Sources and scope
This page collects workplace experiences, questions and discussions submitted by users. Dates shown are submission dates, not periods of employment. Individual reports do not describe the entire company.
Read the community guidelinesHaggling over the salary—it’s just like bargaining at a traditional market, which is a bit laughable.
The entrance security is very strict, and it feels like a prison. They look at applicants as if they were thieves. When discussing the benefits system, they mention many bonuses, but when asked about the year-end bonus, it turns into “the company will pay one if it makes money.” You have to lie depending on who you’re talking to. Sure enough, this is a landmine of a company.
There are absolutely no good points.
Internal turmoil within the company; the 104 job posting did not state that it was a contract position, violating the Labor Standards Act; extremely low salary; a minefield of a company; no job security, as the company could have its contract terminated by the military at any time; no year-end bonus; the position applied for does not match reality.
Warehouse cargo handling, inventory sorting, and Excel too—for such low pay, I might as well go work in an office.
During the interview, they ask about your computer and Excel proficiency. If you really expect applicants to know all that, why not have your teachers handle the cargo and operate the forklift instead? Can the company really not afford an ERP system? The interviewer seemed to be new, and gave the impression that they didn’t understand anything.
104 posted a job vacancy that did not match reality, deceiving job seekers.
104 did not clearly state that this was a contract position, with only four years of work available. The salary was posted according to market rates, but they still tried to negotiate it down during the interview. They claimed it was an executive assistant position, but the company has poor credibility. You can tell during the interview that things inside are very disorganized.