21 ms·

Every employee who leaves Apple becomes an ‘associate’

336 points by semiquaver 5y ago

ghaff 5y ago
For a group of people who, in the main, disdain credentialism there is a lot of focus on titles here. My resume probably doesn't have any of my formal HR titles. I couldn't tell you what my current formal title is with any certainty.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blamazon 5y ago
https://archive.ph/SBHpF https://archive.ph/SBHpF
tablespoon 5y ago
> 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 employees when they leave. Apple also changes titles for employees who have taken a leave of absence, the person said. So basically, if your new employer checks your title before you leave Apple, you're fine? This is a huge dick move by Apple.
- Maxburn 5y ago
  I can't think of a legitimate reason for it other than to create problems for people that leave Apple. That practice sounds pretty dirty.
  - progforlyfe 5y ago
    Why would anyone worthy ever leave Apple? Such a thing would be so... unclean.
- PedroBatista 5y ago
  This is Apple's DNA and much more in recent years. The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. The pettiness of continuing to charge 30% fees in one way or the other when they have been ordered by the courts to open their restrictions. The constant sabotage of everything related to repairing their products many times making their own stuff shittier. And now the "Either you are a faceless Apple minion, or your existence is a mere footnote". It's the Apple we all know and love.
  - jsjohnst 5y ago
    > The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. Ignoring the fact you completely missed the point of the DTK, this is factually wrong. The store credit was $500.
    - mh- 5y ago
      It was $200 initially, then increased to $500. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-developers-increased/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-de...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - PedroBatista 5y ago
      No, I'm quite right. It was "upgraded" to $500 after much uproar.
      - jsjohnst 5y ago
        I just checked my emails and it was always $500 credit offered after returning for me, so maybe some DTK folks were offered $200? Either way, it ultimately was $500 however by your own admission, even if initially stated to some as $200.
- kuroguro 5y ago
  Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.
  - exhilaration 5y ago
    There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.
    - tomcam 5y ago
      Maybe the parent poster was exaggerating a teeny bit for your viewing pleasure
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> 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 https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions Correction: ...and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," it would raise suspicions...
- bradly 5y ago
  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.
  - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
    But if someone wants to verify your role (which sounds reasonable), contacts Apple and they say you were an associate while you said you were a senior, that's gonna cause problems. And apparently is.
    - bradly 5y ago
      Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior 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 new company?
      - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
        > 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 new company? Dunno, but a hiring manager for a tech firm probably knows better than me or you. Either way, obfuscating your previous role isn't a good thing.
        bradly 5y ago
        > Because people lie, constantly. The new company interviewed me. They can decide if I'm qualified or not.
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Leaving a cult is the ultimate sin in most cults, so it is not surprising at all. Any Apple employees reading this that want out, here’s a guide for help. https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Wow. I have read a bunch of cult-escapee biographies, as the cult dynamic fascinated me. All of them had an extreme narcissist at the center. Somehow I had never connected that with the famous tech company with an extreme narcissist at the center. But you're right, that pattern of retaliation against people who dare to leave fits perfectly here.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I mean, I don't feel like Tim Cook is an extreme narcissist cult leader, but I don't know enough about him. Of course, the fact that he hasn't mythologized himself as much as Steve Jobs did is a piece of evidence in favor of him not being a narcissist. If I had to choose a "tech company cult" it would be Tesla/SpaceX/Boring/whatever else Musk is running.
      - eloisant 5y ago
        Apple was clearly a cult company when Steve Jobs was CEO, and I feel like they continued to work as they did by inertia.
      - bitwize 5y ago
        Tim Cook could just be the Miscavige to Jobs's Hubbard. The charismatic, narcissistic cult leader often has a bulldog of a right hand man who enforces order and compliance, keeping the cult together even after the leader is gone.
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        The narcissistic personality at the center of Apple’s culture today is Apple itself. Even Cook speaks in near-reverential tones about the company he leads. Most corporations try to do this in the long run; it’s arguably inherent in the concept of incorporation, which is etymologically and legally the creation of a new “person.” Even if it starts with an iconic founder, in the long run the company itself must become the object of loyalty to survive. Comms, HR, and marketing teams spend tons of effort to create a corporate personality and culture. (Note the root of the word culture.) Apple famously set up their own “university” to develop and instill their culture. Loyalty to the company, distrust of outsiders, personal adherence in a “mission”: these are not things specific to or invented by Apple. Although the specific vindictive tactic of hiding titles is one that I’ve not heard of before.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  > 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 "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well. While it may not be ideal, and may not support truthful claims of relative seniority, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done with any malice. EDIT: Apparently some people strongly disagree. If you disagree, might I ask what evidence you have of malice?
  - josh2600 5y ago
    Came here to say this. As far as I’m concerned this is a privacy protection. It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.
    - sumeno 5y ago
      > It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check. Only if they left on good terms.
      - dev_tty01 5y ago
        If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.
        sumeno 5y ago
        Not every negative departure is the departee's fault. As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.
dncornholio 5y ago
There's databases out there with everyone's career record where you have no control over but the employers do? I rest my case..
- furyg3 5y ago
  Wait, can a future employer request my past salary information from InVerify (or another service) without my approval or permission?
  - spaceywilly 5y ago
    Yeah how is this not the big story here? I had no idea there was a public database employers could use to look up everything about me. Can I check this database to make sure my records are correct and who do I talk to if they’re not? This is pretty wild
  - runnerup 5y ago
    Yes: https://theworknumber.com https://theworknumber.com There's currently no legal constraint on the use/sale of this privately-held/privately-sold data. The background-check forms you sign are not for this, they're primarily for legal permission to check your credit history.
  - thomascgalvin 5y ago
    I don't know about InVerify specifically, but yes, this is a thing companies do.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Yes, this is why one should not lie about one’s former salary. I have lost candidates over this; HR caught them in a lie and blocked them on integrity grounds.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      Maybe if companies didn't attempt to lowball candidates this wouldn't be an issue? My past compensation is none of a new company's business, all that matters is the number I'm willing to work for. Since companies refuse to give salary ranges often (see: number of jobs not available to people in CO) I see no reason to come to the table at a disadvantage.
_fat_santa 5y ago
Wouldn't there be other ways for you to prove you were a "Level 4" or whatever at Apple and not an associate? An offer letter from Apple? Or just the totality of circumstances in general. If say you're interviewing for a "Sr Engineer" position, you're just not going to have an instance where the candidate shows experience and knowledge but doesn't get hired because some record from Lexis Nexis says that he was an "associate" at Apple prior to coming here. Something like that I feel would get resolved in conversation very quickly.
- NazakiAid 5y ago
  Maybe covered by NDA or could be forged? I don't know how it works if you accept the NDA and get promoted within.
- sly010 5y ago
  You can try (especially if you know ahead of time) but background check is done by a third party. Recruiters and interviewers don't care until background check flags it. You can try to be upfront about it, but it just creates a weird situation and they will defer to the 3rd party background check anyway. Any evidence you may share with the background check company is not present on the final background report (since it might contain salary information which would be illegal i guess). It's a little bit like credit reporting, if your bank misreports in a few places you are f*ed.
  - Kon-Peki 5y ago
    3rd party background checks are notoriously noisy. Companies that expect them to be the Word of God are, at best, naïve. Every employer should be ready to resolve "discrepancies" that come back without any negative thoughts about the potential employee. If they can't or won't do that, I don't think you want to work for them. A few years ago, I was involved in a spinoff and they decided that all the employees would need to go through a background check. Of the ~90 people, something like 10 people (>10%!!!) had weird stuff that turned out to be completely wrong. For example, one person was reported to be currently in prison 5 states over. Some others were "we can't verify this person ever worked for ABC Corp". We were ABC Corp. Most of these background check companies, they'd say of course there are a lot of Mike Smiths around, but Patty Jones? No no, there has only ever been one Patty Jones in all of human history.
shapefrog 5y ago
Steve Jobs; former associate at Apple.
- SilasX 5y ago
  "Well, he went on medical leave, so we changed his title to Mainstream Medicine Denier and then Organ System Pentester." Reference: https://apecsec.org/steve-jobs-liver-transplant-controversy/ https://apecsec.org/steve-jobs-liver-transplant-controversy/
  - froggertoaster 5y ago
    Not funny.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      Why not? We can't criticize someone's reckless, selfish decision, even ten years past their death from it?
    - the-alt-one 5y ago
      Very funny.
    - james-redwood 5y ago
      It's hilarious
    - magikaram 5y ago
      Pretty funny.
    - gaius_baltar 5y ago
      > 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.
      - SilasX 5y ago
piva00 5y ago
It surprised me much more to know that there are databases maintained by the likes of Equifax about persons' complete employment history, job titles and all... I think GDPR here in Europe really woke up the feeling that this kind of data shouldn't exist without explicit approval from the person which PII belongs to. This is beyond fucked up in my data privacy minded worldview.
- stuff4ben 5y ago
  Exactly right! There is PII data out there that refers to us but we can't access and can't correct and can't deny the use of to others. This seems like a pretty big privacy thing that needs to be corrected.
- thfuran 5y ago
  Equifax has way more than just employment history.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Ok, but let’s back it up one step. Am I (a random internet guy) allowed to call the company you claim you currently work for on LinkedIn, and ask them whether you work there in such and such a position? Can I ask them how much they pay you? Sure, I can ask, but can they answer? Is all or some of that really privileged information? There are two parties in your employment, and both own the information. Are you prohibited from telling others you work there or how much they pay you? If not, why would the employer be prohibited from telling others?
  - yebyen 5y ago
    There's an entire sea of difference between confirming or refuting a fact of employment that has been put forward during a hiring process, as part of a screen, and sharing everything with anyone who asks, including those shady characters over there who asked every employer to share everything about everyone simultaneously because their business is about building a database and selling access to it. That being said, if the employers actually benefit (even in a collusive way) from sharing that information in such a manner, I'm not sure how to argue that they shouldn't be able to do that.
NazakiAid 5y ago
Well that's scummy and doubt it was done naively.
gwbas1c 5y ago
I remember when I interned at Intel, on the way out I asked about references and I was told, very nicely, that Intel's official policy is to only confirm employment. I suspect that this is really what Apple is doing; but that some accident of circumstance required them to provide a very generic title. Perhaps they can't confirm employment without some kind of title, and that title's now been twisted out of context? FYI: The practice mildly makes sense. Many employment issues are highly subjective, so a large company might decide that saying anything about a former employee is a liability, so they'll only say the minimal possible facts: "Yes, X is a former employee from [date range.]" Or, "No, X never worked for us."
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Title is nothing subjective. In fact, titles and levels can be matched between two companies easily. Anyway, this is not what Apple is doing. They are downgrading everyone by default, which is akin to providing false information about a former employee.
  - hammock 5y ago
    "Associate" is not a downgrade. It's a generic title that means "employee" and literally everyone (except maybe named officers in the legal filings) is an associate.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      disagree. If I leave a company I am have no role there - I am not an associate, a customer service rep, or an engineer. What was I during my employment is a question of fact that can be answered without liability, but changing my title and lying to inquirers about what it was might be a liability.
      - hammock 5y ago
        No one is saying you weren't a CSR, or an engineer, or anything else. They simply aren't providing that i for around. Instead, they are confirming employment, calling you an employee. If you have never worked at a company that case employees "associates" this may feel foreign to you, but rest assured it's extremely common and not something to get your ego in a knot over.
tedivm 5y ago
I think it's really important to note that Apple does not have to share their database with these third party companies, but not only do they choose to do so they also make sure the information is wrong. Apple is, essentially, being unethical on two levels. They're selling or sharing employee information, and they're purposefully making it so that information is wrong. I want to stress this- I ask during the interview process of every company I work at whether they share employment information with the credit bureaus and most say no. I've worked at startups and a couple of larger companies. What Apple is doing here seems purely vindictive. I'm also not sure how this is legal- it seems like it would fall under defamation laws. I would personally be willing to sue over this (but I've never worked for Apple).
- hammock 5y ago
  >Apple does not have to share their database with these third party companies, but not only do they choose to do so they also make sure the information is wrong. Apple is, essentially, being unethical on two levels By giving out wrong personal information, the argument could be made that they are protecting privacy. I do not believe saying "associate" is wrong, though. It's a term that is commonly used by HR to refer generically to anyone who works for a company. If you haven't encountered it, it may feel foreign to you, especially since Apple is a retail company and you may be conflating it with "retail associate." That's not what it means though. "Employee" is a term fraught with legal and other liability in it's use (think Uber drivers - are they employees or contractors?). HR departments will refer to everybody as “associates” to mitigate risk. If Apple wanted to confirm employment, but not divulge titles, they could say associate. Similarly, Starbucks uses "partners." Do you really think a barista is a part-owner in Starbucks and that's why they're called a partner?
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    If they wanted to protect privacy, they would only have two responses: "We confirm that this person worked for Apple, ending on [date]. By policy, we don't discuss any further details." "We do not have records that this person worked for Apple."
trenning 5y ago
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.
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  The easiest way to get 20% more at a new gig is by inflating your salary by 20% at your old gig.
- Wiseacre 5y ago
  I'm sure a non-zero number of ex-Apple interns will try putting "Senior Software Engineer" on their resume for a $350,000 director gig at a startup.
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    and risk going to prison for fraud?
    - Wiseacre 5y ago
      If lying on your resume is fraud, then we're going to need a whole lot of prison cells.
      - axiosgunnar 5y ago
        „i leveraged prior experience in ultra-scalable real-time systems at the edge with my people skills to produce X“ type of bullshit is different than „i had this very specific role at a large and known company that is only assigned to people that have demonstrated high levels of skill“, the latter is plain fraud if not true. it‘s like saying „i have a pilot license“ if you don't
        5y ago
tantalor 5y ago
This is pretty standard practice. A company will typically only say "Yes, So-and-So did work here".
- codehitchhiker 5y ago
  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?
  - rmah 5y ago
    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.
    - codehitchhiker 5y ago
      I'm complaining about Apple because they cost me more than $10,000 in wages by being the only ones who LIE. Omission would be nice, especially across the board, but that's not what this is. They put me in a position where I had to prove I didn't lie. If there's a law that employers cannot ask for your previous job title, that's great, but employers shouldn't be allowed to furnish fraudulent data either.
      - tantalor 5y ago
        I don't see how its fraud. "Associate" is a pretty generic term for any employee below C-suite or partner.
whalesalad 5y ago
I took full advantage of my @apple.com address when I was in sales at the Ala Moana store. Hard to believe the webmail software at that time was Squirrelmail.
mschuster91 5y ago
> official databases maintained by job verification services run by companies such as Equifax and Lexis-Nexis Sweet jesus how is that even legal?! And... why are companies outsourcing what used to be a core competence of an HR department?!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 5y ago
  The US is a surveillance state entrepreneurial free for all. I suspect the surveillance databases we know about are only the tip of the iceberg. "You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now" - in a movie that was released over 25 years ago, and our society has been sleepwalking further into the panopticon ever since. We desperately need a US version of the GDPR, one that doesn't get neutered by all of these surveillance industries interested in preserving the status quo of their anti-human businesses. In fact I'd say the US should just wholesale adopt the EU GDPR verbatim, and let the courts figure out the details arising from different legal systems. That couldn't be any more complex than interpreting all of the loopholes the corporate Parties would end up adding to newly-drafted privacy legislation.
sillyquiet 5y ago
Apple also was involved with the really shady no-compete-clause stuff for former employees, so this does not surprise me, but I don't know if I am ready to attribute this to malice yet - I can imagine there being some HR system that does this automatically as a default for employees that don't have a title at Apple anymore.
dekhn 5y ago
So, uh, if you leave apple you could just put "Directly Responsible Engineer/Principal Engineer" on linkedin and... nobody could verify it, and apple wouldn't have the data to prove you wrong anymore? Hmm.
hyposcaler 5y ago
I'm not sure this is exactly Apple, or certainly not only Apple that is doing this. I recently grabbed a copy of my work report from theworknumber.com (basically equifax) and noticed that for some employers my title was listed as associate. Didn't think anything about it much at the time, but seeing this article sparked my memory.
pcthrowaway 5y ago
So if someone wants to build up their resume, can they not work at an Apple store for a year or two after graduating then make up a fancy job title and description that will get their foot in the door anywhere else?
johncessna 5y ago
Looking back at my career, I don't think this would have impacted me in any way. I've found titles to be meaningless this industry. They may hold some weight in FAANG companies only because folks know what an amazon L5, microsoft 62, google, facebook E4, etc. are. There's even a handy website [1] to compare them. When you get out of FAANG, titles becomes even more irrelevant. What's a Programmer VI compared to a senior associate consultant? I think this is part of the reason why we have the 'show me what you know' interviews. Degrees, Titles, past experience maybe get you in the door, but you still need to pass the tech interview for the role. [1] https://www.levels.fyi https://www.levels.fyi
- joshstrange 5y ago
  Titles are stupid, I agree. I've had varying titles throughout my career and they've never meant anything, all I care about is the compensation, call me whatever you want. In larger companies I understand the reasoning behind them a little more but outside of FAANG they really don't matter. I've even worked at places that had SE 1, SE 2, Senior SE levels, the compensation has zero ties to those titles. I know for a fact there were SE2's that made a lot more than the seniors (and no, this wasn't just some overlap in compensation tiers, there were no compensation tiers, just made up titles).
vsskanth 5y ago
Something that's not mentioned here is this refusal to even confirm what you worked on also affects people's immigration status. To approve I-140, USCIS requires a signed letter from employers confirming your title, experience and skill sets. Most companies really don't like to give these details out for some reason, and it's always a struggle, especially outside tech. People manage by contacting their managers to past coworkers to attest this. This is intended as a general observation and not about AAPL (I can't attest to what happens there). Naturally, you can see how this puts pressure on visa employees to leave on good terms and be compliant knowing you might not be able to extend your visa otherwise.
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  In that case it is interesting that the law does not mandate this. In France you get a paper with the name of the company and the dates of your employment. This is the only information a company can provide, and confirm when requested. The concept of referrals does not exist in practical terms (I had to give some once for an American company and gave good friends who said I was wonderful) - because they would not work. All this is closely regulated by law.
  - vsskanth 5y ago
    There's no law in the US unfortunately so there's no obligation on the employer to provide this information either. There is something called "The Work Number" that certain employers subscribe to for employer verification, but that is not accepted by USCIS.
    - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
      In that case can't you prove this via your pay slips? Or your tax filings?
      - vsskanth 5y ago
        I've seen some people use a combination of payslips and offer letters as evidence to submit to USCIS but its rolling the dice, since it really depends on the immigration officer looking at your file. Some are OK, some aren't.
drewg123 5y ago
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.
- rmah 5y ago
  Google will not confirm your title. They will only say you worked there.
  - drewg123 5y ago
    There is an internal page called epitaphs which lists your title/level when you departed. So any current employee could check "for a friend". Or at least this was the case in 2015 when I left.
sprayk 5y ago
(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 position/level they claim to be. I worked briefly at Apple as contractor doing some professional services integration type stuff in the datacenter space, and one thing that struck me was how secrecy seemed to ooze it's way into super unexpected places. This was to the point that I wondered if an infosec team had a hand in designing some of the systems I was working with that were way closer to the power lines than they were to the products they were designing. This was also around the time that I was reading about Apple's "Worldwide Loyalty Team" and how they would plan operations to catch people leaking. As an aside, does anyone know how accurate the reporting was/is on the "Worldwide Loyalty Team"? Looking back it seems absurd, to the point where it makes more sense to me as a myth than fact.
- rvba 5y ago
  They dont want others to pouch their employees - so they screw those who leave by deleting their title?
  - sprayk 5y ago
    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.
    - rvba 5y ago
      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_Litigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
rootusrootus 5y ago
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?
- titoCA321 5y ago
  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.
cosmiccatnap 5y ago
tinalumfoil 5y ago
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 assigned me, I’ll tell them. EDIT: Telling companies a Level 5 engineer was an associate if associate isn't a superset of Level 5's is shady, and I can't defend Apple on that point. From what I read of the article that wasn't clear to me. They do say the title is generally linked to more junior roles but that's relative and you can still be old, experienced and well-paid but if you're not a manager I might consider that an associate.
- sumeno 5y ago
  Apple doesn’t consider them to be associates though, that’s the point. Their job titles at Apple AND in the databases are accurate up until they leave the company and only then is their title demoted to Associate.
- smrz 5y ago
  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"
  - theli0nheart 5y ago
    > 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.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > 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."
ctheb 5y ago
A recent HN submission [1] highlighted that a surprising amount of detailed employment history is shared by employers with third parties. When I pulled mine it said “SW Dev Eng 4”, curious to see if that’ll change to “Associate” after I quit… or if third parties track the entire title history, like they do track salary history. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753
- draw_down 5y ago
browningstreet 5y ago
This fits cleanly into my recent hiring experiences. I can't remember a new employer ever contacting an old employer to verify employment. I've worked in SF for 20+ years now... and currently work for an SF based financial entity. They did a background check, as is normal in this industry, but that was it. In fact, I've always been prepared to say "no" to contacting previous employers, as it's just annoying. And as someone who has hired hundreds of people, I've never been called to verify someone's previous employment. It may happen out there, but from my own experience, it feels like an edge case.
notRobot 5y ago
https://archive.fo/SBHpF https://archive.fo/SBHpF
pfortuny 5y ago
So this is exactly like in sects? You leave and automatically you just “were not that important”… Even if you were the CEO? What if Tim leaves? Or has he signed a permanent contract? Is he afraid to leave?
ramesh31 5y ago
I imagine this has a lot to do with the variability around titles in such a large organization. Many teams will use "titles as compensation" or otherwise have wildly different metrics for what constitutes a particular level, even if there is technically a single corporate level policy. Should a new-grad hire that makes senior in 3 years be considered on paper at the same level as a 15+ year senior dev? Probably not, and this seems like a pretty equitable way to solve that problem.
ryandrake 5y ago
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 was, what salary I made, what department I was in, or any of that. I wish all companies just submitted "Previously worked here" as your title, for all former employees, which would nullify the privacy intrusiveness of this data.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  I agree, I find the whole "DB of past employers, title, salary, etc" to be quite disgusting. Furthermore if you are just using your past title to swing a new job then I question your ability. Prove that you can perform at the level you want to be hired at. If companies are too stupid to find a way to test for that (or too stupid to have a probationary period to find people that made it past initial screens) then that's not a company I care to work for. Hire me because I have the skills you need, not because I held some made-up rank at another company.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  The problem is not that Apple obscures the job title. The problem is that Apple supplies the job title, but sometimes it is the incorrect value.
reaperducer 5y ago
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 have done for the last 500 years — "Sorry, but we're not hiring right now." Automated resume screening systems are rarely correct, and while they may filter out a percentage of unqualified applicants, they also routinely filter out the best people for the job. That's why every job counselor tells you the best thing to do is to find a human being in the company to make contact with.
- Aloha 5y ago
  The emphasis in Human Resources is often really on the Resources part. It's not universally true, but I've seen it enough, to believe that the name influences the way people think about it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
barelysapient 5y ago
Apple, a company notorious for secrecy, may have very legitimate reasons for canvassing employee job titles to a single innocuous string. Unless apple signed a contract with another party that promises accurate and historical internal job title disclosure, this is the fault of the validation services who a promising something they’re not able to deliver.
- bink 5y ago
  No one in the article or in these comments is saying that what Apple is doing is illegal or violates a contract. It's just a scummy thing to do.
  - barelysapient 5y ago
    I’m not familiar with any company that does this wittingly. It’s extends confidential internal data, without context and exposes the company to litigation risks otherwise avoided by a firm ‘no comment’ policy. For employees at an officer or director level, their job titles are already disclosed via mandatory SEC and other required disclosures.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Someone 5y ago
FTA: “whose résumé conflict with official databases maintained by job verification services run by companies such as Equifax and Lexis-Nexis” 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)
rdtsc 5y ago
Am I the only one surprised these sharing databases even exist? What if Apple went the other way, and artificially inflated the level? Every engineer is "Senior engineer level XIV". Or, they could be evil and tie the level entered to the conditions of leave. If you sign a bunch of non-competes and non-disclosures etc, you get marked 2 levels up in this db. One of my employers used to let us pick our own titles. We couldn't say "CEO", of course, but if you'd like to be "Super staff engineer IV" or "Solutions Architect III" you could. They didn't care as long as you helped out and did a good job.
- penguin_booze 5y ago
  It's unsettling that these behind the scenes database/cliques exists. Some time ago, I listened to a podcast (might be NPR) that talked about an employee, who left a financial firm, couldn't find a new job. Every opportunity to which he applied, either rejected him with unconvincing reasons or ghosted him. Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outside that job will be miserable.
  - rdtsc 5y ago
    > Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outside that job will be miserable. Pretty darn evil. It's even worse because if he sues them to correct the "mistake", then that also makes newer employers less likely to hire him ("he likes to litigate with his employers, and we don't want trouble"), unless they are actually reasonable and dive in to understand what exactly happened.
knodi 5y ago
I would love to ditch to ditch apple for everything given a better alternative (its not android or windows).
HL33tibCe7 5y ago
> “We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of any individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters,” There’s a real skill in saying exactly zero while at the same time hitting a home run of $YEAR’s bullshit corporate talking points.
- 0des 5y ago
  With the way outrage flows unchecked these days can you blame them? Someone can be a C-level one day and the focus of bad press the next day, and the entire world holds their brand accountable. Everyone has a non-binding, non-committal relationship to their employer, and the employer is all too happy to cut-and-run to save face by the plausible ability to say "not our guy", or "this is just a support tech". It's the 2022 form of "Your call is important to us, sit tight and someone will be with you shortly." It is a viable strategy straight out of the 2022 playbook because it works to "placate and wait" while the news cycle moves on to the next scandal-du-jour.
angumagu 5y ago
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 effect are demanding that basic facts are ownable by the company.
- changoplatanero 5y ago
  sounds like something out of the CIA
  - thenipper 5y ago
    Almost. In my experience those periods of employment are just blank.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Way back when but assume this is still the case, there were positions in the CIA (in DC, i.e. not agents) where you officially worked for someone like the Navy and weren't supposed to tell people you worked for the CIA. I was offered such a position but didn't take it.
      - samhw 5y ago
        Yeah, this is my experience too, at least in the UK. We had a close family friend whose father, the patriarch of the family, worked for 'the Army' his whole life. It was only after he died that they discovered - somehow - that it was actually 'intelligence' work. I'm sure it's different for secretarial roles, leadership roles, etc, but for the bulk of people it seems like the usual career path is up through the normal military, and officially they remain in the military. (I also knew some linguists - normally of somewhat exotic languages like Arabic or Russian – who were taken aside at Oxford or Cambridge and asked if they were interested in working in intelligence.)
Waterluvian 5y ago
There's a database? It feels collusion-y. "We don't trust what you're telling us. We might end up paying you too much. Let's consult the database and see if you're actually a Level 5 Wizard.
sonthonax 5y ago
What employer when trying to hire high value people would use Equifax to verify resumes?
briandear 5y ago
Is it possible Cher's offer was rescinded once the employer googled her and discovered that hiring her would be a potential nightmare? I was in a Slack room she was in during an all-hands meeting and I remember that it wasn't my favorite interaction to watch. Can't really say more about it, but if I were a hiring manager, even if my company did everything perfectly -- I'd worry about hiring an employee that is prone to very publicly airing real or imagined dirty laundry with the media and/or being aggressively activist among other employees. Really wouldn't want the drama. Claiming an offer was rescinded because of a job title mismatch -- I've never heard of that. It's very likely the employer did some research while waiting for the reference check to come back. Being able to conclusively say why the employer rescinded the offer is just speculation.
arcticbull 5y ago
> 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.
zeruch 5y ago
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.
lupire 5y ago
Apple is not the bad guy here. The bad guys are the incompetent employment verification agencies and the employers who rescind offers based on their competitors refusal to divulge irrelevant information.
nunez 5y ago
I think this is _mostly_ a non-issue, as providing an offer letter and a paystub from that period of employment usually sidesteps background check verification issues like this. This is why I always save my offer letters and the first paystub. (You can lose access to them after you leave) Failing that, a candidate can usually contact a manager after their departure to verify job title and such. Of course, this becomes an issue when you don't have good rapport with your manager and don't have proof of employment saved. Promotions and job transfers usually come with title change and/or offer emails with them as well.
niij 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220210142944/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/10/apple-associate/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220210142944/https://www.washi...

336 points by semiquaver 5y ago

For a group of people who, in the main, disdain credentialism there is a lot of focus on titles here. My resume probably doesn't have any of my formal HR titles. I couldn't tell you what my current formal title is with any certainty.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blamazon 5y ago

https://archive.ph/SBHpF https://archive.ph/SBHpF

tablespoon 5y ago

> 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 employees when they leave. Apple also changes titles for employees who have taken a leave of absence, the person said. So basically, if your new employer checks your title before you leave Apple, you're fine? This is a huge dick move by Apple.

Maxburn 5y ago
I can't think of a legitimate reason for it other than to create problems for people that leave Apple. That practice sounds pretty dirty.
- progforlyfe 5y ago
  Why would anyone worthy ever leave Apple? Such a thing would be so... unclean.
PedroBatista 5y ago
This is Apple's DNA and much more in recent years. The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. The pettiness of continuing to charge 30% fees in one way or the other when they have been ordered by the courts to open their restrictions. The constant sabotage of everything related to repairing their products many times making their own stuff shittier. And now the "Either you are a faceless Apple minion, or your existence is a mere footnote". It's the Apple we all know and love.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  > The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. Ignoring the fact you completely missed the point of the DTK, this is factually wrong. The store credit was $500.
  - mh- 5y ago
    It was $200 initially, then increased to $500. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-developers-increased/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-de...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - PedroBatista 5y ago
    No, I'm quite right. It was "upgraded" to $500 after much uproar.
    - jsjohnst 5y ago
      I just checked my emails and it was always $500 credit offered after returning for me, so maybe some DTK folks were offered $200? Either way, it ultimately was $500 however by your own admission, even if initially stated to some as $200.
kuroguro 5y ago
Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.
- exhilaration 5y ago
  There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.
  - tomcam 5y ago
    Maybe the parent poster was exaggerating a teeny bit for your viewing pleasure
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> 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 https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions Correction: ...and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," it would raise suspicions...
bradly 5y ago
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.
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  But if someone wants to verify your role (which sounds reasonable), contacts Apple and they say you were an associate while you said you were a senior, that's gonna cause problems. And apparently is.
  - bradly 5y ago
    Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior 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 new company?
    - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
      > 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 new company? Dunno, but a hiring manager for a tech firm probably knows better than me or you. Either way, obfuscating your previous role isn't a good thing.
      - bradly 5y ago
        > Because people lie, constantly. The new company interviewed me. They can decide if I'm qualified or not.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Leaving a cult is the ultimate sin in most cults, so it is not surprising at all. Any Apple employees reading this that want out, here’s a guide for help. https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
- wpietri 5y ago
  Wow. I have read a bunch of cult-escapee biographies, as the cult dynamic fascinated me. All of them had an extreme narcissist at the center. Somehow I had never connected that with the famous tech company with an extreme narcissist at the center. But you're right, that pattern of retaliation against people who dare to leave fits perfectly here.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I mean, I don't feel like Tim Cook is an extreme narcissist cult leader, but I don't know enough about him. Of course, the fact that he hasn't mythologized himself as much as Steve Jobs did is a piece of evidence in favor of him not being a narcissist. If I had to choose a "tech company cult" it would be Tesla/SpaceX/Boring/whatever else Musk is running.
    - eloisant 5y ago
      Apple was clearly a cult company when Steve Jobs was CEO, and I feel like they continued to work as they did by inertia.
    - bitwize 5y ago
      Tim Cook could just be the Miscavige to Jobs's Hubbard. The charismatic, narcissistic cult leader often has a bulldog of a right hand man who enforces order and compliance, keeping the cult together even after the leader is gone.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      The narcissistic personality at the center of Apple’s culture today is Apple itself. Even Cook speaks in near-reverential tones about the company he leads. Most corporations try to do this in the long run; it’s arguably inherent in the concept of incorporation, which is etymologically and legally the creation of a new “person.” Even if it starts with an iconic founder, in the long run the company itself must become the object of loyalty to survive. Comms, HR, and marketing teams spend tons of effort to create a corporate personality and culture. (Note the root of the word culture.) Apple famously set up their own “university” to develop and instill their culture. Loyalty to the company, distrust of outsiders, personal adherence in a “mission”: these are not things specific to or invented by Apple. Although the specific vindictive tactic of hiding titles is one that I’ve not heard of before.
torstenvl 5y ago
> 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 "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well. While it may not be ideal, and may not support truthful claims of relative seniority, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done with any malice. EDIT: Apparently some people strongly disagree. If you disagree, might I ask what evidence you have of malice?
- josh2600 5y ago
  Came here to say this. As far as I’m concerned this is a privacy protection. It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.
  - sumeno 5y ago
    > It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check. Only if they left on good terms.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.
      - sumeno 5y ago
        Not every negative departure is the departee's fault. As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.

dncornholio 5y ago

There's databases out there with everyone's career record where you have no control over but the employers do? I rest my case..

furyg3 5y ago
Wait, can a future employer request my past salary information from InVerify (or another service) without my approval or permission?
- spaceywilly 5y ago
  Yeah how is this not the big story here? I had no idea there was a public database employers could use to look up everything about me. Can I check this database to make sure my records are correct and who do I talk to if they’re not? This is pretty wild
- runnerup 5y ago
  Yes: https://theworknumber.com https://theworknumber.com There's currently no legal constraint on the use/sale of this privately-held/privately-sold data. The background-check forms you sign are not for this, they're primarily for legal permission to check your credit history.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  I don't know about InVerify specifically, but yes, this is a thing companies do.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Yes, this is why one should not lie about one’s former salary. I have lost candidates over this; HR caught them in a lie and blocked them on integrity grounds.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    Maybe if companies didn't attempt to lowball candidates this wouldn't be an issue? My past compensation is none of a new company's business, all that matters is the number I'm willing to work for. Since companies refuse to give salary ranges often (see: number of jobs not available to people in CO) I see no reason to come to the table at a disadvantage.

_fat_santa 5y ago

Wouldn't there be other ways for you to prove you were a "Level 4" or whatever at Apple and not an associate? An offer letter from Apple? Or just the totality of circumstances in general. If say you're interviewing for a "Sr Engineer" position, you're just not going to have an instance where the candidate shows experience and knowledge but doesn't get hired because some record from Lexis Nexis says that he was an "associate" at Apple prior to coming here. Something like that I feel would get resolved in conversation very quickly.

NazakiAid 5y ago
Maybe covered by NDA or could be forged? I don't know how it works if you accept the NDA and get promoted within.
sly010 5y ago
You can try (especially if you know ahead of time) but background check is done by a third party. Recruiters and interviewers don't care until background check flags it. You can try to be upfront about it, but it just creates a weird situation and they will defer to the 3rd party background check anyway. Any evidence you may share with the background check company is not present on the final background report (since it might contain salary information which would be illegal i guess). It's a little bit like credit reporting, if your bank misreports in a few places you are f*ed.
- Kon-Peki 5y ago
  3rd party background checks are notoriously noisy. Companies that expect them to be the Word of God are, at best, naïve. Every employer should be ready to resolve "discrepancies" that come back without any negative thoughts about the potential employee. If they can't or won't do that, I don't think you want to work for them. A few years ago, I was involved in a spinoff and they decided that all the employees would need to go through a background check. Of the ~90 people, something like 10 people (>10%!!!) had weird stuff that turned out to be completely wrong. For example, one person was reported to be currently in prison 5 states over. Some others were "we can't verify this person ever worked for ABC Corp". We were ABC Corp. Most of these background check companies, they'd say of course there are a lot of Mike Smiths around, but Patty Jones? No no, there has only ever been one Patty Jones in all of human history.

shapefrog 5y ago

Steve Jobs; former associate at Apple.

SilasX 5y ago
"Well, he went on medical leave, so we changed his title to Mainstream Medicine Denier and then Organ System Pentester." Reference: https://apecsec.org/steve-jobs-liver-transplant-controversy/ https://apecsec.org/steve-jobs-liver-transplant-controversy/
- froggertoaster 5y ago
  Not funny.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Why not? We can't criticize someone's reckless, selfish decision, even ten years past their death from it?
  - the-alt-one 5y ago
    Very funny.
  - james-redwood 5y ago
    It's hilarious
  - magikaram 5y ago
    Pretty funny.
  - gaius_baltar 5y ago
    > 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.
    - SilasX 5y ago

piva00 5y ago

It surprised me much more to know that there are databases maintained by the likes of Equifax about persons' complete employment history, job titles and all... I think GDPR here in Europe really woke up the feeling that this kind of data shouldn't exist without explicit approval from the person which PII belongs to. This is beyond fucked up in my data privacy minded worldview.

stuff4ben 5y ago
Exactly right! There is PII data out there that refers to us but we can't access and can't correct and can't deny the use of to others. This seems like a pretty big privacy thing that needs to be corrected.
thfuran 5y ago
Equifax has way more than just employment history.
jtbayly 5y ago
Ok, but let’s back it up one step. Am I (a random internet guy) allowed to call the company you claim you currently work for on LinkedIn, and ask them whether you work there in such and such a position? Can I ask them how much they pay you? Sure, I can ask, but can they answer? Is all or some of that really privileged information? There are two parties in your employment, and both own the information. Are you prohibited from telling others you work there or how much they pay you? If not, why would the employer be prohibited from telling others?
- yebyen 5y ago
  There's an entire sea of difference between confirming or refuting a fact of employment that has been put forward during a hiring process, as part of a screen, and sharing everything with anyone who asks, including those shady characters over there who asked every employer to share everything about everyone simultaneously because their business is about building a database and selling access to it. That being said, if the employers actually benefit (even in a collusive way) from sharing that information in such a manner, I'm not sure how to argue that they shouldn't be able to do that.

NazakiAid 5y ago

Well that's scummy and doubt it was done naively.

gwbas1c 5y ago

I remember when I interned at Intel, on the way out I asked about references and I was told, very nicely, that Intel's official policy is to only confirm employment. I suspect that this is really what Apple is doing; but that some accident of circumstance required them to provide a very generic title. Perhaps they can't confirm employment without some kind of title, and that title's now been twisted out of context? FYI: The practice mildly makes sense. Many employment issues are highly subjective, so a large company might decide that saying anything about a former employee is a liability, so they'll only say the minimal possible facts: "Yes, X is a former employee from [date range.]" Or, "No, X never worked for us."

manuelabeledo 5y ago
Title is nothing subjective. In fact, titles and levels can be matched between two companies easily. Anyway, this is not what Apple is doing. They are downgrading everyone by default, which is akin to providing false information about a former employee.
- hammock 5y ago
  "Associate" is not a downgrade. It's a generic title that means "employee" and literally everyone (except maybe named officers in the legal filings) is an associate.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    disagree. If I leave a company I am have no role there - I am not an associate, a customer service rep, or an engineer. What was I during my employment is a question of fact that can be answered without liability, but changing my title and lying to inquirers about what it was might be a liability.
    - hammock 5y ago
      No one is saying you weren't a CSR, or an engineer, or anything else. They simply aren't providing that i for around. Instead, they are confirming employment, calling you an employee. If you have never worked at a company that case employees "associates" this may feel foreign to you, but rest assured it's extremely common and not something to get your ego in a knot over.

tedivm 5y ago

I think it's really important to note that Apple does not have to share their database with these third party companies, but not only do they choose to do so they also make sure the information is wrong. Apple is, essentially, being unethical on two levels. They're selling or sharing employee information, and they're purposefully making it so that information is wrong. I want to stress this- I ask during the interview process of every company I work at whether they share employment information with the credit bureaus and most say no. I've worked at startups and a couple of larger companies. What Apple is doing here seems purely vindictive. I'm also not sure how this is legal- it seems like it would fall under defamation laws. I would personally be willing to sue over this (but I've never worked for Apple).

hammock 5y ago
>Apple does not have to share their database with these third party companies, but not only do they choose to do so they also make sure the information is wrong. Apple is, essentially, being unethical on two levels By giving out wrong personal information, the argument could be made that they are protecting privacy. I do not believe saying "associate" is wrong, though. It's a term that is commonly used by HR to refer generically to anyone who works for a company. If you haven't encountered it, it may feel foreign to you, especially since Apple is a retail company and you may be conflating it with "retail associate." That's not what it means though. "Employee" is a term fraught with legal and other liability in it's use (think Uber drivers - are they employees or contractors?). HR departments will refer to everybody as “associates” to mitigate risk. If Apple wanted to confirm employment, but not divulge titles, they could say associate. Similarly, Starbucks uses "partners." Do you really think a barista is a part-owner in Starbucks and that's why they're called a partner?
- dsr_ 5y ago
  If they wanted to protect privacy, they would only have two responses: "We confirm that this person worked for Apple, ending on [date]. By policy, we don't discuss any further details." "We do not have records that this person worked for Apple."

trenning 5y ago

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.

waffle_maniac 5y ago
The easiest way to get 20% more at a new gig is by inflating your salary by 20% at your old gig.
Wiseacre 5y ago
I'm sure a non-zero number of ex-Apple interns will try putting "Senior Software Engineer" on their resume for a $350,000 director gig at a startup.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  and risk going to prison for fraud?
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    If lying on your resume is fraud, then we're going to need a whole lot of prison cells.
    - axiosgunnar 5y ago
      „i leveraged prior experience in ultra-scalable real-time systems at the edge with my people skills to produce X“ type of bullshit is different than „i had this very specific role at a large and known company that is only assigned to people that have demonstrated high levels of skill“, the latter is plain fraud if not true. it‘s like saying „i have a pilot license“ if you don't
      - 5y ago

tantalor 5y ago

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

codehitchhiker 5y ago
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?
- rmah 5y ago
  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.
  - codehitchhiker 5y ago
    I'm complaining about Apple because they cost me more than $10,000 in wages by being the only ones who LIE. Omission would be nice, especially across the board, but that's not what this is. They put me in a position where I had to prove I didn't lie. If there's a law that employers cannot ask for your previous job title, that's great, but employers shouldn't be allowed to furnish fraudulent data either.
    - tantalor 5y ago
      I don't see how its fraud. "Associate" is a pretty generic term for any employee below C-suite or partner.

whalesalad 5y ago

I took full advantage of my @apple.com address when I was in sales at the Ala Moana store. Hard to believe the webmail software at that time was Squirrelmail.

mschuster91 5y ago

> official databases maintained by job verification services run by companies such as Equifax and Lexis-Nexis Sweet jesus how is that even legal?! And... why are companies outsourcing what used to be a core competence of an HR department?!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 5y ago
The US is a surveillance state entrepreneurial free for all. I suspect the surveillance databases we know about are only the tip of the iceberg. "You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now" - in a movie that was released over 25 years ago, and our society has been sleepwalking further into the panopticon ever since. We desperately need a US version of the GDPR, one that doesn't get neutered by all of these surveillance industries interested in preserving the status quo of their anti-human businesses. In fact I'd say the US should just wholesale adopt the EU GDPR verbatim, and let the courts figure out the details arising from different legal systems. That couldn't be any more complex than interpreting all of the loopholes the corporate Parties would end up adding to newly-drafted privacy legislation.

sillyquiet 5y ago

Apple also was involved with the really shady no-compete-clause stuff for former employees, so this does not surprise me, but I don't know if I am ready to attribute this to malice yet - I can imagine there being some HR system that does this automatically as a default for employees that don't have a title at Apple anymore.

dekhn 5y ago

So, uh, if you leave apple you could just put "Directly Responsible Engineer/Principal Engineer" on linkedin and... nobody could verify it, and apple wouldn't have the data to prove you wrong anymore? Hmm.

hyposcaler 5y ago

I'm not sure this is exactly Apple, or certainly not only Apple that is doing this. I recently grabbed a copy of my work report from theworknumber.com (basically equifax) and noticed that for some employers my title was listed as associate. Didn't think anything about it much at the time, but seeing this article sparked my memory.

pcthrowaway 5y ago

So if someone wants to build up their resume, can they not work at an Apple store for a year or two after graduating then make up a fancy job title and description that will get their foot in the door anywhere else?

johncessna 5y ago

Looking back at my career, I don't think this would have impacted me in any way. I've found titles to be meaningless this industry. They may hold some weight in FAANG companies only because folks know what an amazon L5, microsoft 62, google, facebook E4, etc. are. There's even a handy website [1] to compare them. When you get out of FAANG, titles becomes even more irrelevant. What's a Programmer VI compared to a senior associate consultant? I think this is part of the reason why we have the 'show me what you know' interviews. Degrees, Titles, past experience maybe get you in the door, but you still need to pass the tech interview for the role. [1] https://www.levels.fyi https://www.levels.fyi

joshstrange 5y ago
Titles are stupid, I agree. I've had varying titles throughout my career and they've never meant anything, all I care about is the compensation, call me whatever you want. In larger companies I understand the reasoning behind them a little more but outside of FAANG they really don't matter. I've even worked at places that had SE 1, SE 2, Senior SE levels, the compensation has zero ties to those titles. I know for a fact there were SE2's that made a lot more than the seniors (and no, this wasn't just some overlap in compensation tiers, there were no compensation tiers, just made up titles).

vsskanth 5y ago

Something that's not mentioned here is this refusal to even confirm what you worked on also affects people's immigration status. To approve I-140, USCIS requires a signed letter from employers confirming your title, experience and skill sets. Most companies really don't like to give these details out for some reason, and it's always a struggle, especially outside tech. People manage by contacting their managers to past coworkers to attest this. This is intended as a general observation and not about AAPL (I can't attest to what happens there). Naturally, you can see how this puts pressure on visa employees to leave on good terms and be compliant knowing you might not be able to extend your visa otherwise.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago
In that case it is interesting that the law does not mandate this. In France you get a paper with the name of the company and the dates of your employment. This is the only information a company can provide, and confirm when requested. The concept of referrals does not exist in practical terms (I had to give some once for an American company and gave good friends who said I was wonderful) - because they would not work. All this is closely regulated by law.
- vsskanth 5y ago
  There's no law in the US unfortunately so there's no obligation on the employer to provide this information either. There is something called "The Work Number" that certain employers subscribe to for employer verification, but that is not accepted by USCIS.
  - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    In that case can't you prove this via your pay slips? Or your tax filings?
    - vsskanth 5y ago
      I've seen some people use a combination of payslips and offer letters as evidence to submit to USCIS but its rolling the dice, since it really depends on the immigration officer looking at your file. Some are OK, some aren't.

drewg123 5y ago

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.

rmah 5y ago
Google will not confirm your title. They will only say you worked there.
- drewg123 5y ago
  There is an internal page called epitaphs which lists your title/level when you departed. So any current employee could check "for a friend". Or at least this was the case in 2015 when I left.

sprayk 5y ago

(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 position/level they claim to be. I worked briefly at Apple as contractor doing some professional services integration type stuff in the datacenter space, and one thing that struck me was how secrecy seemed to ooze it's way into super unexpected places. This was to the point that I wondered if an infosec team had a hand in designing some of the systems I was working with that were way closer to the power lines than they were to the products they were designing. This was also around the time that I was reading about Apple's "Worldwide Loyalty Team" and how they would plan operations to catch people leaking. As an aside, does anyone know how accurate the reporting was/is on the "Worldwide Loyalty Team"? Looking back it seems absurd, to the point where it makes more sense to me as a myth than fact.

rvba 5y ago
They dont want others to pouch their employees - so they screw those who leave by deleting their title?
- sprayk 5y ago
  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.
  - rvba 5y ago
    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_Litigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...

rootusrootus 5y ago

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?

titoCA321 5y ago
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.

cosmiccatnap 5y ago

tinalumfoil 5y ago

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 assigned me, I’ll tell them. EDIT: Telling companies a Level 5 engineer was an associate if associate isn't a superset of Level 5's is shady, and I can't defend Apple on that point. From what I read of the article that wasn't clear to me. They do say the title is generally linked to more junior roles but that's relative and you can still be old, experienced and well-paid but if you're not a manager I might consider that an associate.

sumeno 5y ago
Apple doesn’t consider them to be associates though, that’s the point. Their job titles at Apple AND in the databases are accurate up until they leave the company and only then is their title demoted to Associate.
smrz 5y ago
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"
- theli0nheart 5y ago
  > 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.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > 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."

ctheb 5y ago

A recent HN submission [1] highlighted that a surprising amount of detailed employment history is shared by employers with third parties. When I pulled mine it said “SW Dev Eng 4”, curious to see if that’ll change to “Associate” after I quit… or if third parties track the entire title history, like they do track salary history. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753

draw_down 5y ago

browningstreet 5y ago

This fits cleanly into my recent hiring experiences. I can't remember a new employer ever contacting an old employer to verify employment. I've worked in SF for 20+ years now... and currently work for an SF based financial entity. They did a background check, as is normal in this industry, but that was it. In fact, I've always been prepared to say "no" to contacting previous employers, as it's just annoying. And as someone who has hired hundreds of people, I've never been called to verify someone's previous employment. It may happen out there, but from my own experience, it feels like an edge case.

notRobot 5y ago

https://archive.fo/SBHpF https://archive.fo/SBHpF

pfortuny 5y ago

So this is exactly like in sects? You leave and automatically you just “were not that important”… Even if you were the CEO? What if Tim leaves? Or has he signed a permanent contract? Is he afraid to leave?

ramesh31 5y ago

I imagine this has a lot to do with the variability around titles in such a large organization. Many teams will use "titles as compensation" or otherwise have wildly different metrics for what constitutes a particular level, even if there is technically a single corporate level policy. Should a new-grad hire that makes senior in 3 years be considered on paper at the same level as a 15+ year senior dev? Probably not, and this seems like a pretty equitable way to solve that problem.

ryandrake 5y ago

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 was, what salary I made, what department I was in, or any of that. I wish all companies just submitted "Previously worked here" as your title, for all former employees, which would nullify the privacy intrusiveness of this data.

joshstrange 5y ago
I agree, I find the whole "DB of past employers, title, salary, etc" to be quite disgusting. Furthermore if you are just using your past title to swing a new job then I question your ability. Prove that you can perform at the level you want to be hired at. If companies are too stupid to find a way to test for that (or too stupid to have a probationary period to find people that made it past initial screens) then that's not a company I care to work for. Hire me because I have the skills you need, not because I held some made-up rank at another company.
snowwrestler 5y ago
The problem is not that Apple obscures the job title. The problem is that Apple supplies the job title, but sometimes it is the incorrect value.

reaperducer 5y ago

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 have done for the last 500 years — "Sorry, but we're not hiring right now." Automated resume screening systems are rarely correct, and while they may filter out a percentage of unqualified applicants, they also routinely filter out the best people for the job. That's why every job counselor tells you the best thing to do is to find a human being in the company to make contact with.

Aloha 5y ago
The emphasis in Human Resources is often really on the Resources part. It's not universally true, but I've seen it enough, to believe that the name influences the way people think about it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

barelysapient 5y ago

Apple, a company notorious for secrecy, may have very legitimate reasons for canvassing employee job titles to a single innocuous string. Unless apple signed a contract with another party that promises accurate and historical internal job title disclosure, this is the fault of the validation services who a promising something they’re not able to deliver.

bink 5y ago
No one in the article or in these comments is saying that what Apple is doing is illegal or violates a contract. It's just a scummy thing to do.
- barelysapient 5y ago
  I’m not familiar with any company that does this wittingly. It’s extends confidential internal data, without context and exposes the company to litigation risks otherwise avoided by a firm ‘no comment’ policy. For employees at an officer or director level, their job titles are already disclosed via mandatory SEC and other required disclosures.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Someone 5y ago

FTA: “whose résumé conflict with official databases maintained by job verification services run by companies such as Equifax and Lexis-Nexis” 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)

rdtsc 5y ago

Am I the only one surprised these sharing databases even exist? What if Apple went the other way, and artificially inflated the level? Every engineer is "Senior engineer level XIV". Or, they could be evil and tie the level entered to the conditions of leave. If you sign a bunch of non-competes and non-disclosures etc, you get marked 2 levels up in this db. One of my employers used to let us pick our own titles. We couldn't say "CEO", of course, but if you'd like to be "Super staff engineer IV" or "Solutions Architect III" you could. They didn't care as long as you helped out and did a good job.

penguin_booze 5y ago
It's unsettling that these behind the scenes database/cliques exists. Some time ago, I listened to a podcast (might be NPR) that talked about an employee, who left a financial firm, couldn't find a new job. Every opportunity to which he applied, either rejected him with unconvincing reasons or ghosted him. Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outside that job will be miserable.
- rdtsc 5y ago
  > Later he found out that his previous manager poisoned the well in some shady database to make sure his life outside that job will be miserable. Pretty darn evil. It's even worse because if he sues them to correct the "mistake", then that also makes newer employers less likely to hire him ("he likes to litigate with his employers, and we don't want trouble"), unless they are actually reasonable and dive in to understand what exactly happened.

knodi 5y ago

I would love to ditch to ditch apple for everything given a better alternative (its not android or windows).

HL33tibCe7 5y ago

> “We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of any individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters,” There’s a real skill in saying exactly zero while at the same time hitting a home run of $YEAR’s bullshit corporate talking points.

0des 5y ago
With the way outrage flows unchecked these days can you blame them? Someone can be a C-level one day and the focus of bad press the next day, and the entire world holds their brand accountable. Everyone has a non-binding, non-committal relationship to their employer, and the employer is all too happy to cut-and-run to save face by the plausible ability to say "not our guy", or "this is just a support tech". It's the 2022 form of "Your call is important to us, sit tight and someone will be with you shortly." It is a viable strategy straight out of the 2022 playbook because it works to "placate and wait" while the news cycle moves on to the next scandal-du-jour.

angumagu 5y ago

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 effect are demanding that basic facts are ownable by the company.

changoplatanero 5y ago
sounds like something out of the CIA
- thenipper 5y ago
  Almost. In my experience those periods of employment are just blank.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Way back when but assume this is still the case, there were positions in the CIA (in DC, i.e. not agents) where you officially worked for someone like the Navy and weren't supposed to tell people you worked for the CIA. I was offered such a position but didn't take it.
    - samhw 5y ago
      Yeah, this is my experience too, at least in the UK. We had a close family friend whose father, the patriarch of the family, worked for 'the Army' his whole life. It was only after he died that they discovered - somehow - that it was actually 'intelligence' work. I'm sure it's different for secretarial roles, leadership roles, etc, but for the bulk of people it seems like the usual career path is up through the normal military, and officially they remain in the military. (I also knew some linguists - normally of somewhat exotic languages like Arabic or Russian – who were taken aside at Oxford or Cambridge and asked if they were interested in working in intelligence.)

Waterluvian 5y ago

There's a database? It feels collusion-y. "We don't trust what you're telling us. We might end up paying you too much. Let's consult the database and see if you're actually a Level 5 Wizard.

sonthonax 5y ago

What employer when trying to hire high value people would use Equifax to verify resumes?

briandear 5y ago

Is it possible Cher's offer was rescinded once the employer googled her and discovered that hiring her would be a potential nightmare? I was in a Slack room she was in during an all-hands meeting and I remember that it wasn't my favorite interaction to watch. Can't really say more about it, but if I were a hiring manager, even if my company did everything perfectly -- I'd worry about hiring an employee that is prone to very publicly airing real or imagined dirty laundry with the media and/or being aggressively activist among other employees. Really wouldn't want the drama. Claiming an offer was rescinded because of a job title mismatch -- I've never heard of that. It's very likely the employer did some research while waiting for the reference check to come back. Being able to conclusively say why the employer rescinded the offer is just speculation.

arcticbull 5y ago

> 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.

zeruch 5y ago

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.

lupire 5y ago

Apple is not the bad guy here. The bad guys are the incompetent employment verification agencies and the employers who rescind offers based on their competitors refusal to divulge irrelevant information.

nunez 5y ago

I think this is _mostly_ a non-issue, as providing an offer letter and a paystub from that period of employment usually sidesteps background check verification issues like this. This is why I always save my offer letters and the first paystub. (You can lose access to them after you leave) Failing that, a candidate can usually contact a manager after their departure to verify job title and such. Of course, this becomes an issue when you don't have good rapport with your manager and don't have proof of employment saved. Promotions and job transfers usually come with title change and/or offer emails with them as well.

niij 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20220210142944/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/10/apple-associate/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220210142944/https://www.washi...