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

251–260 of 337 posts

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

#251

Post by sangnoir »

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…

> If I want my employer to know what number Apple assigned me, I’ll tell them.

I think you're being overly flippant. Every single job I've applied to[1] has done an independent background check[2] - which included calling/emailing past employers and verifying the details I told them meshes with their records on title and duration of employment. Discrepancies here can cause delays, or even cost one an offer, as happened the former Apple engineer in the article. I wouldn't be as dismissive as you are, as the consequences can be quite dire; also I cannot think of any positive reason for the practice, except to punish those who leave Apple. I hope the NLRB and courts throw the book at them.

1. At companies with headcounts ranging from low hundreds to tens of thousands

2. Including international calls across timezones. The investigators - often a 3rd party - are diligent, but often clueless/ignorant when the particulars of a case are different to what they are used to. This has caused delays for me in the past, and it was expensive for me because I had quit my old job after accepting the offer, and was unemployed for longer than I had planned.

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

#252

Post by josh2600 »

sumeno wrote: post #141
dev_tty01 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.

Not every negative departure is the departee's fault. As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.

If you spent 2 years somewhere and can’t find a single person to even confirm that you worked the position you’re asserting, something’s wrong.

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

#253

Post by snowwrestler »

joshstrange wrote: post #149
snowwrestler wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is why one should not lie about one’s former salary. I have lost candidates over this; HR caught them in a lie and blocked them on integrity grounds.

Maybe if companies didn't attempt to lowball candidates this wouldn't be an issue? My past compensation is none of a new company's business, all that matters is the number I'm willing to work for. Since companies refuse to give salary ranges often (see: number of jobs not available to people in CO) I see no reason to come to the table at a disadvantage.

It’s possible to tell companies what you want to make without lying about your previous salary.

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

#254

Post by samhw »

ghaff wrote: post #247
thenipper wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost. In my experience those periods of employment are just blank.

Way back when but assume this is still the case, there were positions in the CIA (in DC, i.e. not agents) where you officially worked for someone like the Navy and weren't supposed to tell people you worked for the CIA. I was offered such a position but didn't take it.

Yeah, this is my experience too, at least in the UK. We had a close family friend whose father, the patriarch of the family, worked for 'the Army' his whole life. It was only after he died that they discovered - somehow - that it was actually 'intelligence' work.

I'm sure it's different for secretarial roles, leadership roles, etc, but for the bulk of people it seems like the usual career path is up through the normal military, and officially they remain in the military. (I also knew some linguists - normally of somewhat exotic languages like Arabic or Russian – who were taken aside at Oxford or Cambridge and asked if they were interested in working in intelligence.)

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

#255

Post by sangnoir »

trulyawful wrote: post #192
Retric wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple lying to the federal or state government etc doing background checks is quite different than sharing incorrect information to private systems.

I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. It has never happened to me in either context and I left Apple quite acrimoniously. Apple lying at all is bad. It doesn’t matter to who. It’s potential liability if a candidate gets wind of it, but if these folks are going after the NLRB to address the concern,…

> I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case

Since we're speculating, my take is that having the NLRB investigate the issue first and finding Apple was being punitive would bolster their civic case, and give them more leverage in the eventual settlement - they'll skip from having to prove Apple caused harm directly to how much harm was done.

Besides, outsourcing the investigations to the NLRB would cost them less (discovery is expensive!), and the NLRB has a clear mandate and can't be bogged down by appeals and other forms of delaying legal warfare. The NLRB is also likely to cast a broader net, and better resourced.

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

#256

Post by samhw »

sprayk wrote: post #69

(Just to throat clear ahead of time... I obviously find what Apple is doing super shitty. I just want to find some reason besides "Apple bad" for why they would do this.) Could they be doing this title change, at least in theory, as an information security measure? Competitors and journalists could potentially corroborate (or have an easier time corroborating) leaks if they can verify that a former employee is the po…

Exactly this has happened. People have long inferred various things about long-term Apple projects, such as self-driving cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_electric_car_project), based on the hires they've made (including acquihires). Coupled with Apple's noted paranoia, I can well see this being the reason why they would refuse to disclose someone's team, or even their specialism or seniority.

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

#257

Post by gkop »

gjvc wrote: post #172
cma wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undermining everyone who leaves is cult leadership behavior.

correct, and this practice is sickeningly widespread.

Sickeningly widespread, brazen, and shameless. Eg https://a16z.com/2016/06/23/options-timing/

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

#258

Post by Raineer »

paisawalla wrote: post #153
smrz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot wait to check back in with you when you're trying to get a new job and negotiating salary. > If I want my employer to know what number Apple assigned me, I’ll tell them. Literally this article is about employers being like "hmm you told me this number but we don't believe you because Apple says its wrong"

> I cannot wait to check back in with you when you're trying to get a new job and negotiating salary. Hi, checking in. Your current/previous salary is no business of your future employer. You don't have to share it, and it shouldn't form the basis of your future salary. If this seems alien, or improbable to you, people can and do learn how to tactfully steer conversations away from disadvantageous topics.

The fact that previous salary has anything to do with future salary comes from the same swamp of misinformation like "it's illegal to discuss your salary with your peers."

My approach when dealing with future salary is to tell them my previous job paid me ((what I want from next job) - X %). Previous salary doesn't appear in the equation.

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

#259

Post by tablespoon »

ncallaway wrote: post #124
tablespoon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose. Do you mean "Chesterton's Fence"? I get no hits for "Chesteranlon's Razorfence" or "Chesterton's Razorfence." That is a pretty remarkable corruption of the term, though. Or are you trying to coin a term? > HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liab…

> Do you mean "Chesterton's Fence"? I get no hits for "Chesteranlon's Razorfence" or "Chesterton's Razorfence." It's a merging of Chesterton's Fence and Hanlon's Razor

>>> Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situatio

>> Or are you trying to coin a term?

> It's a merging of Chesterton's Fence and Hanlon's Razor

Given that's a neologism that was literally introduced here, it probably should have had bit more of an introduction. Infix compounds are really weird in English.

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

#260

Post by trulyawful »

sangnoir wrote: post #255
trulyawful wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. It has never happened to me in either context and I left Apple quite acrimoniously. Apple lying at all is bad. It doesn’t matter to who. It’s potential liability if a candidate gets wind of it, but if these folks are going after the NLRB to address the concern,…

> I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case Since we're speculating, my take is that having the NLRB investigate the issue first and finding Apple was being punitive would bolster their civic case, and give them more leverage in the eventual settlement - they'll skip from having to prove Apple caused harm directly to how much harm was done. Besides, outsourcing the investigations to the NLRB wo…

That’s a better take than mine. Good read.
Post reply on HN