Pros: Connection events, good devs, and stacks.

Cons: No cons on this period of time.

Pros: The technical level of my colleagues was high. I learned a lot from the people I worked with, and they were the main reason to stay. The problems are genuinely hard and interesting. The business model and the industry impose real constraints around scale, data quality, and compliance, so the engineering work has substance. The benefits package is competitive on paper. The caveat is that several benefits vest with tenure, and with the current turnover in the office not everyone sticks around long enough to use them.

Cons: The problems in this office don't come from the team or the product. They come from local engineering leadership. Over the past period, the Santiago office lost several senior engineers and managers, mostly from terminations. Engineering leadership never explained those departures to the rest of the team, and never addressed what they mean for workload or technical continuity. The lack of transparency isn’t a one-off; it’s the pattern. Open Q&A forums exist, but local leadership uses them to manage frustration rather than answer it. Questions about termination criteria, technical direction, and priorities get generalities: no owner, no date, no follow-up. The same issues were raised for months without producing a single concrete action. The leadership style is top-down and built around one person's preferences, with very little tolerance for disagreement. In my experience, raising a technical or organizational objection directly was treated as an attitude problem rather than as useful information. Predictably, people stopped saying what they thought, which cost leadership the exact signal it needed. Technical and organizational blockers reported by the teams were neither resolved locally nor escalated upward. When leadership filters what goes up, the rest of the company never learns there's a problem. The result is persistently low morale and avoidable attrition. The talent and the interesting problems are there; what's missing is leadership capable of supporting them.

Pros: Still working on many interesting projects and especially helping people to get jobs in a fair way.

Cons: Culture is changing recently. I feel it started as a company that cared about its employees for real, but now it looks like they only care if you are good enough, not interested at all in creating a path to improve or what is causing any demotivation. In my case, I worked at Checkr for almost 5 years. My last manager and his boss (the VP) only pointed out a document with the new expectations of the company after a full context change to a completely new technology for me. Instead of helping me to find the best path to success, they humiliated me and pushed me to find that way on my own somehow.