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

261–270 of 337 posts

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

#261

Post by sangnoir »

theli0nheart wrote: post #133
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"

> 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" Might have been a problem in the past, but now you can point them to this article.

> Might have been a problem in the past, but now you can point them to this article.

Background checks are frequently done by specialized 3rd party companies of varying levels of quality that don't communicate directly with the applicant, and have a lot of leeway to interpret if candidate was misrepresenting their past. You may not have the opportunity to point them to this article after being told a blanket "We regret to inform you that in accordance to clause 2(c) on the offer letter, we are withdrawing the offer of employment due to a verification failure during the background check."

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

#262

Post by tablespoon »

bradly wrote: post #204
rowanajmarshall wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> Because people lie, constantly.

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

And they may decide you're not qualified, because they thought you lied when you didn't. Lying is one of those things that's often an instant dealbreaker.

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

#263

Post by tablespoon »

exhilaration wrote: post #103
kuroguro wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.

There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.

>> Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.

> There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.

Maybe so, but retail clerks definitely are Apple employees, so the point stands.

Personally, the word "associate" by itself brings to mind Walmart store workers [1. If I didn't know about this practice of Apple's, and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions that they were trying to pass off a stint in Apple retail as something grander.

[1] https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates

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

#264

Post by codehitchhiker »

tantalor wrote: post #22

This is pretty standard practice. A company will typically only say "Yes, So-and-So did work here".

Except that it's not standard at all. Apple is the only company that reportedly does this. I have worked in a lot of jobs over my 21 years of working, and every single job has the correct title EXCEPT for Apple. InVerify AND The Work Number both said that Apple is the only company that does this.

How would that be standard?

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

#265

Post by outworlder »

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 you're not a manager I might consider that an associate.

Maybe that's your personal definition. Generally, 'associate' is the title you will get if you get an entry level retail job. There's nothing 'wrong' with the title if that's what Apple internally called everyone.

If they change it when you leave(specially if it turns out that they do that when you leave in bad terms), that's malicious.

Ultimately, this means that: you say you are a Senior Software Engineer (or whatever title Apple internally uses); the new prospective employer tries to verify and it comes back as an "associate".

i.e. they think your Apple experience was working some entry level job in one of their stores and you are trying to claim you were an engineer.

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

#266

Post by arcticbull »

> And those titles help determine how much Apple employees can make when they leave the company for another job.

Generally wherever you apply will make a leveling determination based on your interview and the skills you demonstrate there. Nobody I've seen relies on your past employers representation of your level when making a leveling decision.

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

#267

Post by rmah »

drewg123 wrote: post #68

Wow, I would hate this. When I left Google, I had just been promoted to L6 (staff) SWE, and I delayed my departure by 2 weeks in order for my promo to take effect. I did this primarily so that I could list the new level on my resume and have it seen as accurate in the future. And also so that if I decided to re-join Google, I'd come in as an L6.

Google will not confirm your title. They will only say you worked there.

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

#268

Post by genocidicbunny »

ghaff wrote: post #220
genocidicbunny wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Associate, in the USA at least, has a strong connotation of a junior position. As the article points out, there are plenty of examples of associate being used to describe a more junior position. And you know what other word unambiguously means 'employee'? That wouldn't cause this sort of clamor? Yes, 'employee' is that word.

What if they were a contractor? Or were both an employee and a contractor over the course of their time there? I'm an "associate" at the company I work for and I'm certainly not junior. I certainly don't take offense at considering myself as an associate. In specific contexts, e.g. an associate vs. a partner at a law firm, it has a different meaning but it's also a very common term to refer to all employees at a comp…

Well if we're going to anecdata, I've held jobs where I started as 'associate' and was promoted to something resembling 'software engineer.' Similarly, in the one where they liked to refer to everyone as associates, that was never a term used in any of the contracts which needed to actually use the word that defines someone as being employed by the company -- employee.

I think some of the blowback you and others are getting for saying 'associate is just employee' is because to many people, 'associate' does have a negative connotation compared to 'employee', and Apple has a history of being hostile to labour; Not to mention that if they really wanted to protect privacy, they could just do what most companies do -- confirm dates of employment, and possibly if they're re-hirable at Apple. Its not unfair to assume Apple isn't doing this out of the benevolence of their hearts.

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

#269

Post by cgio »

theli0nheart wrote: post #133
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"

> 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" Might have been a problem in the past, but now you can point them to this article.

You may not have direct communication with the decision maker in such situations. The company that does the checks will just mark the exception and push to recruiter. Then depending on organisation a hiring manager may be making the final decision without you even knowing there is a variance. So there will be times when you can point no one to the article.

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

#270

Post by rmah »

codehitchhiker wrote: post #264
tantalor wrote: post #22

This is pretty standard practice. A company will typically only say "Yes, So-and-So did work here".

Except that it's not standard at all. Apple is the only company that reportedly does this. I have worked in a lot of jobs over my 21 years of working, and every single job has the correct title EXCEPT for Apple. InVerify AND The Work Number both said that Apple is the only company that does this. How would that be standard?

Then, IMO, all those other companies are the ones people should be complaining about, not Apple. No employer should share employment details beyond "he worked here" with third parties for any reason.
Post reply on HN