Pros
*Large, recognizable company
*Exposure to a high-volume production environment
Cons
This is an operations-first culture — even within maintenance. Maintenance leadership largely delegates and does little hands-on leadership or strategic direction. Responsibility is pushed downward without the authority, training, or structural support to execute effectively.
There is no real training structure. The expectation is to “learn on the fly,” regardless of complexity. As equipment evolves and systems become more technical, there is no meaningful ongoing training to keep planners or technicians aligned with innovation. You are expected to figure it out.
Turnover is extremely high among hourly employees and mid-level staff. The environment feels unstable, yet leadership appears content to watch the cycle repeat rather than address root causes.
The Maintenance Planner role is stretched well beyond planning. Planners are routinely expected to:
*Perform engineering-level technical support
*Provide detailed technical data to operations
*Manage and correct master data inputs
*Update and rebuild BOM structures
*Conduct breakdown analysis and root cause investigations that should be owned or supported by leadership
On top of that, planners are pulled into constant meetings — many of which add little to no value. This excessive meeting culture directly interferes with core planning priorities: ordering parts, scheduling preventive maintenance (AM/PM), and maintaining accurate BOMs.
The result is a reactive, meeting-heavy environment where true planning becomes secondary. Instead of preventing failures, the system continually reacts to them.