3 ms·
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 requir
by 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 agoStarbucks 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 agoStarbuck 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 agoStarbucks has internal titles as well!
- SilasX 5y agoThus 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.
- tptacek 5y agoIt doesn't support your point. It supports the original commenter's, who points out that not confirming internal titles is SOP at a bunch of companies.
- snowwrestler 5y agoBut Apple does supply job titles for current employees. It’s only after someone departs that they change the value to something confusing. We all know that different companies work differently. How rare is what Apple does, and what harm does it cause? The article includes a tangible example of such harm. Can you share any insight that is specific to this practice? I know you’ve worked in the hiring space.
- titoCA321 5y agoI've worked with government organizations and military organizations where titles are "analyst" or "specialist". It even lists such on the business cards and pay stubs.