Disney

Excellent QA tester colleagues to work with.

The majority of the project leads are also excellent.

Except for the "yes person" colleague type. Certain people with authority pretend to be your friend so you get work done.

If they don't have any work for you, they completely ignore you.

The only way to get ahead is by hanging on to certain people with authority's side all the time, including following them wherever they go, even if you don't have access to enter that specific area.

That's the toxic work environment, favoritism relationship which has perks because they get covered when they miss an important blocker issue (purposely) on a Release Candidate BUILD.

Ironically, they even criticize that person with authority on Slack direct messages (I have screen caps). They say, "I'm doing their work all the time. They don't know what they're doing."

Well, of course, you will do all their work if you always say yes to them.

That's why the IAP crash for iOS was never written. They even showed the crash to me but said they were too busy doing the lead's work to write it. Obviously, it was cross-verified after I wrote it because they showed it to me.

That's typically the toxic behind-the-scenes work environment.

You also get cheated out of your weekend overtime hours because the "close buddies" don't want you there on the weekend.

Coincidentally, there was overtime because the tester never wrote the crash, and they came up on some extra money since that tester purposely neglected to enter the issue into the database.

Yet I wrote the issue for Google and lost money. How ironic.

Use common sense and realize when the lead covers for their favorite. If an IAP crash issue is written for Google, obviously it's important to check on iOS. Especially Release Candidate builds.

There is no way a progression can be completed unless IAPs are used. Why do you think that progression was done on the Stage build? Because the Prod build had the IAP crash and it was impossible to complete a progression.

Then the higher-ups' excuse for their yes-person is he didn't have time to check IAP. He was doing a progression. Common sense. IAPs are needed to complete progressions. That's why they used the Stage build for the Release Candidate progression. They didn't want to write the issue up, and the higher-up came up with a lame excuse which management believed. Favoritism. Use your heads.

I suggest to management they buy the testers hazmat suits. It's a very toxic work environment. It's especially toxic when the guy who finds the blocker issue doesn't make extra money, yet the person who neglected the issue and the higher-up that covered for them did make extra money. Morale drops, and things happen due to poor management.