Pros
Although benefits are not quite as generous as they once were, Merck's are still good overall: 401(k) match of 75 cents to the dollar up to 6% (vested immediately), low healthcare contributions with low co-pays, 13 company holidays (fixed + floating), graduated increases in personal vacation, the minimum of which is 3 weeks, and stock options (when you get them) that vest over 3 years. Educational assistance is stellar! Better than any other company I know of. Tuition is covered *100%* (given grade C or better) for full-time employees up to 9 courses per year with no yearly monetary cap. This covers tuition, registration, and laboratory fees. There is a PhD program, too, where you receive 75% of your salary (not sure about benefits) for 2 years while you complete your research/thesis (you can get another year off, but not with salary). You are obligated to "repay" the company with 2 years of service for the PhD program. There is the same repayment if you participate in an executive MBA program; otherwise there is no commitment for receiving educational assistance. BTW, if you work in the research labs, at least in the scientific area, don't expect to get approval for an MBA of any sort. In terms of non-tangible benefits, an openness to a flexible work schedule (arrival/departure times plus work-at-home) and having the possibility of a job-share (two people share one job and each work 3 days/week) separate Merck from other companies I have looked at. A lot of the flexibility is left to the discretion of individual management, but generally you'll find people open to ideas of how you can balance your life. You'll see "work-life balance" in various HR materials. What this means is that you can overwork yourself on YOUR OWN schedule. But hey, if it's going to happen, better it be on your schedule than on someone else's. Other benefits: The scientists here tend to be smart, and some are super smart. Most people I work with are above average, so it really makes the poor candidates stand out. One often wishes that someone would do something about the poor candidates. Merck tends not to skimp on equipment, technology, and infrastructure. IS does not lock our computers down (well, not much), so having a little freedom to customize and, yes, install a tiny app or two is one of those little things that really pleases me, at least. Quality (e.g. GMP Quality) is a really high priority. Yes, there were some serious issues in the varicella manufacturing area a few months ago, but we in Research really hold ourselves to high standards. It’s something that I’ve been proud to be part of. George Merck said “Medicine is for the patients, not for the profits.” Despite all the bad press about how we ruthlessly killed people with Vioxx, only interested in profit, until we were forced to pull it from the market, :-) I really believe that the majority of people in the company internalized George Merck’s words. I think we’ve slipped a little from that, but the company is a lot more ethical than people would think. We do a lot of charity work too, and unfortunately don’t publicize it. Speaking of charity, Merck provides a 100% match to one’s contributions to health and human services charitable organizations, up to $30,000 (I think) per organization per year. At West Point, there's a blood drive 5 times per year and they strive to collect 1000 pints (!!!) each drive. That’s a pretty tremendous goal if you know anything about blood drive productivity at corporate sites. Merck also pays nearly $30,000/year for incentive give-aways (for example, a stainless steel thermos or a beach blanket) to help motivate donors. That's a big commitment when there's rarely food at meetings due to cost-cutting measures.
Cons
I have only worked in the scientific area of Merck Research Labs (MRL), so my experiences cannot necessarily be extrapolated to marketing, manufacturing, human health, etc. Merck is recognized internally (though some will deny that) and externally as having a “pigeon-hole” mentality. (Recruiters will tell you that right off the bat.) This means several things. Jobs are highly specialized; no one wears many hats so you don’t get diversified experience. One tends to get locked into a “track”, and hiring managers are unlikely to welcome someone who doesn’t have direct experience. You’re not an engineer? Then we can’t use you in the fermentation or purification group, no matter how smart and accomplished and well-reputed a scientist you are. No sales experience? Forget moving into marketing. Degree-consciousness is pervasive. Non-PhDs are looked down upon in the scientific area. No matter how experienced, how qualified, how much you’ve proven yourself, you will not be given the same amount of responsibility as a PhD, even he or she is fresh from school. The regulatory department used to hire only MDs, and only recently began hiring PhDs. This is not the case at other companies where you’ll even find Regulatory VPs without doctoral degrees. At Merck it seems like you just can’t prove yourself enough. OTOH, you can earn yourself a PhD for free (if you do your research in 2 years, that is). See benefits above. You hear so much about career development, but no one is willing to give anyone a chance to expand beyond their own narrow little scope. There is often talk about intra-departmental rotations, and practically everyone has that on their Employee Development Plan (EDP), but you’re lucky if there are four opportunities a year, at least in my department of 200+. So much for the idea of cross-training. And as for the EDP, a lot of managers just give it lip service. As a result, you have people who are in the same job for 10, 15 years. Entry level is Grade 9, they make it to a Grade 7 in ~5 years, and then just stay there for the rest of their careers because Grade 6 nearly always requires a PhD. Especially now, when there has to be a “business need” for a promotion from 7 to 6. They’ve taken away all hope of advancement for the underlings, people are totally apathetic, and leaving is their only option of bettering their careers. And the message we’ve gotten from senior management is, in essence, “If you don’t like it, don’t bother complaining, just leave. Attrition isn’t a bad thing; it means we’ll need to fire fewer people in the end.” (IAccording to a co-worker, the concept of career development IS different in the Global Human Health division, though. There is support and emphasis on it, and people change jobs every ~2 years. If you aren’t looking for a new job after 2 years, they’re wondering what’s wrong with you. Kudos to Global Human Health!) In my department, apathy is pervasive in the world of the underlings. There has been so much change that it all washes over everyone and people say, “Just leave me along and let me do my job.” And the recent tag has been, “If I can figure out what it is after this last re-org.” Merck has a formal plan for employee recognition--awards of varying amounts, from $20 to thousands--but it’s up to managers to implement the awards. Some do it better than others, but a little recognition goes a long way, because there’s not much else to boost lagging morale. There has been a division of scientific leadership and management leadership. This has lead to some weird reporting relationships that are driven by org charts. It doesn’t always make sense. The idea is that scientists should focus on the science and managers should focus on the managing, or something like that. This change did improve the managing, because some scientists were terrible at it (or just didn’t really do it at all). But there really should be some flexibility in the system so that you can do what makes SENSE and not be forced into an artificial situation. On paper it flattens the management structure, but whether it does that in actuality and gives us “lean flexibility” is another matter. The most important thing is that the managers continue to get management training and proper feedback and do a good job of actually managing their people. This has not yet come to fruition despite several years of having this structure in place.