社團法人台灣防止虐待動物協會 (TSPCA)

Let me offer a contrarian perspective. I’m currently approaching my fifth year working at the association. I happened to miss the period discussed in the earlier posts and was not involved, so I can’t comment on that. I’ll just share my personal observations about the current situation and the areas that have improved, in an attempt to reassure some of the people who were frightened by the previous wave of comments.

1. The department I work in handles a very large amount of information, so we have established training and education procedures for both full-time employees and interns, and we regularly adjust them to help newcomers get up to speed as smoothly as possible. Other departments also have SOPs.

2. There are two managers with different perspectives within the department, allowing us to see different aspects, adjust management policies more flexibly, and effectively resolve problems that colleagues encounter at work. Although we are part of management, we are also, so to speak, frontline staff, so our decisions are less likely to be off the mark. We know that every bit of effort is precious, and we don’t like pointless busywork.

3. Work assignments are planned for both full-time employees and interns. Apart from necessary routine tasks, we try to leave room for everyone to develop according to their strengths. We discuss matters and make flexible adjustments during fixed weekly department meetings. Each quarter, we also arrange one-on-one meetings to check in on one another’s situation, while direct supervisors keep track of everyone’s work status.

4. Relations with other departments are currently good. There aren’t many conflicts or problems of people pushing responsibility onto one another. We work hard to build and repair bridges, and continue extending those bridges to the outside world.

5. Basically, the issues mentioned previously—such as labor and health insurance and how overtime is calculated—are no longer problems. We use an online clock-in system, so all applicable overtime is counted. In addition, you can work from home for four days each month. As long as your work arrangements do not affect others, taking leave is quite easy.

6. Work enthusiasm is evaluated only through job performance. People are not assessed based on emotional impressions, such as leaving work on time or not responding to messages after work. Personally, I often encourage everyone to leave work on time and rest properly during their days off.

7. If you want to devote yourself to animal protection work, this work environment allows you to participate very directly and encounter all kinds of good and bad aspects. Even if your direction differs from that of the association, we are happy for you to find a path you can follow here. After all, there are countless ways to help animals, and they are all worthwhile.

8. Because the organization is small, there is room for autonomy and flexibility, including when communicating upward with the CEO, directors, and supervisors. At present, there are no situations that are completely impossible to communicate about. Based on my years of personal experience here, many things need to be initiated by yourself. Of course, you may encounter rejection or situations requiring mutual compromise—it depends on how you coordinate.

9. Quite a few people have mentioned the cleaning issue XD. We now have a regular cleaner who helps maintain the cleanliness of the environment (after all, everyone is too busy with work). Staff are still assigned to take turns on duty each week to take out the trash and do some basic cleaning as part of routine maintenance. Since offices outside the main county/city have fewer people and fewer opportunities to house animals, full-time employees are still assigned to clean them.

10. Finally, let me talk about my own work experience. When a job is not motivated by money, you need to find your own personal connection to it. Many people actually can’t find one, so please don’t come here just because you like animals.

I’ve listed ten advantages, so to be fair, I should also present ten disadvantages. Some of these may not truly be disadvantages, may be things that can be improved, or may simply not be disadvantages to you.

1. This job depends heavily on your personality traits. Even with more training and communication, after doing it for a while you still have to face your authentic self. You often need to challenge yourself. The growth is valuable, but it can be uncomfortable.

2. You need to deal with negative comments, emotions, and strange people from outside the organization. Compared with internal arguments, these are truly child’s play; it’s the people outside who are hard to withstand, such as members of the public, pet owners, government authorities, or online commenters. Negative psychological effects can easily accumulate, though this varies from person to person. Recently, counseling subsidies have become available.

3. The work really is miscellaneous and plentiful, and staffing can never seem to catch up. Add all kinds of unexpected incidents, and this is not a place to come for an easy retirement. There is no solution.

4. Staff turnover is high. Often, people leave before I’ve even spoken with them or memorized their names (which may be my problem XD). There is no solution.

5. Physical exhaustion. My position often requires me to travel around outside, all over Taiwan. Most reported cases involving animals occur outdoors, so you’ll be exposed to intense sun and rain, with temperatures alternating between hot and cold. You need to be in reasonably good physical shape.

6. You need to know how to drive and park. I originally didn’t think this was worth listing, but later realized it was a major barrier.

7. Your heart and mind will constantly be filled to capacity. When I was still a rookie, I thought it would be enough to punish evil and uphold justice. In reality, we face an enormous number of voices—good, bad, and ambiguous. If you aren’t objective enough to listen and observe more in order to understand, it is difficult to find the root of a problem. New things keep being poured into you.

8. Many people and situations will inexplicably challenge your emotions. For example, you might travel abroad using your own money and then be questioned about whether you misappropriated public funds (every cent spent by a nonprofit organization with a fundraising registration number must be clearly accounted for), or be asked whether mosquitoes should be protected.

9. You will encounter all kinds of colleagues. Objectively speaking, when recruiting talent is difficult, you will meet all sorts of coworkers—for example, an antisocial loner like me who dislikes team activities. This also really tests your self-discipline and your ability not to let yourself be affected.

10. You need to bear part of the burden of the organization’s historical baggage. Animal-protection concepts, knowledge, and the organization as a whole will change, and there are also many inside stories that cannot be explained publicly. You will often be tested on or criticized for things from the past—for example, even now it is easy to get booed and be asked to explain comments you made six or seven years ago.

1. High autonomy at work; you can decide what you want to do and how to do it (provided the boss is abroad or "busy with personal matters")

2. Animals (other than humans) are cute

1. The boss runs the association like a family business.

The association belongs to the boss and her two sisters. Everyone else (including board members, supervisors, and employees) is expected to keep their opinions to themselves, yet they love encouraging employees by saying, "If you have an opinion, feel free to speak up—we're a TEAM." Don't believe this for a second; speak up and you're finished.

2. The standards are inconsistent. This applies to the association's mission, the circumstances under which animals should be taken in, how cases involving issues are handled, and the division of work among different departments.

When employees take leave or there is a typhoon: "GUYS, the animals are suffering; you can't think only about taking time off."

When the boss is abroad: "The meeting scheduled for this week—I can't get back because I'm overseas. Help me reschedule it with them (or, So-and-so, you go in my place)."

The association's dog: "You're really mean. You're not allowed upstairs to bully my dog. Your barking will affect everyone's work."

The boss's dog (barking incessantly): "Oh, bad doggy, okay, okay" (while the boss continues sitting at her desk).

One department: "We're a TEAM; everyone needs to help one another."

Other departments: "Each department should handle and finish its own work. Everyone is busy."

3. This is also about inconsistent standards, but it's so bizarre that I'm pulling it out separately to share with everyone.

The association requires employees to eat vegetarian food during work hours, but seafood is exempt. Shrimp shells sometimes appear in the trash after the boss finishes eating, while the association once promoted an initiative called "Refuse Shark Fin Soup." Ha ha—make sense of that.

4. The boss and some colleagues don't understand basic animal behavior.

The boss or colleagues will stare into a dog's eyes and say, "Oh, I think it's so sad" (staring into a dog's eyes is highly provocative behavior), or repeatedly shriek, "So cute!" next to a very nervous dog. When dogs at the association awaiting adoption bark, they scold and loudly reprimand them, intensifying the dogs' barking behavior.

5. Privilege is useful.

When a celebrity or a friend of the boss finds an animal, the association almost always helps bring the animal in and arrange its adoption (there have not yet been any exceptions). Ordinary members of the public don't get this privilege, ha ha.

6. Interns are seriously exploited.

Interns' obligations: doing the same amount of work as regular employees, cleaning, and so on. The executive director said, "Giving interns transportation allowances every day is a heavy burden for the association, so STAFF should arrange more tasks for them to do."

Interns' rights: they receive only the basic daily transportation allowance (NT$200–500), have no labor or health insurance, and have no opportunities to learn.

7. The publicly disclosed information about fundraising does not match the facts; members were not notified of the general meeting according to procedure, and the board and supervisor positions were predetermined.

8. They look for the hottest animal-protection issue to focus on, and after paying attention for three minutes... there's no follow-up.

For example, initiatives the association has promoted include refusing shark fin soup and opposing animal testing for cosmetics. Oh well, shelters are what's trending now.

1) The "majority" of the employees here are fairly capable and can keep the association’s basic operations running. As for the small number of others, let them go.

2) The atmosphere during office hours is generally quite good, without too much pressure.

1) The association’s leadership has a strong tendency toward authoritarian, personality-based management and lacks the ability to communicate with employees. Leaders make erroneous decisions based on their own will, leaving those responsible for implementation with little room for communication. Yet the leaders lack professionalism, have narrow vision, and refuse to respect professional opinions, relying solely on their own judgment. How can one expect the association to be a long-term positive force for Taiwan’s animal protection movement?

2) The association’s leadership is poor at assigning and managing personnel. Its staffing arrangements and performance evaluations can make people feel that things are unfair and that certain individuals are favored over others. It is impossible to tell which employees lack ability and are drawing salaries without doing their jobs, and which employees are genuinely hardworking; instead, those who work diligently are subjected to all kinds of nitpicking. I believe the reason is that the leaders do not sufficiently understand the actual work carried out by the association’s various departments, yet still want to intervene and impose their own subjective ideas.

3) The treatment of association employees does not comply with the Labor Standards Act. Employees cannot claim overtime pay for extended working hours and can only choose compensatory leave, which must be used within a specified period. (Even when choosing compensatory leave, employees may still be given a hard time by the employer.) In contrast, the leadership, who receive full salaries, do not have to arrive at and leave work on time every day and often do not even come to the office to work. How can they command the respect of others?

4) After the CEO’s own dog was bitten by a dog housed by the association, the CEO prohibited the shelter dogs from coming upstairs from the basement, where they never saw daylight, on the grounds that these dogs had already interfered with work. This is not how the CEO of an animal protection organization should act. For dogs with behavioral problems, the CEO’s approach was not to ask a behavior trainer to train them, but to scold and dislike them. In short, the CEO seemed to lack the basic professional competence expected of an animal protection organization.

5) The association treats interns as cheap labor for clerical work, miscellaneous tasks, and cleaning, and lacks a systematic education and training program. The learning outcomes of interns are not a consideration for the association. Interns do not enjoy basic labor rights. They originally received NT$200 per day as a transportation allowance, which was only raised to NT$500 after they advocated for an increase. (The allowance was paid reluctantly and was sometimes even forgotten.) There was no labor insurance, health insurance, or other insurance, yet interns were required to accompany full-time staff when going out, including on investigations, exposing them to excessive risks.

6) All these problems are kept hidden from outsiders, because the leadership is very good at packaging things and pays great attention to its image, so people continue to flock to the association. I only hope that people who intend to devote themselves to animal protection will see this review from an insider and reflect on it: Is this a good association? Is it worth investing your time and effort here?

The animals are very cute

Because of a system problem, the records I had casually entered before disappeared, but I think this is also a good opportunity for me to rethink my own thoughts.

Over the past few years, I have also interned at many NGOs. There were both bitter and sweet moments throughout those internships. Some places I might return to years after leaving, have a meal with my former colleagues, and exchange a few pleasantries. But some organizations may have long forgotten that I ever existed as an intern, and going back rashly might instead be rather embarrassing and uncomfortable. Overall, however, these were all internship experiences I have never regretted. Because I like animals very much, I later chose to give up several better work opportunities and come to SPCA, hoping to work for related animal rights. But after coming to SPCA, I did not find the experience as meaningful as my previous internships. Instead, I was left full of disappointment and frustration. Even now, I cannot guarantee that I will not regret having come to this organization.

I believe that before truly falling in love with someone, you must first love yourself; otherwise, the person you fall in love with is merely a projection of your own emotions. I think the same reasoning could also apply to animals, right? But during the short three months I spent at SPCA, I came to hate myself. I do not know who or what I came to this organization for. SPCA’s internship system is interesting: you have to come three times a week for eight hours each time, yet receive only NT$200 in transportation reimbursement. But money has never been the issue—never, ever, ever. Many of my previous internships were unpaid as well. Naturally, NT$200 in transportation reimbursement is nowhere near enough to cover living expenses, so I could only shamelessly keep asking my family for money. Yet the internship work at the association consisted of constantly cleaning the association, sorting garbage and recyclables, helping look for news when I arrived at work, and then carrying heavy items to a nearby post office before leaving. During work, I also had to repeatedly clean up the association’s dogs’ feces and urine and answer calls from all kinds of people. Occasionally, members of the public would call and angrily berate us interns because the full-time employee responsible for donation-related matters had failed to handle something properly, leaving us completely innocent. Simply put, I learned practically nothing at the association. I felt more like a cheap janitor, while also having to use money from my family just to scrape by. It made me start to hate myself and feel that coming to the association was simply degrading myself.

I have always believed that pursuing an ideal should not be built on oppressing another group. But at this association, I did see some full-time employees who were fundamentally unprofessional repeatedly fail to understand colleagues who had their own ideas and genuinely understood animals. I also saw those people disrespecting us interns. This completely extinguished my original passion for animal protection. How tragic is that for an NGO? At the same time, I firmly believe that some people keep assuming that those of us who are merely “cynics who like leaving comments” do not understand them. But in my view, all they have ever loved is themselves, not animals.

I’m very happy to have had the opportunity to work with everyone.

Even as just an intern, I could feel everyone’s dedication and enthusiasm in working together for the sake of the animals.

I really love this group.

The following is merely my personal and limited opinion. If you don’t like it, you can skip it and treat it as garbage (enter at your own risk).

As far as the internship system is concerned, I won’t comment on how much interns should be paid, because it’s just like being in a relationship: both sides are willing, and each gets what they need.

Whether it is worthwhile depends solely on personal opinion, which is neither objective nor rational. I am not highly educated, highly capable, or particularly outstanding. Therefore, even if the pay were only 200, I would still be very happy to have this internship opportunity and to join this family of people working together for animal protection.

But there are some things I want to say to our leaders.

Intern, Chinese dictionary: personally practicing and carrying out tasks in the field; English: practical training (Dr.eye). Simply put, it means learning, not creating. Therefore, recruiting interns is not about having someone produce plans or come up with solutions.

Interns are mainly supposed to “participate” in this large project and contribute a little of the value they possess.

They are not supposed to be handed problems and told to figure everything out themselves.

If these are things interns are expected to do, then what do we need full-time employees for?

Also, leaders, you should understand that, as leaders of a “public welfare” organization, guiding people means winning their hearts.......

For those willing to work for a “public welfare” organization, I think money is a relatively minor factor. What matters more is that sense of dedication, perseverance, and drive.

I imagine there are many associations in even worse situations, and many that do not pay anything at all. What made this experience disappointing and upsetting today was not the money, nor the association’s mission, but that you only made me feel as though I was exchanging money for a title. Perhaps that is the case. I have never been a boss, so I don’t know how hard “you” work. I am not rich, so I don’t know “your” troubles. I am not “highly” educated, so I don’t know “your” thoughts.

I am just a newcomer who knows nothing.

Finally, I want to say something that may not sound very pleasant—my observations over the past few months.

If “you,” the leaders, do not want to invest more of the association’s resources in the adoption department, you might as well shut the adoption department down.

I think that, for an association to reach the outside world and touch people’s hearts, the department that makes the greatest impression is the adoption department.

That is because it showcases tangible results. It is the point of closest contact with the public. It is what rescues dogs from dire circumstances.

It is the best testimony. Yet the adoption department feels as though it is merely an auxiliary department. There are many miscellaneous tasks, and it feels as though we are merely plumbers.

Dogs come and go, and we become nothing more than drivers taking dogs to the vet or errand runners,

rather than participants and catalysts who help dogs move from suffering to happiness.

Therefore, I sincerely suggest that you shut down the adoption department. That is what “public welfare” means: we do as much as we can.

It is not enough to keep rescuing dogs. That is extremely irresponsible. Every dog we rescue, no matter how long it takes, becomes our responsibility.

These are our precious companions. If you really want to rescue a large number of dogs, you might as well open a dog shelter.

Rescuing and finding homes are two very different levels of difficulty.

Whether a “public welfare” organization succeeds or fails is entirely in the hands of its leaders.

If you define yourself as someone who connects with people, then please make good use of your connections instead of saying that you feel like you are doing direct sales and selling favors.

If you define yourself as everyone’s good friend and the driving force behind this association,

then please make sure you understand what every department actually does, what makes it difficult, where the expertise lies, and where help should be provided.

Do not assume that the painstaking work everyone has done can be performed well and easily just by following an SOP.

If that were the case, why would we need these people? We could just hire part-time workers or volunteers for everything.

I still want to say that I love this internship opportunity and I love dogs, but I know my own shortcomings and that I am not a good fit for your association.

Volunteers, I’m counting on you.

1. Cats and dogs are cute

2. Most employees are easy to get along with

3. The association’s mission is very good

1. Regarding working hours

1) Working hours are overly flexible, and overtime (including holidays) is frequent, with no overtime pay—only compensatory leave is offered.

2) During leave, employees are often required to be on call or handle tasks via messaging apps, which is equivalent to having no days off all year.

3) However, members of the leadership can take leave whenever they want. They can freely change the time of meetings, press conferences, and other events according to their preferences or ask someone else to attend in their place, and can adjust their own working hours whenever they feel like it.

2. Regarding the intern system

1) Interns currently receive only NT$500 per day for transportation expenses, but are required to work eight hours a day. In addition to being exploited as cheap labor, they are treated by the leadership as though NT$500 is too much.

2) When recruiting interns, the association emphasizes that there is a “chance to become a full-time employee,” but the leadership does not open full-time positions. Interns often have no choice but to leave after completing their internships, and vacancies are filled only when a full-time employee leaves (it is entirely a matter of luck).

3. Regarding pet sitters

1) The leadership treats pet sitters as cleaners, continually expanding their duties (including cleaning tasks), while constantly complaining that things are dirty and smelly.

2) Because pet sitters work shifts every day, they are required by the leadership to “help” with tasks outside their responsibilities whenever other people are on leave or off work.

4. Regarding the dogs and adoption

1) Employees may bring their own dogs to work, but the leadership’s dog does not get along with the association’s dogs. The leadership nevertheless continues bringing their own dog to work instead of prioritizing the association’s dogs, restricting the areas where the association’s dogs can move. When the association’s dogs fight with their own dog, they blame only the association’s dogs. They become angry when the association’s dogs bark, but their own dog is allowed to bark freely (and is noisier than the association’s dogs).

2) The organization’s mission is to rescue abused animals. However, because the leadership may be concerned about maintaining a certain public image, whenever celebrities or friends rescue or encounter stray animals on the street and ask the association to take them in, the association accepts them all without exception. As a result, most of the dogs currently at the association are not dogs rescued from abuse cases. This also means that some dogs from actual cases cannot enter the association’s office for care, and money donated by the general public for abused animals cannot be used entirely for abused animals.

3) Some dogs have serious behavioral problems, causing fights or damage to property. The leadership only criticizes the adoption department and pet sitters for failing to care for the dogs properly, while refusing to spend money on behavioral correction. They also become angry about medical expenses when dogs are injured in fights, and only lose their temper when dogs fight or make noise—yelling at or frightening the dogs, among other things (which is no different from how the dogs were treated in the cases). They then dump the mess on the adoption department, demanding that it train the dogs, take proper care of them, or make them stop barking, while providing neither manpower nor resources.

4) The leadership has stated that it does not want to focus on the adoption department and only wants to cooperate with other adoption organizations (such as pet hotels). Therefore, it provides the adoption department with neither manpower nor resources. At external events, it only wants to raise funds, hold charity sales, or otherwise make money. The dogs’ appearances are essentially just window dressing. The leadership does not want to use resources to hold adoption-department activities that allow the dogs to meet and interact with the public (which would greatly help with adoption). Its only requirement for the adoption department is whether the “adoption posts” are written well, while it continually complains that the dogs cannot be adopted.

5. Regarding task allocation and staffing

The division of responsibilities is unclear. In simple terms, there is not enough staff, but the leadership is unwilling to open positions (because it does not want to spend money, which is why it recruits disposable interns). This keeps everyone extremely busy, after which people who happen to be less busy are pressured into supporting other departments. If they are unwilling or express different opinions, the leadership criticizes them as people who lack compassion and perseverance.

6. Regarding financial matters

The leadership often does not want to spend money where it should be spent (for example, on staff and dogs). Another example is that the dogs have damaged the floor, causing excrement to frequently remain on it, but the floor has still not been replaced after a long time (the excuse is that the association is poor). At the same time, the leadership often complains that the pet sitters do not clean properly and that the place therefore smells terrible. At events, it continually wants to sell things, seek sponsorships, and so on. Some other examples have been mentioned above.

7. Regarding the leadership

1) The previous points are all closely related, so it is impossible to separate every issue completely. The biggest problem lies with the leadership. Simply put, the leadership loves animals, but only its own animals. It does not want to spend money, so it exploits the existing manpower and resources, yet merely gives orders for everyone to do everything perfectly. It also takes the idea of “compassion” to an extreme: it is fine for the leadership to dislike dogs because they are dirty or smelly and to yell at them.

2) The leadership has severe germophobia and is also afraid of noise. It once wanted to move all the dogs to another place for housing (in the manner of a dog shelter), as long as this meant it would not be inconvenienced, while dumping all the trouble on others. However, these problems were caused by its own management strategies, and it stubbornly refuses to listen to advice. For example, one of the association’s dogs that was not from an abuse case was brought in by the leadership itself and has become a major problem. It currently attacks other dogs and is aggressive toward other colleagues. The leadership itself complains that the dog is noisy, dirty, smelly, and aggressive, but only tells the pet sitters to resolve everything. It also orders one department head around and treats them like a general manager.

3) The leadership is very good at putting on a show, but privately has an entirely different attitude. There are also many other problems; please refer to the previous comments.

Because of the problems with the leadership, many people have wanted to leave the association. However, the association’s polished public image also attracts many people to join. The association’s mission is good, but it would be better with a more even-tempered leader. The leader’s current behavior makes many people feel that they do not genuinely love dogs, but merely rescue dogs on the side while making money. Although the leadership has serious problems, “many” of the employees underneath are very dedicated and work hard for the association’s mission. They have simply become discouraged because of the leadership, yet they continue striving for the animals despite the lack of manpower and resources.

None.

A generally normal company will regard interns as future additions to its workforce—in other words, it will gradually train and develop interns into future full-time employees. Even if they do not become full-time employees, they should still be able to speak highly of the company after leaving and encourage others to support it. Of course, this assumes that it is a “generally normal company.”

Perhaps this view is biased, subjective, and arbitrary, but my impression of the association is that those in charge treat interns as disposable chopsticks—used once and thrown away. After the CEO cheerfully told me on the first day how great the association was and how wonderful its people were, they never seriously looked me in the eye again. The work schedule was eight hours a day, three days a week, for a three-month internship—nearly two-thirds of the hours of a full-time position, yet without labor or health insurance. The daily transportation allowance was only NT$200, which was presented as a tremendous benefit. It was disgusting.

The intern’s work is described favorably as providing exposure to many different areas, but bluntly speaking, it is miscellaneous labor. Every week, interns have to spend one or two days as the “duty person”; if the association is short-staffed, this can increase to three days. What does the duty person do? Clean the association. On several occasions, simply cleaning up dog feces and urine in the basement, as well as floors trampled by dogs over the course of a night, took several hours. By the time I left the association, I had reached the point where I could handle feces with my bare hands without feeling nauseated—of course, I never expected to acquire that particular skill. In addition, every time we came in, we had to act as the receptionist and run errands to the post office. Sometimes, if a dog relieved itself during work, the interns had to clean it up as well. In the end, the interns’ work became extremely scattered and distressing.

I have also interned at many other organizations, and I honestly have never seen such a terrible internship environment. This association is not really offering internships at all; it has simply created extremely low-paid work to cut costs, without even basic labor insurance, health insurance, or the minimum hourly wage.

My direct supervisor (of course, not the boss who sometimes only came to work in the afternoon and left before five) treated me well. However, I also saw that some interns had extremely terrible direct supervisors who assigned them alienating work from which they could learn absolutely nothing. Every time I saw how my friend was treated, I found that supervisor utterly detestable.

In short, if you are considering an internship here, I strongly recommend against it.

As for full-time employment, you might see even more bizarre, incomprehensible, or infuriating things from senior management. However, since I have not experienced this personally, I will not elaborate lest it become rumor-mongering. As for why I did not raise these issues directly, just look at how benevolent the work environment, atmosphere, and communication channels there are, and you will understand.

Hahahahaha, do I really have to fill this in?

I’ve thought about it for ages and can’t think of anything.

I’m writing this in the hope that people can better understand the miserable working conditions at NGOs. Besides the public thinking that you’re all volunteers, even the boss thinks you’re a volunteer...

There’s honestly a lot I want to say, but it’s getting late, so I’ll just write about some of the more unusual things.

1. A strange attitude toward money

Taking taxis to meetings is always fine, but if the lights aren’t turned off... or if you print on only one side of the paper... the boss will say you’re wasting money.

Oh, some people might think that this really is environmentally friendly... but the carbon emissions from traveling abroad for fun all the time (once a month?)—huh? Seems like that may have raised the Earth’s temperature by who knows how much.

And where does the money for those overseas trips come from anyway? LMAO

Oh, and the cars and houses are pretty impressive too. ^^

2. Top-notch superficial showmanship

Everything is always about fundraising and publicity...

The previous collaboration with Sun XX was absolutely hilarious.

They loudly claimed to oppose fur and breeding farms, but the celebrity they collaborated with kept pedigree dogs and wore fur..! Hello, is anyone home? As long as the other party has money, does that mean you can have no principles?

3. Clocking in for work, clocking out...?

Of course it’s a responsibility-based work system, hahaha.

If you don’t reply to messages and emails after working hours, you’ll get lots of question marks and responses saying that you’re not putting enough care into your work. ^^

4. Insufficient knowledge of animal behavior

The animal-protection association is completely lacking in basic knowledge about animal behavior. Screaming, screaming, screaming—that’s the method the bosses teach for training dogs. Oh my God, every time the dogs hear screaming, they become even more agitated. Hello, do you not know that your staff includes an animal behavior trainer? And not just one, either. Seriously, how little do you trust other people’s expertise?

5. Labor Standards Act

Hmm... I’ve heard this term is taboo there, so I’ll skip this one.

6. Intern system

Well... it’s euphemistically called “training”... but in practice, it’s just taking advantage of students or recent graduates... A tiny transportation allowance, spending all day cleaning and organizing documents. Of course, it’s not like you learn nothing... it just seems very different from how it’s described online, LOL.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It’s late—good night, everyone.

If I get more feedback, I’ll come back and tell more stories. ^^