6 ms·

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 wer

by 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.
        random314 5y ago
        Same at Walmart
        snowwrestler 5y ago
        If Apple or Walmart want to use “associate” internally as a euphemism for “employee,” because they think it sounds nicer or something, obviously they can. But the database field we’re taking about is Job Title. And Apple knows what it is; they populate that field with actual job titles for current employees, and they use such databases themselves to check their own applicants. If your point is that “associate” is an overloaded term, acknowledged. But don’t expect me to believe Apple doesn’t know that. They use it in junior titles themselves. If they don’t want to provide it for former employees they could blank the field or supply a value like “Not Provided” which would have been even more clear about what is going on.
        tptacek 5y ago
        It's not an overloaded term. It means "employee".
  - cbm-vic-20 5y ago
    They may as well say all former employees are Vice Presidents then, if it makes people feel better. It's just as meaningless as saying all former employees are "associates". To add another anecdote: I work for a non-FAANG big tech co, which also provides former employees the 1-800 number that a new employer can use to verify employment; they do not reveal tiles or salary. As a manager, I cannot provide a reference for former employees.
- SilasX 5y ago
  I have to disagree. If they don't want to give titles, they should ... not give titles. That is, give no information for that field/query. If the system requires it, do something like "n/a". When you state "employee title: Associate", you are conveying[1] that the title "Associate" Is A Thing at Apple, and the former employee had that title. And if (as is the case here) it is the most unadorned title anyone can have at Apple, then their title was the most unadorned one. If that's not actually the case, that does seem like "lying about their level". So I'd say there's a big difference between not answering about title, vs making something up and affirming the made-up thing was had. [1] to any reasonable person until you explicitly clarify otherwise
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Starbucks calls all its employees "partners". Are they misleading future employers in the opposite direction? It sounds to me like Apple is just another tech company that doesn't confirm titles, and that their generic word for "employee" is "associate". That is not a weird Apple thing; if you go out into the Fortune 500, you'll find a bunch of other companies that do the same thing. Contra this article, "associate" does not in fact mean "low-level employee".
    - SilasX 5y ago
      Starbuck refers to their employees as partners in addition to an actual title. (I worked for HEB in high school, which did the same thing.) If they genuinely had no titles for anyone beyond partner, then yes, that would be fine. Apple doesn't work like that.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Starbucks has internal titles as well!
        SilasX 5y ago
        Thus supporting my point, as I said. Edit: I'm "posting too fast", and this seems like a trivial point, so, in advance of being able to make a new comment: The relevant "point" here is not about what is or isn't SOP at any company, which I was never disputing. I was making a point about how they should convey employee status and whether Apple(etc)'s practice counts as "lying about your level". To summarize: 1) It's fine to have a policy of "never disclosing employee titles". 2) If you go that route, then you should simply not comment when asked about an employee title, and give "n/a" for a field requesting it. 3) Saying, "Employee title: Associate" is not doing that, because it's falsely asserting their holding of a title -- and that title's (false) reality -- that they do not hold. If you don't dispute any of that, great! If you do, I'd love to hear that commentary, on which it would be orthogonal to bring up what is or isn't SOP at any company.

by tedivm 5y ago

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.
      - random314 5y ago
        Same at Walmart
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        If Apple or Walmart want to use “associate” internally as a euphemism for “employee,” because they think it sounds nicer or something, obviously they can. But the database field we’re taking about is Job Title. And Apple knows what it is; they populate that field with actual job titles for current employees, and they use such databases themselves to check their own applicants. If your point is that “associate” is an overloaded term, acknowledged. But don’t expect me to believe Apple doesn’t know that. They use it in junior titles themselves. If they don’t want to provide it for former employees they could blank the field or supply a value like “Not Provided” which would have been even more clear about what is going on.
        tptacek 5y ago
        It's not an overloaded term. It means "employee".
- cbm-vic-20 5y ago
  They may as well say all former employees are Vice Presidents then, if it makes people feel better. It's just as meaningless as saying all former employees are "associates". To add another anecdote: I work for a non-FAANG big tech co, which also provides former employees the 1-800 number that a new employer can use to verify employment; they do not reveal tiles or salary. As a manager, I cannot provide a reference for former employees.
SilasX 5y ago
I have to disagree. If they don't want to give titles, they should ... not give titles. That is, give no information for that field/query. If the system requires it, do something like "n/a". When you state "employee title: Associate", you are conveying[1] that the title "Associate" Is A Thing at Apple, and the former employee had that title. And if (as is the case here) it is the most unadorned title anyone can have at Apple, then their title was the most unadorned one. If that's not actually the case, that does seem like "lying about their level". So I'd say there's a big difference between not answering about title, vs making something up and affirming the made-up thing was had. [1] to any reasonable person until you explicitly clarify otherwise
- tptacek 5y ago
  Starbucks calls all its employees "partners". Are they misleading future employers in the opposite direction? It sounds to me like Apple is just another tech company that doesn't confirm titles, and that their generic word for "employee" is "associate". That is not a weird Apple thing; if you go out into the Fortune 500, you'll find a bunch of other companies that do the same thing. Contra this article, "associate" does not in fact mean "low-level employee".
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Starbuck refers to their employees as partners in addition to an actual title. (I worked for HEB in high school, which did the same thing.) If they genuinely had no titles for anyone beyond partner, then yes, that would be fine. Apple doesn't work like that.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Starbucks has internal titles as well!
      - SilasX 5y ago
        Thus supporting my point, as I said. Edit: I'm "posting too fast", and this seems like a trivial point, so, in advance of being able to make a new comment: The relevant "point" here is not about what is or isn't SOP at any company, which I was never disputing. I was making a point about how they should convey employee status and whether Apple(etc)'s practice counts as "lying about your level". To summarize: 1) It's fine to have a policy of "never disclosing employee titles". 2) If you go that route, then you should simply not comment when asked about an employee title, and give "n/a" for a field requesting it. 3) Saying, "Employee title: Associate" is not doing that, because it's falsely asserting their holding of a title -- and that title's (false) reality -- that they do not hold. If you don't dispute any of that, great! If you do, I'd love to hear that commentary, on which it would be orthogonal to bring up what is or isn't SOP at any company.