171–180 of 337 posts
What’s official about those databases? Aren’t these just “best effort” results from those companies?
(I also think this kind of service should be opt-in for (former) employees, if not outright forbidden, but that’s another story)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see a weird sort of logic to Apple. Why would they share their judgement about the level of an ex-employee with a potential rival company (rival in case of talent perhaps also product)? Let the employee say "I was Level 5 @ Apple" and have the hiring company verify that the person is at whatever level that implies . Why should Apple allow its rivals piggyback on its own levelling system?
Undermining everyone who leaves is cult leadership behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Undermining everyone who leaves is cult leadership behavior.
Counterpoint: accurately ascertaining an engineer's capability is their secret sauce, why should they be obliged to share that information with anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a generic word that means "you worked here". Which is the point of the parent comment: it's a way of confirming that someone was an employee without revealing their title, a la Intel.
The generic word for someone who is employed is employee.
If this causes companies to re-think their reliance on automated hiring practices, I'm OK with that. HR is supposed to be "Human" Resources, not "We punched your ID number into a computer and it told us you're undesirable." Or worse — companies that buy into systems that automatically screen applicants. If your company is so overwhelmed by incoming job applicants, then hire more HR people. Or maybe do what people hav…
It's not universally true, but I've seen it enough, to believe that the name influences the way people think about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not funny.
> Not funny. I don't think the parent comment intended it to be funny, is sounds like a tongue in cheek criticism of an ethically suspect problem.
Plus, the extra joke of framing his "exploitation of the organ system's rules" as "pentesting", since "well, he found ways that a rich person could jump the queue...".
My earlier comment on this kind of "insight framed as a joke" (interestingly enough, also in the context of Apple): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24506073
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.
It's also not clear to me from the article that Apple is changing the person's level when they leave. I read the article as saying they just don't share titles. And I'm not even clear that the information is shared at all until end of employment.
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.
I think people put a lot of stock in these databases which are updated voluntarily by employers. When it matters it’s double checked anyway. If a background shop can’t get an answer from Apple in a week it’s a bad background shop, because that’s literally automated (and the last copy I requested from a CRA had my title correctly reported by Apple, including my seniority level).
I hate dismissing the claim and I’m not. Rest assured I believe this tomfoolery to be on brand. There’s just more nuance to this, I think, and it’s even more interesting if it’s intermittently impacting formers. Could this be the result of the “do not rehire” box being checked in Merlin? I know mine isn’t, and I also know that it is often (quietly) checked when people depart, and that might be the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at Apple and I’m okay they do this. My role is my information to share. I don’t need that sitting in some database in perpetuity.
You have a privilege; relevant parties believe your resume without needing to verify it. This behavior by Apple is disproportionately harmful to those without this privilege (eg. people on certain visas).
(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…
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"?
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.