6 ms·

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 employ

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.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        instead of giving the working title while there, they lie and say you're an associate when you aren't when not employed by apple, and weren't when you were there, because your title wasn't associate. It's either a lie or sabotage, and neither way good for the employee.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    Right, so are you telling me that an associate and an “associate VP” are the same thing?
- axg11 5y ago
  > Title is nothing subjective. In fact, titles and levels can be matched between two companies easily. There is zero truth to this statement. Perhaps job families can be matched (engineering vs sales, manager vs IC). Other than that, it’s impossible to equate. I’ve seen a VP of Engineering at a startup start as a junior engineer at a FAANG.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > I’ve seen a VP of Engineering at a startup start as a junior engineer at a FAANG. This is a fringe case. In turn, there are widely available spreadsheets where you can find the equivalent levels across dozens of companies, most popular of which are FAANG.
  - sennight 5y ago
    > Other than that, it’s impossible to equate. Well if you totally ignore the concept of scale, sure. It sounds like your "VP of Engineering" at a startup was actually a junior engineer not doing anything you'd expect a VP to really do... like manage a complex hierarchy of departments, managers, and special projects.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  Software Engineer 1, Software Engineer 4... Often the title is bestowed to keep someone in a pay grade. ("Oh, we are really strict about salaries and only pay market rate. Everyone within the same title gets paid the same... But I think I can get you promoted to rank 22.")
tedivm 5y ago
You're really bending over backwards here to justify really bad behavior. Apple is actually bringing on liability by lying about what people's titles really were. They aren't saying "nothing", they're actually defaming their previous employees by lying about their level.
- tptacek 5y ago
  They're not "lying about their level". Contra the article, the term "associate" does not in fact mean "junior employee"; I can think of huge companies where everyone's formal title is "associate" regardless of seniority, in the same way that Bell Labs did MTS. Further, nobody is "bending over backwards" to defend anybody; they're writing their own take on what happened. You're asked by the guidelines to assume good faith in other commenters.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    This would make sense if people’s titles were “associate” while employed at Apple, but they are not. It’s the title change that seems weird and vindictive. It’s not like Apple has to report a title at all to external databases.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      It's a generic word that means "you worked here". Which is the point of the parent comment: it's a way of confirming that someone was an employee without revealing their title, a la Intel.
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        The generic word for someone who is employed is employee.
        tptacek 5y ago
        At Apple, it's "associate". I can think of other places that's the case as well.
uf00lme 5y ago
Additional titles can sometimes be used to determine business strategy or product development, Apple can be ultra secretive about both. I suspect that would be part of the official rational for doing it.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
The the title would have been changed to “former employee”, not “associate”, for which the only conceivable reason seems to be to confuse.
- hammock 5y ago
  Associate means employee
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I was under the impression the problem was Apple was representing the person as a current employee, but I think I am wrong about that. If apple is confirming correct dates of employment, then I would have to retract.
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    Associate, in the USA at least, has a strong connotation of a junior position. As the article points out, there are plenty of examples of associate being used to describe a more junior position. And you know what other word unambiguously means 'employee'? That wouldn't cause this sort of clamor? Yes, 'employee' is that word.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      What if they were a contractor? Or were both an employee and a contractor over the course of their time there? I'm an "associate" at the company I work for and I'm certainly not junior. I certainly don't take offense at considering myself as an associate. In specific contexts, e.g. an associate vs. a partner at a law firm, it has a different meaning but it's also a very common term to refer to all employees at a company.
LegitShady 5y ago
the employee's title while working there doesn't represent any liability that I can think of, and changing it post employment and lying about their title to anyone inquiring seems like a liability instead. Seems like they're trying to sabotage people's careers if they leave apple.

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.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      instead of giving the working title while there, they lie and say you're an associate when you aren't when not employed by apple, and weren't when you were there, because your title wasn't associate. It's either a lie or sabotage, and neither way good for the employee.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Right, so are you telling me that an associate and an “associate VP” are the same thing?
axg11 5y ago
> Title is nothing subjective. In fact, titles and levels can be matched between two companies easily. There is zero truth to this statement. Perhaps job families can be matched (engineering vs sales, manager vs IC). Other than that, it’s impossible to equate. I’ve seen a VP of Engineering at a startup start as a junior engineer at a FAANG.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > I’ve seen a VP of Engineering at a startup start as a junior engineer at a FAANG. This is a fringe case. In turn, there are widely available spreadsheets where you can find the equivalent levels across dozens of companies, most popular of which are FAANG.
- sennight 5y ago
  > Other than that, it’s impossible to equate. Well if you totally ignore the concept of scale, sure. It sounds like your "VP of Engineering" at a startup was actually a junior engineer not doing anything you'd expect a VP to really do... like manage a complex hierarchy of departments, managers, and special projects.
gwbas1c 5y ago
Software Engineer 1, Software Engineer 4... Often the title is bestowed to keep someone in a pay grade. ("Oh, we are really strict about salaries and only pay market rate. Everyone within the same title gets paid the same... But I think I can get you promoted to rank 22.")

tedivm 5y ago

You're really bending over backwards here to justify really bad behavior. Apple is actually bringing on liability by lying about what people's titles really were. They aren't saying "nothing", they're actually defaming their previous employees by lying about their level.

tptacek 5y ago
They're not "lying about their level". Contra the article, the term "associate" does not in fact mean "junior employee"; I can think of huge companies where everyone's formal title is "associate" regardless of seniority, in the same way that Bell Labs did MTS. Further, nobody is "bending over backwards" to defend anybody; they're writing their own take on what happened. You're asked by the guidelines to assume good faith in other commenters.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  This would make sense if people’s titles were “associate” while employed at Apple, but they are not. It’s the title change that seems weird and vindictive. It’s not like Apple has to report a title at all to external databases.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    It's a generic word that means "you worked here". Which is the point of the parent comment: it's a way of confirming that someone was an employee without revealing their title, a la Intel.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      The generic word for someone who is employed is employee.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        At Apple, it's "associate". I can think of other places that's the case as well.

uf00lme 5y ago

Additional titles can sometimes be used to determine business strategy or product development, Apple can be ultra secretive about both. I suspect that would be part of the official rational for doing it.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The the title would have been changed to “former employee”, not “associate”, for which the only conceivable reason seems to be to confuse.

hammock 5y ago
Associate means employee
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I was under the impression the problem was Apple was representing the person as a current employee, but I think I am wrong about that. If apple is confirming correct dates of employment, then I would have to retract.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  Associate, in the USA at least, has a strong connotation of a junior position. As the article points out, there are plenty of examples of associate being used to describe a more junior position. And you know what other word unambiguously means 'employee'? That wouldn't cause this sort of clamor? Yes, 'employee' is that word.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    What if they were a contractor? Or were both an employee and a contractor over the course of their time there? I'm an "associate" at the company I work for and I'm certainly not junior. I certainly don't take offense at considering myself as an associate. In specific contexts, e.g. an associate vs. a partner at a law firm, it has a different meaning but it's also a very common term to refer to all employees at a company.

LegitShady 5y ago

the employee's title while working there doesn't represent any liability that I can think of, and changing it post employment and lying about their title to anyone inquiring seems like a liability instead. Seems like they're trying to sabotage people's careers if they leave apple.