Thank you for the comment.

"Personally I’m working for a large corporation and I don’t see a lot of double-talk or broken policies or broken promises."

That's good, but I know there are people at my company that would say the same thing. A lot of it depends on the individual's experience. Is it possible that you are getting good reviews or your manager likes you, while someone else is getting poor reviews based on a made up reason?

As for some personal examples, I have seen multiple company policies violated. I have also seen the company try to sell us an idea that's junk while telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The company says that an average rating should be based against defined standards and not be competitive. I know of departments that will require managers to 'pick' someone on their team for a below average rating if they picked someone for an above average rating to "balance it out". They will also fo point counting in some departments eventhough HR says they aren't allowed to (the rating process is secretive wo you'd have to throw a manager friend under the bus to prove anything). There are also some additional part-time roles (security champion) that are supposed to be evaluated as part of your core job responsibilities, yet most departments view them as extracurricular.

The company says the standard working hours are 7.5 hours per day unless the position specifically says otherwise. Now, I know that stuff like elevations, pre support, or critical deadlines can mean occasional extra hours - that's fine. I was told that all I needed to do to get to a senior level was stay until 5pm. Ok, so I work 8-4 and you want me to work 9-5? Nope, they want me to work 8.5 hours every day. So why should I take a rate cut for a position with more responsibilities? I work for a financial company that's always saying they want IT to have more financial acumen. Yet they can't explain to me why I should increase my working hours by about 13% for a 7% raise, meaning I will be paid less per hour. This is an even better deal for the company since a large expense for them are the benefits not related to pay, like health insurance.

They changed the promotion structure so there are more levels. They tried to sell this as a good thing. But to get to the same level of compensation, you require more promotions. The typical path was 3 10% promotions. Now it's 4 7% promotions to get similar base pay, but you would need a 5th promotion to reach a similar overall compensation due to the profit sharing structure. Now this might sound similar enough, but it doesnt account for time. That 5th promotion is pretty rare, and the 4th takes a long time to get to. The earlier you are saving money, the more it compounds. So when you hit each level under the old structure you could hit it at the same time as you could under the new structure but the raise is almost 50% higher. Now you also have to wait longer to hit the highest level, further delaying that "extra" income and it's compounding effect. The reason they made this change was because they were losing too many people to earlier retirements. Yet they sell this negative change as a positive.

The bug plug in the interview was that they don't outsource and they never layoff. They do both now. I lost my specialty to outsourcing.

I had a manger tell me he was going to give me the highest rating but I "slacked off" in the last month. I was on PTO for 2.5 weeks for my wedding and honeymoon and put in extra hours for the prior 2 weeks to get things done or turned over. So much for that policy that PTO won't be held against you...