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

331–337 of 337 posts

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

#331

Post by FastMonkey »

ghaff wrote: post #206
meowface wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I've worked in a couple of different industries, and from what I've seen an associate is generally a title for junior staff. After a few years, most graduate some type of specialist or project management job title.

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

#332

Post by meowface »

FastMonkey wrote: post #331
ghaff wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've worked in a couple of different industries, and from what I've seen an associate is generally a title for junior staff. After a few years, most graduate some type of specialist or project management job title.

This wasn't the case for the company I worked at. It applied to everyone of every rank. Not as a title, but just a general descriptor used in place of "employee" or "personnel".

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

#333

Post by tablespoon »

bradly wrote: post #271
tablespoon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

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

They very likely can do that, but if they think you're lying for some reason, that doesn't matter.

It's totally plausible that some shitty software engineers have trouble getting hired and may settle for other work in the interim. If they're unethical, then they may lie about that. One or two interviews may not detect a lot of issues someone like that may have.

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

#334

Post by redler »

qqii wrote: post #136
redler wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it will be widely known among peer organizations that Apple has this policy, the presence or absence of the "Associate" title achieves this, in effect, does it not? I think it's unlikely someone seeking a 600K job will be mistaken for having been a retail employee.

I'd argue that false data doesn't achieve this, it just confuses everything. Using an analogy in programming terms, it would be like `job_title <- Maybe "NULL"` whereas they really ment `job_title <- Nothing`.

I do agree with this. If they stick with this policy it would be better if they use some unambiguous title like “Former Employee”.

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

#335

Post by livinglist »

trulyawful wrote: post #178
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.

I’ve been investigated by federal and state governments nine times (welcome to contracting) since leaving Apple, up to and including a full SSBI, and have never heard a word about a discrepancy. Ever. Public sector, private sector, HireRight, nobody has ever flagged it, and I know what that looks like because others have been. HireRight in particular is sensitive to job level or title differences in what you report a…

what was you investigated for?

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

#336

Post by BoiledCabbage »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #119
ant6n wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could mean that, but not clearly, and it really doesn't mean that.

Setting aside whether it is a good practice or not, if all of these agencies know that Apple does this, then it becomes a de facto meangingless term. If this has been an ongoing practice for a while and an agency is not aware of it, then it is a bad agency to work with.

So your answer is "It's ok to be misleading. And because you don't know you're being mislead it's your fault"?

Yeah I have a very different opinion of that situation.

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

#337

Post by whynaut »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #336
dev_tty01 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside whether it is a good practice or not, if all of these agencies know that Apple does this, then it becomes a de facto meangingless term. If this has been an ongoing practice for a while and an agency is not aware of it, then it is a bad agency to work with.

So your answer is "It's ok to be misleading. And because you don't know you're being mislead it's your fault"? Yeah I have a very different opinion of that situation.

They literally pre-empted this response at the beginning of the comment
Post reply on HN