Pros
-If you look at CC2 as a springboard to other ventures, then this is a decent starting point. This unique position further complements that by allowing translators access to nearly all sections of development across all active projects. My advice would be to get in, get as much know-how as you can about the industry, then move on. - Getting in is easy, because they do not employ translation/interpretation tests. All it takes is your resume (they don't do background checks) and how well you carry yourself at the interview. ※This is more of a con than a pro. See below for more. -Fukuoka is nice (has nothing to do with the company).
Cons
-The interview process is the first red flag you'll see. Despite both translation and interpretation being acquired skills, there is no test to determine skill levels at the time of your application. -Upward mobility is not based on merits, skills, or achievements, but on how much you've managed to brown nose management. -Management will often yank staff off projects and put them in positions that they either are not ready for and/or not trained for, usually without prior consultation, this plus the points above result in underperforming staff hoarding positions that they are not qualified for, skill wise. -Turnover rate for staff is incredibly high. The position openings are there not because they are newly added positions; They are there because someone in said position left. -Raises do not exist at this company. Salary reviews happen once per year, in which they evaluate you based on a point system. However, even if your evaluations are good, instead of upping your salary, they promise you more money for your salary--a payment structure that they themselves aren't even obligated to fulfill. The end result of this is that hard work and dedication amount to very little, which demoralizes staff. -Treatment of staff is not equal. This can be seen best in how they manage the response to COVID-19 and working remotely. Instead of creating a system where all can enter remote, they left it up to individual staff to decide. If it was just this, then it wouldn't be an issue, but they end up punishing staff that enter remote by lowering their scores for their salary reviews and/or foregoing promotions for those staff members. Every other developer that I have spoken with has adopted either a full-remote or remote-hybrid system for ALL staff, which completely avoids "choose at your own risk" mentality. -Management prides itself on staff "telling them when they think something needs improvement," but they don't actually care. This was made apparent with how they handled a problematic staff member on my team. This person was constantly butting heads with other team members, myself included, and was essentially a bully to one particular team member: our lead. That person became so stressed that they had to undergo abdominal surgery, and even lost their position. They and the rest of our team pleaded to management about this bullying and treatment towards the rest of the team, and instead of heeding us and dealing with the problem, they promoted the bully to their victim's position! (I’ll note that said person is the only Japanese staff on the team, any assumptions beyond that fact are simply that)