CH2M Process Engineer Reviews

Cons

Uncertainty due to Jacobs acquisition and lack of projects

Cons

Absolutely no mid-level (5-12 years of experience anywhere. Company consists of junior folks, and senior folks. As such, the path for progression from junior to senior is not particularily laid out. Senior folks who, in part, are responsible for this career development, do not and cannot actively lay out a path. Engineers, in particular, who worked for the client for some number of years are valued much higher than employees who had not. I.e. someone with 10 years experience, 5 for CH2M and 5 for a client is paid 20% more than someone with 10 years experience working for CH2M HILL. The expensive person does not add more value, and in many cases could be argued to add less. As such, most junior people I know eventually quit to work for the client for 5-10 years, then come back. Overhead costs can be high and this limits company profit. You may have 98% billable time, yet see averages of "75%" amongst the company. Making you wonder where the overhead is, since you flat out don't see it (almost all employees you meet will be billable). Poor performers are often not dealt with expediently and linger in the system until such time that work gets low, then they may or may not be laid off first. However, if work is going strong for 4 years, you may have to deal with poorly performing coworkers for 4 years since even the poor performers make the company money. Differences in employee productivity can easily be 5:1 between the Jedis and the non Jedis. There is however, no difference in pay.

Cons

There is a high degree of tribal knowledge that is not documented or freely given. Often you are left on your own without any direction or the ability to discern avenues to complete tasks that are assigned.

Cons

I lost faith in upper management decisions towards the end of my time at this company. There was a big push to cutting costs and making money at the expense of employees. I watched the work environment degrade over the years to extremely toxic levels (when once it had been quite good). I certainly did not feel like hard work and loyalty were really valued or adequately rewarded. Favouritism was rampant in my particular office. Many mangers were able to get away with treating their employees like they were completely dispensable and you felt like they thought you were not worth investing into. As a result of recent lay-offs and a mass exodus of talent, we lost so many good people. It was a big loss because it was “the people” that really “made” this firm what it was once. There was a big "client focus" when I was there that completely ignores employees. The many lavish client events and all expenses paid golf tournaments are not extended to most employees who would usually end up with a CH2M HILL lapel pin or cheap ice scraper when we made it onto some magazine’s list once with an accompanying congratulatory email. Junior and intermediate staff rarely got noticed or perks of any kind and are taken advantage of and discarded when no longer needed. Mentoring happens for a very lucky few - and was for the most part was rare and sporadic at best. Most of my managers were too busy and overworked. Many focus on their own personal growth and priorities – and it was very easy to be ignored and feel completely invisible. There are also some massive egos at this firm - more interested in maintaining the status quo than developing the next generation of engineers. There was an exclusive old boys club and it’s quite difficult to break into if you do not fit into that demographic. This company is VERY stingy with its raises, training opportunities and promotions. It seems to prefer to hire talent than to develop it in-house (so it sometimes felt like a revolving door in there). On more than one occasion I had to take personal time/vacation or have to pay-out of pocket to attend conferences and other work related activities (to keep OH costs down). I had very few training opportunities (averaged to about a very grudgingly granted 1 course every 2-3 years - and that was mainly because I was persistant) and towards then end they just simply stopped responding to training requests all together. Even training on its own much touted in house design software wasn’t consistent across the company and it was probably several years before I was ever trained on it – and even that wasn’t done properly - despite the fact that I was doing design work. My performance reviews rarely seemed to reflect reality. Basically, the only time I would see my managers was when things went wrong - they didn't speak to you if things were good/great. Company meetings and town hall presentations are almost always scheduled over the lunch hour to keep in house costs down and they do not need to provided an overhead number for you time (there was always a sandwich or a slice of pizza for those who attend). Client ratio expectations were extremely high (90%+ in my case). I did not feel like there was anybody really willing to listen if I had something to say so I kept my ideas to myself (I think that is what they prefered). In the end, it became clear to me that in order to get ahead, you had to leave the company. It was sad to watch the downward spiral of recent years – I held out for as long as I could hoping that things would improve – but there was no sign that they would – and so eventually, I left for the sake of my career and my sanity.

Cons

- Benefits were relatively poor for the city location - Too focused on making everyone a PM - Many junior staff performing more senior roles

Cons

Company overlooks its most important asset - its talent.

Cons

Limited experience with large projects, change management limited to non-existent.

Cons

It is a consulting company. Each hour needs to be accounted for. Overhead billing is not acceptable

Cons

Can sometimes be repetitive work. Log jam into upper management. Cyclical business