Pay is way below average and not consistent. LL has been known in the industry to be "cheap" with their scientists in particular, but it has only gotten worse since being bought buy a larger "cheap" European company. Standard raises are 2-3% per year, and don't seem to matter how well you do (unless that extra 0.25% they give for an above average performance means a lot to you).
There has been a fever-pitch increase in the emphasis on throughput and automation, which is probably how they think they can justify lower pay since there are only a couple groups that do any real science any more. However, in groups where there are still a lot of complicated and semi-novel projects going on, scientists are treated and paid the same as those who do routine work, or less depending on when they were hired, etc. This is just not acceptable and not how it is done in other companies. Executive management likes to talk about how they are attracting and keeping the best scientists, but it is just not true. Any scientist with a mote of ambition and aptitude will quickly realize that their hard work and knowledge are not well rewarded. Many talented scientists who have worked here less than 10 years have moved on and taken their talent where it is more valued.
Computer, network, and LIMS systems are in embarrassingly poor shape, and about a decade behind what would be considered acceptable in 2013. The job can be difficult enough with the "do more with less" philosophy that is the way of things now, but is even rougher when there are so many problems in the IT areas that executive management isn't willing to spend money on to fix. Generally, the IT people aren't knowledgeable nor paid enough to really care either. Frustrations like these are easily avoided!
