數聯資安股份有限公司

None

A certain deputy HR manager still brazenly spouted their erroneous theories in court. Saying they would improve after being inspected by the labor authorities was nothing more than perfunctory.

It was clearly the company that refused to let employees go out to vote, yet they claimed that employees had no need to request leave—rejecting employees first and then saying they had not requested leave. The logic of this company... Besides, you don't need to request special leave to exercise your civic right to vote in Japan in the first place, do you?

None

1. Unwarranted moral coercion

Treating the hours stipulated by the Labor Standards Act as a minimum, they said employees owed work hours and that the company not holding it against them was a benefit. In reality, there was no issue of owing work hours at all (I consulted a lawyer: he was talking nonsense!).

2. Obstructing employees from exercising their civic rights

Using the claim above about owing work hours to bargain away employees’ rights, they refused to let employees leave the workplace on election day to vote, and even said that if they wanted to leave, the company would demand repayment of the work hours from them (by making up the hours or paying money). There was no such thing as owing work hours in the first place, yet they still threatened employees. Absurd.

3. Lying during a labor inspection

They shifted the blame onto the employee, saying that the employee had not raised the matter again and that shift changes could have been arranged but were not refused.

Why would I raise it again after they had refused? Whether a shift change was made or not would not change the fact that they “refused to let an employee leave on election day to vote.” If they had not refused, would they still have needed to explain all that nonsense about owing work hours? They completely contradicted themselves.

A company that dares to do things but does not dare take responsibility, covering up the facts.

4. Senior personnel who petulantly repeat themselves, and supervisors who dare not address the issue directly

At the mediation, they sent out a “he can criticize you, but you cannot criticize him” thin-skinned senior employee, who petulantly denied everything on repeat. The supervisor who started it all only dared to sit “very uncomfortably” beside him and refused to address the issue directly, saying things like the shift could have been changed and that previous leave requests had been approved. Whether the shift was changed has nothing to do with his illegal conduct; his illegal conduct existed regardless of whether the shift was changed. Previous leave approvals were previous approvals and had nothing to do with this incident.

5. An astonishingly low level of intelligence

They dodged responsibility by claiming it was all a matter of the employee’s interpretation, saying that “no” did not mean refusal, and that “using owed work hours as an exchange” and “I can’t let you do that” did not mean refusal either. When something is so obvious, what is there to interpret? That whole spiel about work hours was the reason for the refusal; there was no need to interpret its meaning.

6. After learning that I had made a recording, they even came to warn me to be careful on the road. They’re the ones who should be careful.

None

1. Unwarranted moral coercion

They treat the working hours stipulated by the Labor Standards Act as a lower limit, claim that employees owe working hours, and even say that the company is doing employees a favor by not holding it against them. In fact, there is absolutely no issue of owed working hours (I consulted a lawyer: he was talking nonsense!).

2. Obstructing employees from exercising their civic rights

Using the above claim about owed working hours to exchange for employees’ rights, they refused to let employees leave the workplace on election day, and even said that if they wanted to leave, the company would demand compensation for the working hours from them (make-up hours or money). There were no owed working hours in the first place, yet they still threatened employees. Absurd.

3. Lying during the labor inspection

They shifted the blame onto the employee, saying that the employee had not raised the issue again and that shift changes had been available and not refused.

If it was refused, why should it have to be raised again? Whether shifts were changed or not would not alter the fact that they “refused to let employees leave on election day.” If it had not been refused, would there have been any need to explain all that nonsense about owed working hours? They completely contradicted themselves.

A company that dares to do things but does not dare take responsibility, covering up the facts.

4. Senior personnel who petulantly repeat themselves, and supervisors who dare not address the issue directly

During mediation, they sent out a “he can criticize you, but you cannot criticize him” thin-skinned senior employee, who kept mechanically denying everything. The supervisor who started it all only dared to sit “very badly” beside him, afraid to address the issue directly, saying things like shifts could be changed and that previous leave requests had been approved. Whether shifts were changed has nothing to do with his illegal conduct; his illegal conduct exists regardless of whether shifts were changed. Previous leave approval was in the past and has nothing to do with this incident either.

5. Rock-bottom intellectual standards

They deflected by claiming that everything was an issue of the employee’s interpretation, saying that “no” did not mean refusal, and that “exchanging it for owed working hours” and “I can’t let you do that” did not mean refusal either. What is there to interpret about something so obvious? That whole discussion about working hours was the reason for the refusal; its meaning requires no interpretation.

6. After they found out that I had recorded the conversation, they even came to warn me to be careful on the way home. Those petty people are the ones who should be careful.

1. The freest cybersecurity company (arguably its only major advantage)

2. A decent stepping stone

3. A place to build up skills quickly

1. Low pay (if you have connections, it’s not a problem)

2. Lots of people who cause trouble—you don’t cause trouble for others, but others will come after you

3. Countless people who shirk responsibility and pass the buck

Every year, at least half of the entire company is replaced. Full-time engineers are still passable, but it’s best to avoid the remaining positions, such as sales, project managers, consultants, and contract roles (sales assistants, project assistants, and on-site staff).

In a word, whether your professional ability is strong or not is unimportant. This is a company that operates as a political game—and plays it very professionally.

None

I almost got silently rejected.

Actually, they may simply be saying that SI subcontractors who take on entire projects all hope you come to them carrying the “weapon” of valid, unexpired certifications. If your certifications have expired, you can get lost, because they will not spend effort or resources investing in you.

Of course, some old-timers will say that you should invest in yourself. In that case, I would like to ask whether a newly graduated student would have the resources to invest in themselves. Consider whether a student—or even a family—can afford the cost of certification exams, including cram-school fees. Spending money before even knowing whether you can get hired—surely no one would let themselves be exploited to that extent, right? Heh.

But back to the point: the position requires working out in the field. I heard that some people have been working outside for so long that they have barely returned to the office, because although the assignment covers areas north of Zh竹, it also includes the eastern region. Those considering applying should think carefully: you need to bring your “weapon” of valid certifications, and you will also be required to work in the field until day turns to night, while it is unclear whether the salary will meet your expectations. It will probably meet the company’s expectations, though. The supervisor seemed very boring and talked for a long time, but I did get a few suggestions for improvement.

So, in reality, this company may not need to train its own soldiers; it needs mercenaries who are looking for a temporary stop while waiting for something better. However, this is also the ugly reality of the vast majority of large, medium-sized, and small businesses on this island.

The environment is pretty good

The interviewer was very tall and thin. From the moment they greeted me, their face showed no smile at all; the corners of their mouth barely lifted.

Even though the salary is good, I wouldn't want to work for this manager.

The Information Security Product Department