CSC Employee Reviews about "work life balance"

Pros

Remote Work, Work Life Balance

Cons

Company did not reinvest in software, allowed it to become obsolete.

Pros

Challenging subject matter, ambitious workforce

Cons

Low pay, no work-life balance at times.

Pros

The company has great work-life balance and extraordinary opportunities for a driven individual to ascend rapidly. It has the stability of a $14 billion revenue stream, the travel and diversity that come with being a global corporation. Most of all for an engineer it offers a much larger diversity of subjects to work on than you'll find at most other companies. You can gain experience in Big Data, security, cloud, you name it. While I'm not in their number, my friends tell me it's a particularly fair and attractive place for femaile engineers to work -- none of the jock culture that you find at startups and bay-area tech companies

Cons

Any company this size has bureaucratic hassles that are unavoidable. Unfortunately for us, the HR dept is probably the most antediluvian -- I caution most job applicants that the frankly painful hiring process represents by far the worst of what they'll encounter. The company is going through a five-year improvement process from the catastrophic prior administration, and there are remnants of that nadir. However, the trajectory of improvement is markedly positive, and the new senior management is exceptional. This is what leads to the extraordinary opportunities for growth I mentioned -- as a company in flux, management is particularly aggressive in finding, recognizing and promoting top talent.

Pros

Lots of good reasons. Work life balance is really big at this company, and they are extremely flexible in terms of work hours, working from home, etc. In fact, it would probably not be a problem at all to work exclusivley from home, though I don't personally like doing that since I'm close to work anyways. The company seems to provide a lot of opportunities for advancement if you work hard, and make sure you get noticied. They seem to have a lot of respect for their high-performing individuals, and they do provide the opportunity to grow if you look for it.

Cons

There is virtualy no company pride or moral. The firm seems to have almost no identify at all, and it shows in the employees. We sell the quality of ourselves and our work, and not the identity of CSC, which I think is a real problem for the company. Additionally, the opportunities to define your own career path seem pretty contingent on what sort of projects you are on. Great for technical people, but not great for those interested in management consulting (unless you have prior experience). Essentially, associates get stuck doing testing and other menial tasks for about a year. Additionally, this is not a young company by any means.

Pros

Interaction with the client (rare, but possible).

Cons

Marlton is a nightmare. 65 hrs a wk, Do not allow employees to fly home on the weekend because behind deadlines. You either like it or you are gone.. The work-life balance is a joke. No raises. Being told " you better get your head down and continue to test....". Hanging on as long as they pay my salary. All the C3 website stuff is a joke. For example, I am sure glad such and such untouchable millionaire is smiling, while the rest of us are humping 65 hrs plus a wk to pay for him. Just saw my friend "roll off" EG fired who is a full time employee while sub contractors were kept on n his position. One final statement. Paid training is non-existent. And in the scant chance you are lucky enough to acquire it, you will fall behind the unrealistic 90% utilization rate to even meet expectations on your annual review. That being said, with paid holidays and forced vacation, if you get sick for more than a couple days a yr, you will be in the partially meets expectation rating (no raise, remedial work on top of 65 hrs per wk), while the CEO enjoys 22 million a yr. PS. read up on their "CLEAR values nonsense". Had I said enough?

Pros

Stable contracts and opportunities to try new things. Managers were always open to employees shifting contracts within the company to build skills and experiance. Formal training was harder to get. Pay is good for early/mid career but is not competitive for higher level skillsets. PMs were (generally) trained and supported to manage relationships with customers very proffesionally. This protects technical employees from most of the craziness that can happen on a bad contract. Most managers were very supportive of work/life balance issues.

Cons

HR is almost useless for EEO issues. Their only purpose is to provide plausible deniability. They are not interested in dialog to straighten out problems and educate the offender. They will simply move the complainer to other work and let the offender continue unabated.