TransUnion is changing for the better, but an old bureaucracy continues to stymie innovation
Pros
Let me start off by staying that I wake up everyday happy to come to work for TransUnion. I absolutely love my colleagues. They are smart, motivated to consistently perform at a high level, and demonstrate a continued resiliency when faced with the unnecessary complexity of our organization. People at all levels are accessible even for individual contributors at the analyst level. I've found few instances of grandstanding by members of senior leadership. The company pays well across the board, but the ratio of "compensation to actual work" is highest at the director level (above managers and below vice presidents). Managers put in a great deal of hours and VPs are the proving ground of the leadership ranks, so there is a great deal of output from these levels. You also cannot beat the work-life balance. Very few people here work crazy hours. The ones that do are typically managers.
Cons
Associates are frustrated with the lack of new-hire training. While your manager is supportive of your efforts, the environment at TransUnion will be difficult for anyone who hates ambiguity or requires formal on-the-job training. Our bureaucracy is a major pain point. We have roughly 3,500 employees globally and our annual revenues are $1.4B. I'm not in finance, but this seems inefficient. Yet, it seems to most associates that there is a major lack of human resources. How can this be? For starters, it's a reliance on mainframe, an extremely vertical organization, and a general lack of career paths for associates across the business. I should note that the lack of established career paths can be a major advantage for those willing to network and switch business units, but this is easier said than done.