AARP Reviews

Cons

- Not for people who want to slack off
- Heavy work load
- Fast paced environment (a pro and a con)

Cons

It’s very difficult to implement change, almost 75% of hires are from the outside, and the brightest bulbs are often covered by duller lights. Hard work isn’t rewarded. They will suck you dry if you let them.

Cons

This is a very top-heavy organization and at every turn you'll have to deal with redundant managers to get anything done. The association doesn't seem to have a clear idea of its priorities and every few months it will roll out a new campaign or long-term project that may or may not be abandoned in a matter of months. If you like having meetings with as much people as possible, this is your place. What I describe is extensive to most of the association. I worked on the editorial side of things and it certainly applied there, along with the fact that AARP relies heavily on contractors to do a lot of the work. These are people who are often paid no benefits or benefits that are substantially inferior to the ones that staff gets, and little or no paid vacation time, even though the place wouldn't function without them. As it is, it's pretty hypocritical that an organization that is supposed to fight for retirement security would hire so many people who don't have a 401(k) and can't even count on decent benefits.

Cons

managers do nothing to lift the spirits of employees. lots of dysfunction. i've never witness such low morale.

Cons

Very strict, no phone on workplace. Employee s drop like flies

Cons

Slow to make decisions; employees sometimes caught in turf wars among managers; association is becoming more bottom-line focused

Cons

1. Editorial leadership is nasty, out-of-touch and not forthcoming.
2. Content providers and lower-rung editors constantly ridiculed and abused by upper management.
3. Ideas must conform to assorted agendas.
4. Content producers are not valued.
 5. Managers have no idea how to motivate or reward staff.
6. There's a Devil Wore Prada mentality among key senior editors.
7. Too many meetings, which seem to serve the purpose of justifying many underwhelming jobs.

Cons

Worked for many years in various roles, and can say hands down that the organization has grown increasingly dysfunctional with current management (in my department) displaying blatant acts of moral corruption - milking benefits with excessive travel and expensing while simultaneously exercising favoritism and suppressing creativity and upward mobility. Overall, most people working in the media department are miserable and too scared to say anything about it because they know they will be let go, or punished in some legitimatized way.

Cons

Workload issues are not being adequately addressed. Increasing expectations of staff, spread very thin.

Cons

Tiny desks and work spaces if you're not management. Literally can't get your legs under your desk if you're taller than 6'0", and there's no room to store your stuff. Also, there's no cubicles, just open space -- so if you're disabled (like me) it's very uncomfortable, and very noisy, and very distracting.

Perks like coffee, forks, knives, etc -- nonexistant. There is a constant sense that they will nickle and dime everything so as to save a buck. I have never worked somewhere that values their employees (especially their contractors) worse than they do here.

They tend to hire most people as contractors in an attempt at getting around benefits. Don't fall for this. You get a tiny desk space, none of the benefits. For instance, training on using meeting spaces is only available to employees. If you want to use the gym, you have to be an employee. If you want to take a yoga class -- that will cost you far more than any local class in the area. It's pretty bad, and there are hundreds of more examples.