281–290 of 337 posts
There's databases out there with everyone's career record where you have no control over but the employers do? I rest my case..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
less about screwing the competition, more about hindering their ability to learn about development through trawling resumes. The more I try and describe it, the weaker it sounds in my head, but the idea is you could get some info on what Apple is doing by looking at resumes referencing Apple, then corroborate what you saw by checking former position with those firms.
Apple was part of the "no cold calling" cartel. Basically companies had a silent agreement not to pouch employees. Why give them benefit of doubt now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
> Apple offers a phone number employers can call to verify titles of former Apple employees. A voice recording on that line directs callers to the web site for InVerify, an employment verification service provider owned by credit agency Equifax. When The Washington Post called InVerify’s customer support number, a customer service representative said Apple is the only company he knew of that changes job titles of emp…
> This is a huge dick move by Apple. Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose. HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liability reasons, and many corporate HR departments have a policy of confirming only whether an employee worked for the company, and nothing else. Choosing a vague term like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really good point about Apple willfully using an Experian service as part of this strategy. As to defamation, I don't think that's clear. Apple is intentionally using the term to be as legally vague as possible about how it externally reports its past connection to its ex-payees. This is mostly liability management, essentially saying less that can't be called false, instead of the defamatory tactic of saying…
While I agree it’s probably not defamation and is just meant to say as little as possible, there’s no way this would be the end all in court - apple surely keeps the original records internally so a court case could easily find your original title.
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.
One can debate whether companies in general should use "associate" to refer to all their employees given that it has a specific meaning in some contexts, e.g. Big Law. Nonetheless, many companies do so. (Probably because employee has some specific legal meaning.) So it's not lying to basically say they worked here. I expect that many companies do this and it seems entirely appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thus supporting my point, as I said. Edit: I'm "posting too fast", and this seems like a trivial point, so, in advance of being able to make a new comment: The relevant "point" here is not about what is or isn't SOP at any company, which I was never disputing. I was making a point about how they should convey employee status and whether Apple(etc)'s practice counts as "lying about your level". To summarize: 1) It's f…
It doesn't support your point. It supports the original commenter's, who points out that not confirming internal titles is SOP at a bunch of companies.
We all know that different companies work differently. How rare is what Apple does, and what harm does it cause? The article includes a tangible example of such harm. Can you share any insight that is specific to this practice? I know you’ve worked in the hiring space.
Reminds me of the practice of Translations.com / Transperfect, one of the largest language services providers. Their HR policy is to not allow employees to name the company in any online space, social media or otherwise. So when you see staff on LinkedIn, for instance, their employer will invariable say "Leading language service provider" or similar. These seem to be completely unreasonable policies, to me, that in e…
You're advised not to wear company swag and all company-provided transport (buses) are required not to say or write the name of the company when picking up employees. You're also advised to avoid giving a precise Linked In profile. Even your role makes you a phishing (or worse) target.
You'd get frequent opsec training refreshes explaining all the new tricks and how such and such got roped in from their SM presence.
Sounds like when you leave Apple you are free to give yourself a title promotion since they wipe all that info. I would also pass on any company that needs references to my job title because their dystopian background check through the infamous Equifax says I'm an associate, even with a software engineering background, haha that part was beyond silly.
Where does it say that they wipe it? This is only for 3rd party databases.
Wow, I was about to post in support of this, but surprisingly this seems like a wildly unpopular opinion on HN! Honestly, I wish all companies did this. The less information out there in databases about me (or the more obfuscated), the better. People should not be able to just "request" personal information like this from some 3rd party data provider. It's none of a prospective employers' business what my full title…
The problem is that Apple supplies the job title, but sometimes it is the incorrect value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
Does Amazon call their SDEs and SREs associates as well? If not, then they're still setting up a pecking order.
(As an aside, I can accept calling your employees associates, or something cute like colleagues or outfitters, depending on the nature of the business. But Starbucks calling their employees partners rubs me the wrong way. That one does just seem like gaslighting.)