5 ms·

Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. I can see it being problematic when apply

by treis 5y ago

Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. I can see it being problematic when applying to Government or enterprise roles. They will do their due diligence and might rescind an offer if they find a discrepancy.

ghaff 5y ago
My external title (which is also what's on my resume) has generally not corresponded to my official HR title--which I might not even know off the top of my head. There's this weird fixation on specific levels associated with technical roles at the big tech companies which mostly doesn't exist anywhere else outside of the very highest levels. It's also not clear to me from the article that Apple is changing the person's level when they leave. I read the article as saying they just don't share titles. And I'm not even clear that the information is shared at all until end of employment.
- kesselvon 5y ago
  Titles are important for pay reasons, as they correspond to pay bands. People that say titles don't matter are probably already making outsized compensation and don't find it important because their resume speaks for itself. A manager and director can be doing the same job, but the title matters in terms of their compensation and potential title at their next job.
  - markkanof 5y ago
    I wouldn't dispute your point that titles are important, but would ask, should they be? It doesn't seem that they really mean much at a lot of places, or are sometimes even given out in place of compensation. One anecdote I can think of is my company hired a front end developer right out of a bootcamp. After a few months he went on to a job at a large sports apparel manufacturer with the title of Senior Engineer. He was competent and a sharp guy, but come on, Senior with less than a years worth of professional experience.
trulyawful 5y ago
I’ve been investigated by federal and state governments nine times (welcome to contracting) since leaving Apple, up to and including a full SSBI, and have never heard a word about a discrepancy. Ever. Public sector, private sector, HireRight, nobody has ever flagged it, and I know what that looks like because others have been. HireRight in particular is sensitive to job level or title differences in what you report as part of their investigation, and again, it’s never remotely been an issue. I think people put a lot of stock in these databases which are updated voluntarily by employers. When it matters it’s double checked anyway. If a background shop can’t get an answer from Apple in a week it’s a bad background shop, because that’s literally automated (and the last copy I requested from a CRA had my title correctly reported by Apple, including my seniority level). I hate dismissing the claim and I’m not. Rest assured I believe this tomfoolery to be on brand. There’s just more nuance to this, I think, and it’s even more interesting if it’s intermittently impacting formers. Could this be the result of the “do not rehire” box being checked in Merlin? I know mine isn’t, and I also know that it is often (quietly) checked when people depart, and that might be the difference.
- Retric 5y ago
  Apple lying to the federal or state government etc doing background checks is quite different than sharing incorrect information to private systems.
  - trulyawful 5y ago
    I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. It has never happened to me in either context and I left Apple quite acrimoniously. Apple lying at all is bad. It doesn’t matter to who. It’s potential liability if a candidate gets wind of it, but if these folks are going after the NLRB to address the concern, I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case (probably because Apple confirmed their role accurately to the investigation in question regardless of what the credit reporting database says, I would guess).
    - 5y ago
quietbritishjim 5y ago
> Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha". That's not lying! That's just not telling. And it's no reason for a future company to be suspicious.
- treis 5y ago
  >It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha" I don't think that's clear. And if that's the message they want to send why not just confirm employment but not state a level?
  - bink 5y ago
    They're submitting this data to Lexis-Nexis. It's not about employers calling Apple to verify the info. Lexis-Nexis most likely requires a title and Apple is changing it after people leave.
- CPLX 5y ago
  That exact allegation, that an offer was rescinded, is the subject of a lawsuit mentioned prominently in the article.
- some_random 5y ago
  The problem is that some employers DON'T understand that is what's going on and come to the conclusion that you're lying.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
I'm really curious why employers care at all about your past employment. To me it always seem just a an advertisement if that. How I and my colleagues got hired and makes 100% sense to me: 1. Skim their github 2. Ask questions about their stuff on github or some past work they shared 3. Give them a realistic task and a week to solve and push to github. Evaluate it - very easy to gather the motivation and skill. 4. Evaluate performance for a month or two. If they say what they are it will appear immediately. Of course some psychopathic companies want you to solve shit on the spot, which is kinda fine if it reflects actual work culture.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I'm really why employers care at all about your past employment Some of it is “can you perform” Some of it is assessing how little they can get away with offering you, if they decide to hire.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by treis 5y ago

ghaff 5y ago

My external title (which is also what's on my resume) has generally not corresponded to my official HR title--which I might not even know off the top of my head. There's this weird fixation on specific levels associated with technical roles at the big tech companies which mostly doesn't exist anywhere else outside of the very highest levels. It's also not clear to me from the article that Apple is changing the person's level when they leave. I read the article as saying they just don't share titles. And I'm not even clear that the information is shared at all until end of employment.

kesselvon 5y ago
Titles are important for pay reasons, as they correspond to pay bands. People that say titles don't matter are probably already making outsized compensation and don't find it important because their resume speaks for itself. A manager and director can be doing the same job, but the title matters in terms of their compensation and potential title at their next job.
- markkanof 5y ago
  I wouldn't dispute your point that titles are important, but would ask, should they be? It doesn't seem that they really mean much at a lot of places, or are sometimes even given out in place of compensation. One anecdote I can think of is my company hired a front end developer right out of a bootcamp. After a few months he went on to a job at a large sports apparel manufacturer with the title of Senior Engineer. He was competent and a sharp guy, but come on, Senior with less than a years worth of professional experience.

trulyawful 5y ago

I’ve been investigated by federal and state governments nine times (welcome to contracting) since leaving Apple, up to and including a full SSBI, and have never heard a word about a discrepancy. Ever. Public sector, private sector, HireRight, nobody has ever flagged it, and I know what that looks like because others have been. HireRight in particular is sensitive to job level or title differences in what you report as part of their investigation, and again, it’s never remotely been an issue. I think people put a lot of stock in these databases which are updated voluntarily by employers. When it matters it’s double checked anyway. If a background shop can’t get an answer from Apple in a week it’s a bad background shop, because that’s literally automated (and the last copy I requested from a CRA had my title correctly reported by Apple, including my seniority level). I hate dismissing the claim and I’m not. Rest assured I believe this tomfoolery to be on brand. There’s just more nuance to this, I think, and it’s even more interesting if it’s intermittently impacting formers. Could this be the result of the “do not rehire” box being checked in Merlin? I know mine isn’t, and I also know that it is often (quietly) checked when people depart, and that might be the difference.

Retric 5y ago
Apple lying to the federal or state government etc doing background checks is quite different than sharing incorrect information to private systems.
- trulyawful 5y ago
  I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. It has never happened to me in either context and I left Apple quite acrimoniously. Apple lying at all is bad. It doesn’t matter to who. It’s potential liability if a candidate gets wind of it, but if these folks are going after the NLRB to address the concern, I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case (probably because Apple confirmed their role accurately to the investigation in question regardless of what the credit reporting database says, I would guess).
  - 5y ago

quietbritishjim 5y ago

> Future employers will ask your level and if Apple tells them something different they're going to think you're lying. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha". That's not lying! That's just not telling. And it's no reason for a future company to be suspicious.

treis 5y ago
>It's clear that "associate" means "they worked here but we won't tell you what as, ha ha" I don't think that's clear. And if that's the message they want to send why not just confirm employment but not state a level?
- bink 5y ago
  They're submitting this data to Lexis-Nexis. It's not about employers calling Apple to verify the info. Lexis-Nexis most likely requires a title and Apple is changing it after people leave.
CPLX 5y ago
That exact allegation, that an offer was rescinded, is the subject of a lawsuit mentioned prominently in the article.
some_random 5y ago
The problem is that some employers DON'T understand that is what's going on and come to the conclusion that you're lying.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

I'm really curious why employers care at all about your past employment. To me it always seem just a an advertisement if that. How I and my colleagues got hired and makes 100% sense to me: 1. Skim their github 2. Ask questions about their stuff on github or some past work they shared 3. Give them a realistic task and a week to solve and push to github. Evaluate it - very easy to gather the motivation and skill. 4. Evaluate performance for a month or two. If they say what they are it will appear immediately. Of course some psychopathic companies want you to solve shit on the spot, which is kinda fine if it reflects actual work culture.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'm really why employers care at all about your past employment Some of it is “can you perform” Some of it is assessing how little they can get away with offering you, if they decide to hire.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]