CGI is doing everything for the clients but not much for the employees - Technical Support Agent CGI Employee Review

2.0
Aug 18, 2008
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

They always need someone to fill a position, the salary for a technical agent is not the best but at the market average. It's in the center of montreal accessible by subway and bus easily. You can always move from a team to another as long as your team doesn't need you because of their SLA's which is the term used to define the % of statisfaction or the job done in a certain amount of time determined by the contract with the client. The employees are young you have 1 huge Christmas party each year which is free if you are part of the Social club.

Cons

They always need someone to fill a position since everyone is leaving after less than a year for a better salary and position. Don't expect any part of the share system if you are in the SI-TI which is all the groups for the customer support this sector is not making enough money to give a share. The employees move fast to meet their needs so you don't often have the chance to know them. Most of the applications used in-house are from the customer and are not eveolving which makes the job somewhat harder and stressful. CGI is not the best employer but is a good start for a student.

Explore other reviews about CGI

5.0
May 20, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

A great environment of people

Cons

No major cons while employed

1.0
Jun 16, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

no specific positives to highlight from my perspective

Cons

I worked at CGI in both India and the USA and observed similar workplace culture concerns across both locations. The only real difference was HR—India HR felt more supportive, while my experience with USA HR was disappointing. My employment ended shortly after maternity leave due to an alleged “lack of projects,” which I experienced as a layoff. I also observed what appeared to be misuse of position by some leaders, including blurred professional boundaries, preferential treatment, and expectations that went beyond normal workplace roles—at times resembling personal-assistant-style demands rather than professional conduct. Surprisingly, I also noticed inconsistent “policies” applied differently to different individuals. In some cases, it felt like the rules changed depending on who you were. When leadership became aware that someone was related to another employee in the organization, it sometimes felt like that person was singled out or targeted rather than treated objectively. Overall, these practices—whether through inconsistent treatment, perceived power misuse, or favoritism—undermine trust, damage workplace culture, and raise serious concerns about fairness and professionalism.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All