour limit under the Labor Standards Act.

Cons:

1. “The HR department’s capabilities need improvement.” I don’t know whether a relatively high turnover rate has caused handover problems, but many company policies regarding leave and types of leave are inconsistent, and the HR staff themselves are unclear about them. Other relevant regulations are also confusing.

2. “The X-shu sales team is a mess.” They don’t understand the capabilities and staffing of the R&D units, so they take on strange projects and then compress the R&D schedule to deliver products to customers. When the resulting products have problems, the two senior executives mentioned above start looking for someone to take the blame. I’m not exaggerating—I once saw a new colleague inherit the mess left by a predecessor and get blamed before even finishing their probationary period... Quite a few R&D employees have been blamed for no apparent reason.

3. “There is no 14-month guarantee for the full year.” The bonuses here at X-shu are divided into two payments: year-end bonus + mid-year profit sharing.

The year-end bonus is approximately 2±1 months’ salary, and the mid-year bonus is approximately 0.5±0.5 months’ salary. Therefore:

Those in favor may receive 15–16 months’ salary in total.

Average performers receive approximately 14±0.5 months.

Those out of favor receive approximately 13±0.5 months.

In my more than five years here, I have seen people who made serious mistakes and were so out of favor that their total compensation for the year was less than 13 months’ salary.

I have never made a serious mistake, and my performance has been decent; my annual total has been around 14.2 months.

To be honest, the annual package is much worse than at “Brother Wu.” If the workload is the same, you might as well go to Brother Wu.

3. “Annual raises are approximately 1%–6%.” This refers to the annual salary adjustment.

A very small number of favored employees receive 6%; those who perform somewhat well receive around 5%.

Most people fall between 2% and 4%.

There is no need to explain 1%—those are the employees out of favor. I’ve heard that some particularly disfavored employees received no raise at all.

Given the low base salaries here, seeing a 2%–4% raise will definitely not make you smile.

4. “Future prospects.” Overall, the company does not make much money and relies mainly on non-operating income from the investment holding company. Only X Cloud’s performance is fairly good. I will refrain from commenting on the automotive unit, because Hon X and Guang X have successively been reported to be working on OEM automotive projects (in-vehicle systems). The functions and technology of OEM automotive products are becoming increasingly mature and advanced, while the pie available in the aftermarket is getting smaller and smaller, which raises concerns about future prospects.

5. “The two senior executives.” The two senior executives under the Global R&D Center are the two people whom everyone finds most incomprehensible. Leaving aside the fact that they draw high salaries, they spend all day touring the offices and laboratories, preaching grand philosophies about life to everyone, and offering a stream of suggestions and methods for doing things. Whether the results are good or bad has nothing to do with them because they do not have to take responsibility. So who takes the blame? Department- or division-level managers, or the R&D staff themselves, can carry the blame. In the five years I have been here, three managers and two senior managers have left.

6. “The culture surrounding senior executives.” This is difficult to describe clearly because each manager cares about different things. If I had to put it bluntly, you have to know how to act—and perform convincingly and completely. You also need to keep your eyes open.

7. “A culture of questioning.” When problems arise or cross-departmental communication is needed, people should quickly ask experienced colleagues for help and brainstorm solutions together. But that is not how things work here; instead, they question you first, then question you again. “Why did you do it this way?” “Are you sure?” “Where did you get that from?” These are some of the phrases I hear most often.

8. “Teamwork is not harmonious enough.” Here, teamwork refers to cooperation between departments. When a difficult project comes up, nobody wants to be the scapegoat who gets chewed out by the senior executives. At times like these, each unit truly relies on its own abilities; everyone brings out all their skills, whether verbal or practical, because once you are blamed, you may never be able to recover your reputation here.

Summary: It is certain that there are more disadvantages than advantages here. There are many long-term employees, low pay, stingy bosses, a need to put on an act, a need to have thick skin, and an even greater need for good luck. If you can accept all of the above, this is still an okay company. Even so, I am grateful, because those experiences taught me a great deal. During my time here, I have seen far too many people who were willing to work leave, honest people leave, and people who saw through the company culture as soon as they joined leave as well. Those who remain are people who are good at playing along and have decent communication skills, and only after leaving do you realize that your market value outside is actually much higher.

Most colleagues are easy to get along with and communicate with.

Since the bait post I wrote last time already lured in a certain defender, this time I’m offering a mild review.

First, to clarify, I’m talking about the department I worked in. I don’t know about the others, but I don’t think they would be much different, so I’ll just mention a few key points:

1. In my personal opinion, performance reviews have no clear objectives. Whether your performance review is good or bad depends on how a certain senior executive views your working hours, whether you regularly work overtime, the number of Jira issues you resolve, or their impression of you. If you made a bad first impression, then no matter how long you stay, I don’t think it’s easy to turn things around.

2. As for the number of Jira issues, anyone working in an R&D unit for product development should know that Jira is a platform where DQE tests products and opens issues for RD to fix. But here, whether you are considered to be working depends on the number of Jira issues you resolve. Moreover, the R&D unit itself has to open the Jira issues. In other words, R&D does the testing, spends time testing to find problems, and opens issues itself—a self-generated, self-consumed concept. So the more issues you open, the better; then you resolve them yourself, and only then do senior executives think you are actually working. Let me explain what I mean by opening Jira issues indiscriminately: suppose changing one UI image file counts as one issue. If you need to change 50 images, you can open 50 issues. Then your output is 50 Jira issues. I know it’s meaningless, but management just likes looking at numbers, much like they look at working hours, without understanding what the content actually is. So when you are working on a relatively difficult issue that takes several days, if they see that you haven’t resolved a single issue over those few days, they will complain about whether your workload is too light or something.

3. Regarding compensation, older employees get more money and have less work, while younger employees get less money and have more work. That’s roughly how I would describe it. Young employees’ salary levels are even worse than those in traditional manufacturing in central Taiwan. Even though salaries are rising across the broader environment, MiTAC has not kept up, so relatively speaking, it will only fall further and further behind.

4. The company as a whole does not seem to make much money. Revenue is sustained mainly by the group’s investment-holding operations, so I also feel that its prospects are getting worse and worse.

People considering joining can use this as a reference. Everything I said above is about the department I worked in and does not represent the entire company.

Most colleagues are fairly friendly.

1. Most of the company is made up of older employees; young and capable people cannot stay for long.

2. Most people have a retirement-minded attitude: if they can slack off, they do; if they can muddle through, they do. Those who are capable and get things done end up with an excessive workload.

3. Salaries are relatively low and growth is slow. As long as someone stays long enough instead of leaving, even if their abilities are insufficient, they can still earn much more than junior employees.

4. The company is still stuck in the working style of traditional industries and factories, cutting costs wherever possible, including salaries and benefits.

5. Senior managers have little ability and do not look at subordinates’ work content. They only judge whether employees are serious based on who is willing to stay longer in the office, directly affecting performance evaluations.

6. Being good at putting on a show is more important than being capable. As long as you act well, you do not need to worry about promotion.

7. There is little R&D capability, and the company tries to save money everywhere, but it is quite skilled at making empty promises.

8. The company likes to hire fresh graduates to save on personnel costs, but still expects them to be immediately productive.

9. The company is unfriendly toward fresh graduates. It expects you to become productive shortly after joining, but provides no training and assigns no one to guide you; you are simply told to figure everything out yourself.

10. A small number of people have to handle most of the work, and tasks are pushed onto newcomers whenever possible, while veteran employees look for ways to slack off and wait for retirement.

Finally, some advice for fresh graduates:

Other companies in the industry are continually adjusting salaries, and there are many better options available. I do not recommend fresh graduates join this company.

Most employees at the company have more than 10–20 years of experience. Fresh graduates and capable employees usually discover that something is wrong after about 1–2 years and leave one after another.

The supervisor seems like a very nice person.

Under a department supervisor at Mitac Digital, three senior engineers left within a year. Instead of seriously reflecting on their management style and work allocation, the supervisor even told others that the engineers simply lacked stress tolerance. They are truly good at evading problems.

The environment is actually quite good.

The colleagues are also fairly easy to get along with.

However, the most important factor in the workplace is the department manager.

This company has several companies in Huaya; the one being discussed here is MiTAC Digital (established not long ago).

All I can say is that the reviews on Google and 104 are not very accurate. Evaluating by department is more accurate.

A terrible manager makes you question your life every day and think about suicide.

There is a low-profile department in this company where, in a junior position, you handle tedious project-related tasks. This department has a manager with extremely poor comprehension (not a manager promoted through the regular process; therefore, he does not have the standard methods or mindset for managing people).

What he needs is a subordinate who is obedient, will not argue with him, discusses every personal and work-related matter with him, and thinks like a robot.

He is extremely subjective and applies double standards.

* When you ask questions, he responds according to his mood (sometimes even impatiently); however, if you are one of his favorites, he will patiently guide you every day. Remember: If he proposes a solution that ultimately leads to a mistake, he will still blame you in the end.

* For projects assigned to you, because he does not trust his subordinates, he will do the work himself (it looks like help, but actually creates more trouble). After doing it himself, he does not inform you, leaving the person responsible in an impossible position.

* He often presents a façade of teamwork externally, but within the department, everything is full of holes and his true nature is revealed.

* The manager deeply distrusts his subordinates and focuses on picking apart their mistakes. If you are one of his favorites, this problem does not exist; instead, he looks for other people's mistakes and publicly shames them at weekly meetings.

* Taking leave is an individual right, but the manager uses written messages and emotional pressure to make you feel guilty, e.g., “Can I say no?” “........” and “Are the number of bereavement-leave days really like this?” During leave and after returning to work, he will bombard you with private messages about work.

* He will not cover the projects of employees who are on leave; he only orders the designated stand-in to do the work, even when he understands the project very well. The treatment of his favorites is the opposite. He is not a responsible manager because he has no idea what his subordinates are actually doing, while he knows his favorites' work very well.

* He publicly shames people about salary adjustments at weekly meetings and privately asks how much bonus they received (with KPIs deducted to that extent, he still dares to ask).

* What he says is often the opposite of reality (because his comprehension is extremely poor and his ability to distort things is extremely strong). He frequently misunderstands the boss's meaning and then conveys it to subordinates.

* You must submit an eight-hour work log every week. After asking other units, I learned that they only need to select the project name and hours, but he requires detailed entries, asks you to download and send him the Excel file every week, and also requires the entire month's file at the end of the month. If you write the same content, he will correct you privately.

* Change “work day” to “working day”; he even corrects such minute details in Chinese, as well as punctuation, of course.

* He has said: “You did a great job, but I only saw that you completed it; I don't know what the process was.” Is completing the task poorly somehow better???

* For self-assessed KPIs, if you make even one mistake during your regular work, he will record it by hand and deduct points during the self-assessment stage. However, you upload the self-assessment with “the score after his evaluation” (not the score after evaluating yourself). In the supervisor's comments, there is a considerable gap between the scores = both scores were assessed by him. What is the point of self-assessment like this?

* The current employees are mostly people with families, senior employees who shift blame and responsibilities, and the manager's favorites; only a few are normal people.

* He will not fight for bonuses for his subordinates, only for his favorites.

* Things that the manager should do or understand are often things he neither does nor understands.

* Externally, he gives people the impression of being earnest and pitiful, but within the department he picks faults, shifts blame, complains, and bullies. He often does not understand the situation and does not confirm it beforehand, yet insists on correcting things; when he eventually discovers that his correction was wrong, he does not apologize.

* He never reflects on himself; everything is someone else's problem. Before I joined, three or four people had already left, and he told their juniors that they resigned because of their own problems. Later, I learned indirectly that this supposedly dignified manager had emailed the project members saying that the person who resigned was at fault; after verification, it turned out to be the fault of a current employee.

* He likes to act overly familiar and ask people about their private matters, then gossip about them everywhere in a meddlesome way. Be careful!!! He often twists people's words.

==Please be extremely careful with managers like this, because the things they care about are all trivial matters. They never accurately assess the seriousness of issues and make improvements accordingly. They act emotionally, engage in office politics, and protect people in the department who have connections with them.==

The company environment is pretty good, and relationships with colleagues are okay.

R&D staff are managed like factory workers, with individual performance compared and ranked by working hours. As a result, even when there is nothing to do, everyone has to pretend to work overtime. Although overtime can be claimed, reporting too much will still attract attention.

There are too many products being launched, and everyone is pressured to rush projects and frantically fix bugs. We really are just code farmers.

Their family day involves going to places like amusement parks, which is very suitable for people who are married, older, and experienced!

Some department managers at this company like to pull rank and take advantage of inexperienced newcomers. One manager in particular likes to ask newcomers to create SOP process documents, then reject them without specifying what needs to be improved. Even after the newcomer makes N improvements, the manager simply says they are still unsatisfied and keeps asking for revisions indefinitely. Overtime is not necessarily reported or paid because the company tends to discourage overtime, so even if an individual wants to work overtime, it is generally not possible unless there are a lot of projects. One manager also said that during lunch, employees must go eat with the managers, and after finishing their meal, they have to wait until the managers are ready to leave before going to rest. (The total lunch and break time is only one hour.) In other words, there is practically no break time. Some managers also like to say that at their previous jobs, it was normal to start work at 8–9 a.m. and leave at 2–3 a.m., and that it was normal not to be able to report overtime. They say that young people nowadays are useless and cannot handle hard work—completely the rhetoric of an exploitative old-school boss! They also threaten people by saying that this industry is small and that they can make it impossible for them to find similar jobs (implying that they have extensive connections). They tell people to talk to HR about resigning, but when HR calls the manager who was pulling rank, the manager says they only told the newcomer to talk to HR and never told them to resign. Simply put, their accounts are inconsistent and very underhanded. When the company is seriously short-staffed, it may notify applicants of their acceptance within one or two weeks. Many managers were transferred from Neihu, Taipei, and constantly talk about how things were at Neihu. After coming to Guishan, Taoyuan, all they do is complain. In short, there are many managers who say one thing and do another; the standards depend on their personal judgment. They also tell newcomers that they have done all the work the newcomers are doing, so they no longer need to do it themselves and only need to give instructions and direct the newcomers. As a result, many pieces of equipment still have to be set up by employees themselves, because managers tell newcomers that there is no money to hire people to do it and that each department has to handle it on its own. As for USB drives and other items needed for testing machines, managers tell newcomers not to buy them because next year's company budget will cover them. (Take this with a grain of salt; it depends on which month you join.) One manager also says there is no need to save the company money: when buying something, just ask two vendors to quote the original price and then proceed with procurement. They may also test newcomers with questions unrelated to the job, somewhat like survival of the fittest—those who cannot adapt are told to get lost!!!! Also, if you want a high salary at this company, your experience must be extremely extensive; otherwise, a high salary is impossible. (It is definitely much lower than Quanta, which is diagonally across the street.) The minimum salary at this company is NT$30,000. The year-end bonus is said to be two months' salary, but it depends on the number of patent proposals the individual submitted the previous year. If none of them are approved, you absolutely will not receive that year-end bonus!!!! Because this department was mainly transferred from Neihu, Taipei, its partner stores and some benefits are not well established. Some benefits should be taken with a grain of salt—they exist on paper but cannot actually be enjoyed.

Those with families or who don’t want to work overtime may consider this company; I think the salary is above average.

For the same years of experience, the annual salary is approximately NT$50,000–100,000 lower than at leading systems manufacturers. However, the benefit is less overtime.

The interview manager had absolutely no understanding of the profession; people are hired casually after a perfunctory interview.

Extremely harsh toward employees, with virtually no benefits. The company cafeteria (an organic banana costs NT$38 each) is more than seven times as expensive as outside.

EBU has far too many people coasting toward retirement and is utterly uncompetitive (it survives solely by relying on New Kinpo Group to feed it orders). The company is only suitable for people aged 40+ to go there to coast toward retirement and occupy positions.

The processes are extremely inadequate, and the engineering quality is poor.