Innodata reviews

Extreme micromanagement and strict time tracking. Pay is extremely low relative to qualifications required; master’s degrees are expected but employees are given low-value annotation work instead of leveraging their actual expertise. Not allowed to work before 8am or after 6pm in your timezone, forcing you to use time off for any daytime appointments rather than simply adjusting hours. Time off requires two weeks notice minimum, making the benefit practically useless for anything unplanned. A single sick day is sometimes the only option for last-minute needs. Remote work policy is extremely restrictive. You can only work from your registered home address; not a library, coffee shop, train, or even a family member’s home, even if you’re their caretaker. IT support is poor. Laptops are old with persistent issues; drifting clocks, update problems; and IT often directs employees to contact manufacturers directly rather than resolving issues themselves. Daily shadow sessions are conducted and recorded to verify you are working, creating a surveillance-heavy environment that feels demoralising and disproportionate. No real breaks provided. Performative well-being sessions are offered but employees are expected to keep their tracker active. A 30-minute lunch means 30 minutes of overtime. Constant layoffs with no performance basis. Entire teams including long-tenured senior managers were laid off due to a client’s sudden indefinite project pause. The company does not insulate employees from client whims or negotiate better working conditions. The timing of recent layoffs raised questions; simultaneous mass hiring was occurring in other countries at significantly lower wages while Canadian employees were being let go. Canadians on Ontario contracts did have stronger legal protections during layoffs, which was a notable difference compared to other workers. Work changes constantly with new assessments required daily, no transparent performance metrics, and unreliable billable hours tracking; it is not uncommon to work 8+ hours and have the system record significantly fewer. Excessive administrative overhead; there are separate forms for bug reports, task logging, QA feedback, and leave requests including sick leave. Work consists primarily of repetitive AI annotation tasks that become demoralising quickly, particularly for employees who joined with advanced degrees expecting meaningful work.

The work environment was often chaotic and extremely high-pressure. KPIs were unrealistic, and employees were expected to meet demanding performance standards with minimal training, even after being shifted to completely different projects. Raising concerns about tools or workflows was routinely dismissed or blamed on the employee. There was little consistency across teams, and the appeals process for quality reviews rarely worked in time to make a difference. In some cases, employees were told their roles were being elevated, but salaries remained the same despite the added workload. Many ended up working 10–12 hour days for the same entry-level pay. Leaves were very difficult to get approved, even for health-related reasons. Instead of allowing time off, the company often asked employees to simply “work less” that day but still meet targets. If there were any technical issues, even completely out of your control, you were still expected to make up the hours later in the week. Overtime was paid, but people were sometimes guilt-tripped into agreeing to it. Firings happened without warning or proper process. Overall, there was no transparency, consistency, and basic support systems needed for long-term growth or stability.