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

271–280 of 337 posts

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

#271

Post by bradly »

tablespoon wrote: post #262
bradly wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If they can't tell the difference between an "associate" and a software engineer I'd say I dodge a bullet then.

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

#272

Post by zeruch »

The fact that Apple can't/won't explain this practice is strange, but on surface seems not dissimilar to a former (maybe current) practice of Boalt Law (a US top 10 school) which does not publish graduate rankings (e.g. "top of their class") as they view themselves as "if you were good enough to graduate from Boalt, you are good enough, period."

So this definitely could be read into several ways.

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

#273

Post by kingaillas »

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.

Sometimes, companies fact check what interviewees say. Things like verifying employment, salary, title, etc. This can lead to inconsistent results as mentioned in the original article, when your claimed job role/title and what Apple says after you left don't match anymore.

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

#274

Post by snowwrestler »

tptacek wrote: post #174
snowwrestler wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The generic word for someone who is employed is employee.

At Apple, it's "associate". I can think of other places that's the case as well.

If Apple or Walmart want to use “associate” internally as a euphemism for “employee,” because they think it sounds nicer or something, obviously they can.

But the database field we’re taking about is Job Title. And Apple knows what it is; they populate that field with actual job titles for current employees, and they use such databases themselves to check their own applicants.

If your point is that “associate” is an overloaded term, acknowledged. But don’t expect me to believe Apple doesn’t know that. They use it in junior titles themselves.

If they don’t want to provide it for former employees they could blank the field or supply a value like “Not Provided” which would have been even more clear about what is going on.

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

#275

Post by tptacek »

snowwrestler wrote: post #274
tptacek wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Apple, it's "associate". I can think of other places that's the case as well.

If Apple or Walmart want to use “associate” internally as a euphemism for “employee,” because they think it sounds nicer or something, obviously they can. But the database field we’re taking about is Job Title. And Apple knows what it is; they populate that field with actual job titles for current employees, and they use such databases themselves to check their own applicants. If your point is that “associate” is an…

It's not an overloaded term. It means "employee".

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

#276

Post by paisawalla »

bink wrote: post #230
paisawalla wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's publishing it? Apple is not sending out a list of who's at which level. You need to bring evidence if you're claiming otherwise. Products like Work Number are based on inference or direct observation of these titles through payroll integrations or other exhaust.

Read the article. This is about Apple submitting this data to private companies like Lexis-Nexis and then changing it when employees leave.

You are mistaken: Apple is not submitting that data, that's not how these products work. These data products are collected via scraping, other software integrations (e.g. payroll), or sometimes calling for employment verification, not from first party submissions. An accurate org chart of a company is valuable private knowledge, no company is just exporting it so that anyone with a few thousand dollars can get a copy.

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

#277

Post by hammock »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #268
ghaff wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are you considering anecdata? The US's two largest employers (Walmart and Amazon) and Marriott use "associates." Target, Hilton, Qdoba and other companies use "team members." Starbucks uses "partners." Hyatt uses "colleagues." Cabela's uses "outfitters." Cringe for sure, but not using "employee" is more common than many think.

I certainly understand that this context may be less familiar than the different use of "associate" at perhaps the more familiar VC firm or law firm, retail store, etc. But it's my educated guess that this former context is the one in which Apple is using associate.

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

#278

Post by titoCA321 »

tptacek wrote: post #193
SilasX wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. If they don't want to give titles, they should ... not give titles. That is, give no information for that field/query. If the system requires it, do something like "n/a". When you state "employee title: Associate", you are conveying[1] that the title "Associate" Is A Thing at Apple, and the former employee had that title. And if (as is the case here) it is the most unadorned title anyone can have…

Starbucks calls all its employees "partners". Are they misleading future employers in the opposite direction? It sounds to me like Apple is just another tech company that doesn't confirm titles, and that their generic word for "employee" is "associate". That is not a weird Apple thing; if you go out into the Fortune 500, you'll find a bunch of other companies that do the same thing. Contra this article, "associate" d…

I've worked with government organizations and military organizations where titles are "analyst" or "specialist". It even lists such on the business cards and pay stubs.

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

#279

Post by titoCA321 »

shapefrog wrote: post #228
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.

In the USA at least, Vice President has a strong connotation of the 2nd most powerful person in the goverment. Most companies have one or more people titled as such, yet not all of them employ the Vice President of the USA.

There are places in Wall Street that hand out "Vice President" titles as candy.

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

#280

Post by titoCA321 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #80

Annoying as it may be, a big chunk of responsibility here lies with the data aggregators and the hiring companies. How many times do you have to find out that all ex-Apple employees get the title 'Associate' before you just exclude that from your database? How many times do you disqualify a good candidate because you can't resolve their title at Apple before you realize it isn't a good filter?

I never understand these database checks and reference checks anyway. How many times have consumers had to notify the credit agencies of errors on their credit report? Who really goes requesting records on what Lexis Nexus and work number have on them much less correct any errors? I know folks that have database records where they are concurrent working three jobs in two different states but no one brother to correct.

HR employment verification is usually outsourced since businesses want to reduce costs. I'm surprised anyone from HR returns calls or emails when other company is asking for references or employment verification in any timely manner.

Post reply on HN