建國工程股份有限公司

Interviewing on-site at the construction site lets you see the work environment in advance.

I arranged to meet at the construction site.

I waited an hour because the interviewer was late.

It turned out that I had applied for Position A, but they interviewed me for Position B.

Although I am capable of handling both positions,

HR was also really unreasonable.

The interview itself was okay, and the interviewer directly told me that I was hired.

They said they would submit the approval request, but HR would cut the salary.

The interviewer told me that we would see how the compensation looked and decide then.

Later, HR called me about the salary.

I was completely stunned when I heard it—the offer had been slashed by NT$15,000.

I directly declined to report for work.

They even asked me why I did not want to start.

What a joke.

Generally complies with the Labor Standards Act; whenever overtime is possible, overtime pay is provided instead.

1. There are a lot of old-timers, especially in the headquarters’ occupational safety and health department. They really like pushing tasks onto new employees, making it sound nice by saying they are short-staffed and need help, but in the end it becomes obligatory assistance. Because you did it last time, they come to you for help again this time. They do not store their own data; whenever a labor inspection comes, they rely on colleagues from other departments to provide data for the occupational safety and health unit. Merit awards and bonuses all go to the occupational safety and health department—a truly “excellent” unit.

2. The attendance policy only applies to frontline employees. For those with management titles, the attendance policy is basically just a reference. Of course, there are still supervisors who follow the rules strictly, but one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel, and some will find loopholes to exploit.

3. No matter how incompetent some people are, their year-end bonuses are still specially adjusted because their supervisors like them or because they have connections.

4. At construction sites that are so bad they are practically falling apart, the relative proportion of employees who can receive good performance ratings is lower than that of colleagues at sites rated excellent. However, executives and even staff departments usually receive two to three months’ worth of year-end bonuses no matter how poor their performance is, while frontline employees receive only one to two months. Those who benefit from the existing system will not speak up.

5. Some supervisors are very hypocritical and sanctimonious. They always swallow everything and do not dare push matters back to other departments. When others bully their department, they may say externally that their subordinates are difficult to manage, while internally telling people to be understanding of other departments. “Although I know you’re furious, the matter still has to be dealt with.” In the end, under the supervisor’s pressure, you have no choice but to bow your head and finish the work, but once again, the credit goes to the other department and the supervisor.

6. Your resignation date has to be entered as a working day; they do not want to pay you for holidays.

1. Some executives’ experience and attitude are truly very admirable

2. The engineering and technical capabilities are indeed outstanding

3. Brother De is truly a good person worthy of respect

4. The welfare committee provides an annual travel allowance once a year

5. The promotion system is fairly reasonable, provided that your supervisor likes you

1. Apart from spouting nonsense, certain executives are truly devoid of any redeeming qualities. They are clearly all talk, yet they carry out a bunch of impractical things in the engineering department

2. Department managers allow the people they favor to act recklessly. The department has been understaffed for a long time

3. There are more people who talk big than people who get things done. Those who do get things done should be mentally prepared to work themselves to death

4. The new chairman uses high-pressure tactics to control the people beneath him. He is lecherous! The people he always favors are a bunch of big talkers, and he has driven away a whole group of truly outstanding people

5. Supervisors do not look at work output at all when evaluating performance; they only look at who is better at flattering them

1. Some senior managers’ experience and attitude are truly very respectable.

2. Their engineering and technical capabilities are indeed outstanding.

3. Brother De is truly a good and respectable person.

4. The employee welfare committee provides an annual travel allowance once a year.

5. The promotion system is fairly reasonable, provided that your supervisor likes you.

1. Apart from spouting nonsense, certain senior managers are truly good for nothing. They are clearly all talk, yet they do a bunch of impractical things in the engineering department.

2. Department heads allow the people they favor to act recklessly. The department has been understaffed for a long time.

3. There are more people who talk big than people who get things done. Those who do get things done should be mentally prepared to work themselves to death.

4. The new chairman uses high pressure entirely to control the people under him. He is lecherous! The people he always favors are a bunch of smooth-talkers, and he has driven away many truly outstanding employees.

5. Supervisors completely ignore work output when evaluating performance; they only look at who is best at sucking up.

As a large publicly listed company, it follows the requirements of the Labor Standards Act in terms of company policies. However, I ultimately received no response, so there is no way to know whether this was fully complied with.

First, they asked why I wanted to change jobs. After I explained my reasons, the interviewer gave unsolicited advice, saying that my reasons and aspirations were more suited to working on-site. The interviewer said that he had also started out working on-site, and so on. (The problem is that he now works in an office too, so what he said was not at all convincing.)

The second interviewer was even worse. I knew at the time that they did not intend to hire me, but they still asked a whole lot of personal questions (What was my major at school? What was the difference between the groups? What did my parents do? Did my father give me advice about work?). They asked a bunch of irrelevant questions unrelated to the job I was applying for. Even the police would not ask so many questions when taking a statement. Instead of properly reflecting on whether their own department's shortage of staff might be because they are too difficult to get along with, they should do some self-examination. I could not stand it after such a short interview, let alone spending eight hours a day with these people. I suggest that anyone going for an interview should not answer questions unrelated to the job they are applying for—you do not need to answer them. The other party is just killing time, using the questions to brush you off and fill their own working hours.

If a department at such a large company is short-staffed, either the work is difficult or… everyone knows what that means.