Pros
-Pay is good/better, standard benefits, snacks (when in office) -People are nice, want to help and make for a collegial working atmosphere -You can learn a lot about a different side of the political world
Cons
Communications: Most consistent issue. Items are not communicated to rank and file staff. Problems/issues do not get a response and/or ignored if management doesn't want to address them. Answers/responses sometimes don't even actually address the subject. Staffing: To be clear, the *staff* (the people) are great as noted above. The actual staffing process can be a problem, where positions are left vacant for months or even more than a year without clarification if that position will be filled or not or transformed into another role. An annoyance that was manageable prior to the pandemic, this became an increasing mess as the pandemic continues and creates cascading problems: who was in charge of what project (or aspects of a project) and who we were supposed to report to became increasingly confusing. Career development, which never seemed to be a priority (time has to be carved out rather than integrating it into the work), became non-existent. Senior staffers were forced to take on roles and work they weren't necessarily trained for and without either the compensation or title bump. Hires happened without a clear explanation of what this person would do (and sometimes you'd find out about a new hire because they were added to the org's Slack). It felt like management was trying to see if the org could work without a middle management, forcing more work onto staff without guidance and without advocates for the rank and file. During a pandemic and an election. DEIJ: Is only so A.US can claim to care about such issues for external purposes (dinging companies for it), rather than understanding the internal work that's required. This is clear when you look at the employees who have been with the org for the longest and what they have in common. This is not to criticize those employees, who have been critical for their knowledge, experience, etc. But it tells you who management invests in at the organization and who they think has a future there. A.US may say it's a process, that it's being worked on. Sure, but when the initial response about a return to office is concerned building trust and cohesion in an office rather than acknowledging the anxiety, burnout, stress, exhaustion, etc. that people are experiencing (which staff expressed in a survey specifically about the return to office), it's clear that management continues to not understand or appear to even care what DEIJ is. I doubt management comprehends some of the messages they sent to their employees who are part of one or more marginalized groups. Micromanagement: (Pre-pandemic); Requiring people to physically be at their desks by 9:30 AM, requiring laptops off/closed during meetings while management can be seen on their phones in the meetings they bothered to attend. Refusing to set an organization-wide standard for WFH and instead requiring staff “work it out with their supervisor (not having a WFH policy is ableist). (Pandemic): Requiring a morning roll call meeting at 9:15. Scheduling multiple meetings throughout the week that never served much purpose except to have meetings. Requiring cameras to be on for all but one meeting, and even then it was “encouraged.” An increasing blur between the work/life balance, with little clarity as to what is expected. The WFH stipend was useful, but being told we might have to stay up all night to process data (didn’t end up happening but that seemed to be expectation) was ridiculous.
