Pros
A few welcoming, helpful colleagues.
Cons
1. The lies start early. Bearing in mind that I interviewed for a job here and was hired during the COVID-19 pandemic, I was assured during the interview process that WFH was allowed (and it should have been, considering the government regulation at the time that at least 50% of a company's workforce must WFH). However, when I asked if I could WFH one day, I was told the company "does not have a WFH policy" because the CEO "needs to see everyone in the office". I later found out that prior to me joining, the CEO had instructed HR to remind those who WFH to apply for unpaid leave. 2. Senior management displays blatantly two-faced, utterly disrespectful behaviour towards employees. The CEO had no issue using a hearing-impaired employee as a token to show how 'diverse' and 'accepting' the company was, but his lackey (who had handled my hiring process and lied to me about WFH being allowed) wouldn't hesitate to disparage him to others in his presence, knowing full well he couldn't hear her. She would roll her eyes if he didn't get her instructions 100% right, and even curse and swear at him. The CEO likes to paint himself as a friendly, approachable person but won't hesitate to literally scream at employees in front of the rest of the office if anything isn't to his liking. He would approve social media posts but manage to find some fault with them after they were published, then call employees up late at night just to yell at them for his own oversight. He also had no qualms making employees stay late just to fix minor things that could easily have been communicated via email and done remotely. 3. The CEO has no consideration at all for rules and regulations or employee rights or safety. Soon after I joined the company, an MOM officer paid the office a visit due to an anonymous complaint that the CEO had been flagrantly flouting COVID-19 regulations. In the office group chat, everyone was instructed to go for lunch and return to the office only after the MOM officer had left. Those who remained in the office were told to lie that the rules were indeed being followed. 4. The CEO is a paranoid tinpot dictator who fires people based on nothing but unfounded suspicion. Two days after the MOM visit, it was suddenly announced that the company would be moving to a different office...in the next two days. On the day of the move, he gathered everyone to ask which of us preferred to WFH. I was the only one who said I did. He then demanded to know who had complained to the MOM (it wasn't me). When no one owned up, he proceeded to threaten everyone by claiming one of his good friends was a former senior employee at the MOM, and would reveal the identity of the whistle-blower. I knew immediately this was complete piffle, since it is illegal for the MOM to divulge such information. He further doubled down on his BS by saying that since the company was growing, everyone needed to be in the office every day to "work together better", and that "you're with us or against us". Then, like a true sociopath, his demeanour did a 180 as he took me aside to ask in a concerned manner if I was unhappy with the working arrangements. I said "no". When everyone reached the new office, he made a big show of bringing me around to boast about how there was plenty of space for me to work without distraction. At this point, I already had the feeling something was wrong. The next thing I knew, I received a text message asking me to go to one of the rooms, where I was handed a termination letter. The official reason given for my sudden termination was that the company had made a "business decision" to engage an external agency to do my job, as my performance had been "unsatisfying". This made no sense for two reasons: firstly, such "business decisions" aren't made or announced overnight. Secondly, it would cost a company far more to hire an external agency instead of internal staff to do the same job. The best part? They determined my performance was "unsatisfying" after I'd been at the company for a grand total of TWO WEEKS, during which time I had shown up every single weekday from nine to six (sometimes later), done everything requested of me, AND had been told I was a "valuable addition to the team". Two days after my unceremonious boot from the company, the job listing I'd initially responded to was back on the company's LinkedIn page, suggesting that the story I'd been told about my position being replaced with an external hire was absolute rubbish. Needless to say, I went after them via the Tripartite Alliance, which arranged a mediation session attended by two company reps. Initially, they refused to compensate me, and when I questioned them about the job listing, they claimed that the job listings on the company page didn't necessarily mean it was looking to hire but rather, to farm for résumés to "keep on file". Essentially, they admitted to wilfully wasting applicants' time by giving them the false impression there were positions open for them. I figured this might have been a lie to cover their own behinds but either way, it was not a good look. I was eventually compensated after I refused to back down and told them plainly that if the case had to be taken to the Tribunal Court, I would be more than prepared to dig up even more dirt on the company to present to the judge. All this while, I had kept in touch with a couple of former colleagues who were still at the company, and heard nothing but negative feedback from them. In fact, one of them — who had joined the company just one day after me — quit after just one month, during which time he had been repeatedly yelled at and humiliated in front of his colleagues...over not ordering an Apple TV quickly enough for the CEO.
