Merck KGaA Reviews

4.0

80% would recommend to a friend

(2,090 total reviews)
avatar

Kai Beckmann

57% approve of CEO

61% positive business outlook

Merck KGaA has an employee rating of 4.0 out of 5 stars, based on 2,090 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Merck KGaA employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry (3.5 stars).

Reviews by job title

2K reviews
1.0
25 Jul 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

BioReliance are very useful for gaining GMP experience. Their systems are woefully outdated but it's still something worth having on your CV. Secondly, they have been acquired by Merck. So things have the potential to improve, but unless you here from other reviewers (after June 2017) that there has been an overhaul of middle managers, don't get your hopes up.

Cons

I worked for BioReliance for approx. 2.5 years, I started my career as an Associate Scientist and left the company as an Associate Scientist II. Over the 2.5 year span I participated in several of cross-functional teams in all three sites of BioReliance, this gave me the opportunity to work closely with many of the Operations directors, managers and team members, so before I delve into the problems at BioReliance, I’d like to clarify that this review refers ONLY to the Glasgow site. From my experience, the Pentlands and Stirling sites were well managed and appeared much more positive than the Glasgow site. I’ve broken the issues down to several areas which I believe need addressed at BioReliance Glasgow. SALARY – Simply put the salaries at BioReliance are not competitive and the increases are not good. I left the company for a similar role in another company for a 45% salary increase. CULTURE – BioReliance Glasgow operates with a blame culture, as with any company (particularly one with such a high turnover), mistakes happen. However, at BioReliance the first priority is to blame the most junior member of staff and often to publicly shame this person. HOLIDAYS – The situation surrounding holidays for lab staff in BioReliance is absurd. I have had holiday requests declined months in advance because “we might be busy”. Several of my colleagues were declined holidays because team members in completely different functional groups also had a holiday booked that day. Supervisors and management take holidays at any given time, but lab staff are expected to work overtime and have their own holidays dictated by the convenience of the company. TRAINING – There are no training plans at BioReliance. You are trained very quickly in one assay (because the previous person has left) and you are expected to perform that assay every day for years. Until, that is, you threaten to leave. At which point they will train you in a second assay…this pattern continues. You are not trained for your personal development, you are not trained due to interest. PROGRESSION – The issue with the progression at BioReliance is not that is does not exist, but the extreme lengths needed to gain promotion. Managers continually impress that you are “close to promotion” or “being considered” but this is not the case. After 18 months at the company I had worked to ensure that I ‘ticked off’ every aspect of the senior associate scientist job description. Despite this, I was not given the promotion and tld I “just missed”, I was encouraged to work harder. After 2 years at the company I was the most highly qualified, most accomplished and most trained member of lab staff within my team. I was declined the promotion a final time, given the reason that I was not emotionally mature enough. My experience is not uncommon, many of my ex-colleagues have left for the same reason. Lab staff are pitted against each other to compete for promotions which do not exist, it creates an incredibly negative environment and drives a wedge of hostility among teams. WORKLOAD – Workload is poorly managed, with some members of staff doing 4 times the work of others. Skipping lunch and working late is commonplace. Stress related absence is rife throughout the lower tiers of staff. SUPERVISORS – Put simply (most) supervisors are unsuited for their positions. In some cases supervisors are less qualified or accomplished that the scientists they supervise, but have progressed to that position through years spent at the company (which includes years spent on maternity leave). In my experience, supervisors were indecisive, undiplomatic and lazy. During my time at BioReliance I worked alongside one very good supervisor, but he has since left the company. MANAGEMENT – There is huge variety within the management at BioReliance. The UK site head (at the time I left) was very capable, with very good aims for the company. However, all attempts to change from this negative spiral in the Glasgow site die at the middle management level. Initiatives are in place. Huge amounts of resource are invested into improving things, but these are all blocked at the middle management level, particularly in the Molecular Biology, Virology and Microbiology departments.

1.0
23 Sept 2020
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Stable company, on time pay

Cons

SBS, Shared business services is awful place, no Over time pay but you have to work, you have to work on weekends without any pay, food is pathetic as local managment takes their cut from vendor so the vendor gives bad food. Insane favourtism and regionalism, no growth if you speak up about what's happening wrong and how local team makes big loses for the company. Other divisons are awesome to work but bangalore is like a call center. All managers hired also from call centers so they make an excellent company into BPO

1.0
10 Feb 2020
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

I kindly advise each person to "NOT" only look at general company comments but look at the site reviews. My job was based in Arklow, previous Sigma Aldrich site. The reality is that Merck, acted without integrity in the matter of my employment, in stark contrast to the glowing brochures extolling the excellent culture of the Company. I have no doubt that Merck as an International Company, was genuine in our negotiations with regard to my remuneration, benefits package and relocation expenses which resulted in my decision of acceptance, turning down an equivalent offer from another global company with an excellent reputation. The Benefits package was that enjoyed by Merck employees, therefore including Health Insurance and Bonus etc. The relocation arrangements included adequate transport for myself and my goods and temporary accommodation for a month, up to a figure confirmed by phone and by email. I was very pleased to have accepted employment with Merck at this point and happy to start incurring hotel and other expenses, trusting the agreed reimbursement arrangements would be honoured. Having embarked on my career with Merck with optimism and trust, things started to go wrong almost immediately on taking up my employment at the allocated site. DESPITE INCURRING HOTEL AND OTHER EXPENSES, PART OF THE AGREEMENT ON WHICH I HAD BASED MY DECISION TO CHOOSE EMPLOYMENT WITH MERCK WAS WITHDRAWN. From the answers received, the only conclusion I can reach is that whilst my initial employment by Merck International was clearly entered into on the basis of enthusiasm and mutual trust, this was not the position adopted by management and HR who clearly had no desire to make my position tenable. My initial impressions of the potential for a mutually beneficial career with Merck, given its reputation and published culture, have been dashed by the breach of trust and contractual obligations and failure to resolve the ensuing issues, including my justifiable responses. It also came to my attention that employees at the site are in a long term dispute with regard to the non-adoption of the Merck Terms and Conditions of Employment locally and feel sure that this is the cause of my problems, arriving as the only employee with these Merck benefits. I can understand the dilemma this created and this was instrumental in my offer to put the issue aside and “get on with the job”. However, the failure to recognize my mistreatment led to my immediate resignation as I will not tolerate being treated unfairly at any cost and level.

Cons

Very bad non-positive workplace, site employees have very low morale “will such the life out of you”. From day 1 everyone asked me why I choose to work in the Arklow site, everyone encouraged me to cut my losses as there is no career progression, employees are treated unfairly and not respected. I am an ambitious person, I quickly realized that I would be stuck in an un-progressive job as career development is non-existent, unless you are lucky enough to move to other global sites.

Viewing 1 - 3 of 2,090 Reviews

Glassdoor has 3,901 Merck KGaA reviews submitted anonymously by Merck KGaA employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Merck KGaA is right for you.