Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 337 posts

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#201

Post by quietbritishjim »

treis wrote: post #144
tinalumfoil wrote: post #96

If Apple considers level 1 and 5 to both be associates and doesn’t share more than that that’s… fine? WaPo says this can be a 6 figure difference in compensation but frankly why should a future employer get to know how much I make? Maybe I’m a level 3 but deserved to be a level 4. Maybe I’m a level 5 but actually a level 2 that’s just really good at office politics. If I want my employer to know what number Apple ass…

Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. I can see it being problematic when applying to Government or enterprise roles. They will do their due diligence and might rescind an offer if they find a discrepancy.

> Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying.

But that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha". That's not lying! That's just not telling. And it's no reason for a future company to be suspicious.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#202

Post by rowanajmarshall »

bradly wrote: post #181
rowanajmarshall wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if someone wants to verify your role (which sounds reasonable), contacts Apple and they say you were an associate while you said you were a senior, that's gonna cause problems. And apparently is.

Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company?

> Why do they need to verify my role?

Because people lie, constantly. And while most of time they they might not be, it happens often enough that companies pay people to background check applicants. It's not good, but it's seemingly necessary, or at least desired.

> Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company?

Dunno, but a hiring manager for a tech firm probably knows better than me or you. Either way, obfuscating your previous role isn't a good thing.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#203

Post by granzymes »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #96

If Apple considers level 1 and 5 to both be associates and doesn’t share more than that that’s… fine? WaPo says this can be a 6 figure difference in compensation but frankly why should a future employer get to know how much I make? Maybe I’m a level 3 but deserved to be a level 4. Maybe I’m a level 5 but actually a level 2 that’s just really good at office politics. If I want my employer to know what number Apple ass…

Associate is just another word for employee. I don’t see why Apple should be contributing data to these shady databases of prior salaries and levels.

If a new employer wants to know my level at a previous employer, I’ll tell them. If they want proof then 1) that’s pretty weird but 2) they can give my manager a call.

But if I don’t tell them my level, then I don’t want anyone else to tell them either.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#204

Post by bradly »

rowanajmarshall wrote: post #202
bradly wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company?

> Why do they need to verify my role? Because people lie, constantly. And while most of time they they might not be, it happens often enough that companies pay people to background check applicants. It's not good, but it's seemingly necessary, or at least desired. > Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the n…

> Because people lie, constantly.

The new company interviewed me. They can decide if I'm qualified or not.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#205

Post by ouEight12 »

reaperducer wrote: post #166
tinalumfoil wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but my experience working mostly at smaller companies is that nobody really cares. If you say you’re a level X they’ll say, “okay prove it. Demonstrate through your accomplishments and knowledge you’re a level X” not “Prove it. Show us your documentation, citizen.” I also can’t imagine verifying or asking HR to verify someone’s level or salary. They’d start questioning if I understood the point of the intervie…

I also can’t imagine verifying or asking HR to verify someone’s level or salary. They’d start questioning if I understood the point of the interview. The whole prior salary thing is very touchy now, and in some states potential employers aren't allowed to ask. The company my wife works for will only confirm whether an employee was employed at a given date, or not. No salary information. No titles. Nothing other than…

> The company my wife works for will only confirm whether an employee was employed at a given date, or not. No salary information. No titles. Nothing other than a yes, or no.

This is pretty common. My state is pretty liberal in terms of what's allowed legally, but even as far back as the 90s, the official party line in most shops was that you couldn't say more than "Joe was employeed here between 19xx and 19xx". And that's assuming you, as a persons former manager, were even supposed to take the call. Many shops had a "refer all inquiries to HR" rule and would only tell them the same basic answer.

Unofficially, a common tactic was (and I believe still is, if recent experience is anything to go by) to to exploit the use of "personal references" as opposed to former Employers. Hope (or 'suggest') the candidate used a former co-worker as a personal reference, and then on the call ask things like "On a personal level, given the opportunity, would you look forward to working with Joe again?" Anything less than an enthusiastic "oh definitely" was a polite tip off that Joe was not someone you wanted in your shop.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#206

Post by ghaff »

meowface wrote: post #180
Spoom wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my first thought. Apple is notoriously secretive, even internally. They likely see this as a way to prevent folks from reverse engineering through job titles what former employees were working on. (Agreed that it's super shitty and likely overkill, but I think this is a better explanation than outright trying to screw former employees.) In this case, though, why not replace the job title with "Employee"?

>In this case, though, why not replace the job title with "Employee"? One (non-tech) company I worked at had a pretty stringent policy of always referring to "associates" rather than "employees". I don't exactly know why; maybe some kind of branding or psychological thing, like "you're part of the family" instead of "you're working for us". It admittedly does sound a little more pleasant.

Using "associate" or something along those lines is extremely common. It does seem a bit more pleasant and it also steers clear of employee vs. contractor legal distinctions.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#207

Post by draw_down »

ctheb wrote: post #104

A recent HN submission [1] highlighted that a surprising amount of detailed employment history is shared by employers with third parties. When I pulled mine it said “SW Dev Eng 4”, curious to see if that’ll change to “Associate” after I quit… or if third parties track the entire title history, like they do track salary history. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753

No post body was provided.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#208

Post by rdtsc »

penguin_booze wrote: post #197
rdtsc wrote: post #184

Am I the only one surprised these sharing databases even exist? What if Apple went the other way, and artificially inflated the level? Every engineer is "Senior engineer level XIV". Or, they could be evil and tie the level entered to the conditions of leave. If you sign a bunch of non-competes and non-disclosures etc, you get marked 2 levels up in this db. One of my employers used to let us pick our own titles. We co…

It's unsettling that these behind the scenes database/cliques exists. Some time ago, I listened to a podcast (might be NPR) that talked about an employee, who left a financial firm, couldn't find a new job. Every opportunity to which he applied, either rejected him with unconvincing reasons or ghosted him. Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outs…

> Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outside that job will be miserable.

Pretty darn evil. It's even worse because if he sues them to correct the "mistake", then that also makes newer employers less likely to hire him ("he likes to litigate with his employers, and we don't want trouble"), unless they are actually reasonable and dive in to understand what exactly happened.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#209

Post by HL33tibCe7 »

> “We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of any individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters,”

There’s a real skill in saying exactly zero while at the same time hitting a home run of $YEAR’s bullshit corporate talking points.

Re: Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

#210

Post by treis »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #201
treis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. I can see it being problematic when applying to Government or enterprise roles. They will do their due diligence and might rescind an offer if they find a discrepancy.

> Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha". That's not lying! That's just not telling. And it's no reason for a future company to be suspicious.

>It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha"

I don't think that's clear. And if that's the message they want to send why not just confirm employment but not state a level?

Post reply on HN