ISS SUISSE SA

I worked for this company for over 10 years, as a subcontractor for a multinational. Despite my seniority and commitment, the annual appraisals were biased: the manager took the liberty of judging the quality of my work without ever consulting the opinion of the end customer, who was directly concerned. This customer, fully satisfied with my services, was regularly surprised that he was never asked for feedback. This lack of communication and transparency in the evaluation process is not only regrettable, but also undermines recognition of the work actually done in the field.

It would be advisable to review the quality of the management of certain managers, in particular by encouraging them to adopt a more objective management style, attentive to customer and employee feedback.

The only functional aspect of my experience with ISS Facility Services was the initial involvement of the end customer, who fulfilled his legal obligations in terms of safety and basic training. Collaboration between colleagues in the field, although hampered by a flagrant lack of organization, was based on solidarity between technicians facing the same obstacles. The contractual framework was clearly defined from the outset, even if its execution was another story altogether.

In my opinion, the organization at ISS Facility Services is structurally flawed. I was hired on an open-ended contract, at the end of the process via an employment agency, as part of a supposed job creation. In reality, it was simply a question of absorbing a major maintenance backlog - accumulated over more than a year - on a site with stringent regulatory requirements. Despite what was at stake, I was confronted with a total lack of follow-up, equipment, procedures and, above all, technical skills at management level. The management of technical staff is approached as if it were a standard logistics sector, without taking into account the specific constraints of the business: certifications, quality processes, risk management, legal responsibilities, etc. In three months, I received neither the promised in-house training nor the appropriate work equipment. Schedules were revised in real time, sometimes from morning to afternoon, with no clear information. The workload was concealed under a layer of opaque and changing communication. I witnessed a massive turnover of staff, including managers, which says a lot about internal stability. The customer, while still polite, is clearly struggling in the face of this chronic disorganization. The end of my trial period was announced six days before its end, after everything had been carefully calculated to avoid any additional burden on the company (overtime, vacations, etc.).