Facility & Company Information > Company Information
DeNuke
Frankie Love:
--- Quote ---These people are some of the most incompetent folks out there. Get everything they tell you in writing. Bonuses and mobilization expenses not paid as promised, problems with pay accuracy and timing, and outright lies characterize their business dealings with employees. Resumes are fluffed before being presented to clients. A substantial portion of their contractors have recent criminal histories or substance abuse problems... If you want to be grouped in with "the bottom of the barrel," go work for this company.
--- End quote ---
Ouch! Isn't the internet great? Send a slam and run and hide. Sounds like this guy has issues. I work with and have met a number of DeNuke people here at Argonne. No problems with any of them.
tolstoy:
Interesting how these reputations are made.
I've worked with quite a few companies over the years and am very happy with Denuke. Upon my acceptance at the site Denuke sent me an agreement package and they have so far lived up to any promise they made. There have been a couple of questions come up that has taken the office a while to figure out but with a little patience everything has worked out. I've found both the local and main office to be very responsive and nice to work with. The techs here are the same you will meet anywhere - some are better than others, most complain about everything, but everyone gets the work done and stays pretty friendly.
Rennhack:
--- Quote from: QualityControl on Dec 14, 2010, 10:16 ---These people are some of the most incompetent folks out there. Get everything they tell you in writing. Bonuses and mobilization expenses not paid as promised, problems with pay accuracy and timing, and outright lies characterize their business dealings with employees. Resumes are fluffed before being presented to clients. A substantial portion of their contractors have recent criminal histories or substance abuse problems... If you want to be grouped in with "the bottom of the barrel," go work for this company.
--- End quote ---
I see from your post history (there isn't one), and from the fact that you signed your name (oh, you didn't?), that you are a source I should take very seriously.
I've never worked for DeNuke, but I have worked with DeNuke many times. I have never had any troubles with any of their employees, or the owners/managers. Additionally, I've never had any trouble receiving payment from them for the job postings.
I just reread the 65 posts on this thread, and the other 64 posts dating back to 2005 when they came on the scene have all been positive. And 67% of the voters in the poll give them an average, or superior grade (More superior ~40%). They also rank 16 out of 64 in the overall listing of favorite companies. Not too bad for a young company.
QualityControl:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but do you really think your words are accurate?
HydroDave63:
Sounds like another one of those "seagull" posters....find a nice quiet thread, squawk loudly while shaking the tail and dropping a huge sticky load of guano, and then fly off....
Rennhack:
I just got a PM from our buddy Quality Control:
--- Quote from: QualityControl on Dec 14, 2010, 04:32 ---sir,
I tried to reply to your response to my post about DeNuke, but evidently my privileges to respond have been revoked. I thought the company forum was the place to post about unsatisfactory company performance. While I admit that I only became a member to post, I do frequent your site as I am in the business. The experiences I described are true, based on my first hand knowledge. While I omitted details to avoid a defamatory situation, I did not generalize either. I mentioned that a "substantial portion" of DeNuke employees had issues - again, first hand knowledge, and the information about how they do business with their clients is first hand knowledge as well. The post is one opinion, just as valid as any of the others. It seems that you have unfairly censored me, and it also seems that you and the majority of those who immediately posted in response have a vested interest and their opinions reflect that. I've spoken to many techs, at Hanford and at Argonne, who feel otherwise, as I do. Word on the street - You want the bottom of the barrel, call DeNuke.
Have a good day sir.
--- End quote ---
Your privileges have not been altered. You have not been censored.
Clicking on the quote, or reply buttons should work for you, just as it does for any user that is LOGGED IN.
It pisses me off SO MUSH when people cry that they have been censored. Was your post deleted? NO. And your privileges have not been altered in any way. Perhaps you are not capable of logging in before you click on quote, or reply. No wonder they let you go.
Let me get this straight, the OTHER 64 of us are wrong, and have a “Vested interest”, because we have had a positive interaction with the company for over five years? How long have you evaluated them? Five weeks? Five months?
You are allowed to say anything you want. I can’t and won’t protect you from being sued for libelous or slanderous words. But you are totally free to do so. Just don’t get your panties in a wad if we don’t agree with you. And don’t you EVER claim that I am censoring you. It just shows your poor character to come on a forum and anonymously defame a company. Then to make false accusations against me? Wow. That adds a ton of credibility to your previous statement.
My name is Michael Rennhack, and if I had a problem with a company, and wanted the world to know it, I’d use my name.
I’m sure you have these types of experiences with every company you deal with, they are always out to get you, huh? Surely it couldn’t be you.
Before you told lies about me, I was willing to entertain your comments as valid, even though they were different than my experiences. But now that you are telling lies about me too, I have no respect for you at all. I didn’t even smite you earlier, because I respect people that have differing opinions. I surely will smite you now, as I have no respect for liars.
You claim its firsthand knowledge that a “substantial portion” of their employees had problems. They probably have a thousand employees, how many do you know? And it’s only “First hand” if it’s YOU. Are you a substantial portion of their employees? If others are telling you, then it’s second knowledge. And if they tell you that they have herd others say it, its third hand at best.
You claim its firsthand knowledge about how they do business with their clients. Unless YOU are a client, it’s not FIRST HAND. Guess what? I AM a client. They do business with ME. I DO know FIRST HAND.
How about you say: “I heard from a guy that heard from a guy.”, because that sounds more accurate.
(You think I should have counted to ten before I posted this?)
You want to know my hot button? Tell me you are being censored.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version