3 ms·

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’

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.

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.