4 ms·

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

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).
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case Since we're speculating, my take is that having the NLRB investigate the issue first and finding Apple was being punitive would bolster their civic case, and give them more leverage in the eventual settlement - they'll skip from having to prove Apple caused harm directly to how much harm was done. Besides, outsourcing the investigations to the NLRB would cost them less (discovery is expensive!), and the NLRB has a clear mandate and can't be bogged down by appeals and other forms of delaying legal warfare. The NLRB is also likely to cast a broader net, and better resourced.
    - trulyawful 5y ago
      That’s a better take than mine. Good read.
  - codehitchhiker 5y ago
    I can assure you many lawyers have told me I do have a case. I went to the NLRB because the law that was being violated was the NLRA, and I was filing charges on behalf of others, not just me.
- ghaff 5y ago
  One can debate whether companies in general should use "associate" to refer to all their employees given that it has a specific meaning in some contexts, e.g. Big Law. Nonetheless, many companies do so. (Probably because employee has some specific legal meaning.) So it's not lying to basically say they worked here. I expect that many companies do this and it seems entirely appropriate.
  - Retric 5y ago
    If they always said Associate then that might be perfectly fine. Changing periods roles in their last pay period isn’t simply referring to everyone as an employee.
codehitchhiker 5y ago
If you get your InVerify or Work Number report, and it does not say associate, you would be an anomaly. InVerify told me it's really obnoxious because they have to keep a special process in place for Apple employees to get their actual job titles. The problem, of course, is that The Work Number, does not do this, which is who Sterling is partnered with instead of InVerify. HireRight will check InVerify AND The Work Number, and if you pull your reports from there (which I have), you can see that for yourself.
livinglist 5y ago
what was you investigated for?

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).
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case Since we're speculating, my take is that having the NLRB investigate the issue first and finding Apple was being punitive would bolster their civic case, and give them more leverage in the eventual settlement - they'll skip from having to prove Apple caused harm directly to how much harm was done. Besides, outsourcing the investigations to the NLRB would cost them less (discovery is expensive!), and the NLRB has a clear mandate and can't be bogged down by appeals and other forms of delaying legal warfare. The NLRB is also likely to cast a broader net, and better resourced.
  - trulyawful 5y ago
    That’s a better take than mine. Good read.
- codehitchhiker 5y ago
  I can assure you many lawyers have told me I do have a case. I went to the NLRB because the law that was being violated was the NLRA, and I was filing charges on behalf of others, not just me.
ghaff 5y ago
One can debate whether companies in general should use "associate" to refer to all their employees given that it has a specific meaning in some contexts, e.g. Big Law. Nonetheless, many companies do so. (Probably because employee has some specific legal meaning.) So it's not lying to basically say they worked here. I expect that many companies do this and it seems entirely appropriate.
- Retric 5y ago
  If they always said Associate then that might be perfectly fine. Changing periods roles in their last pay period isn’t simply referring to everyone as an employee.

codehitchhiker 5y ago

If you get your InVerify or Work Number report, and it does not say associate, you would be an anomaly. InVerify told me it's really obnoxious because they have to keep a special process in place for Apple employees to get their actual job titles. The problem, of course, is that The Work Number, does not do this, which is who Sterling is partnered with instead of InVerify. HireRight will check InVerify AND The Work Number, and if you pull your reports from there (which I have), you can see that for yourself.

livinglist 5y ago

what was you investigated for?