3 ms·
This was my first thought. Apple is notoriously secretive, even internally. They likely see this as a way to prevent folks from reverse engineering through jo
by Spoom 5y ago
This was my first thought. Apple is notoriously secretive, even internally. They likely see this as a way to prevent folks from reverse engineering through job titles what former employees were working on. (Agreed that it's super shitty and likely overkill, but I think this is a better explanation than outright trying to screw former employees.)
In this case, though, why not replace the job title with "Employee"?
- qqii 5y agoExactly, or expulge and refuse to provide job titles? That begs the question, why do they provide this information to third parties anyway?
- codazoda 5y agoI'm not going to make a judgment call on why but it does seem feasible that their system could have a drop-down for title, there is nothing generic in that list, so someone decided to use "Associate".
- meowface 5y ago>In this case, though, why not replace the job title with "Employee"? One (non-tech) company I worked at had a pretty stringent policy of always referring to "associates" rather than "employees". I don't exactly know why; maybe some kind of branding or psychological thing, like "you're part of the family" instead of "you're working for us". It admittedly does sound a little more pleasant.
- ghaff 5y agoUsing "associate" or something along those lines is extremely common. It does seem a bit more pleasant and it also steers clear of employee vs. contractor legal distinctions.
- FastMonkey 5y agoI've worked in a couple of different industries, and from what I've seen an associate is generally a title for junior staff. After a few years, most graduate some type of specialist or project management job title.
- meowface 5y agoThis wasn't the case for the company I worked at. It applied to everyone of every rank. Not as a title, but just a general descriptor used in place of "employee" or "personnel".