Hacker News Reader

Comment by torstenvl | Hacker News Reader

> This is a huge dick move by Apple.

Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose.

HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liability reasons, and many corporate HR departments have a policy of confirming only whether an employee worked for the company, and nothing else.

Choosing a vague term like "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well. While it may not be ideal, and may not support truthful claims of relative seniority, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done with any malice.

EDIT: Apparently some people strongly disagree. If you disagree, might I ask what evidence you have of malice?

View on HN

Came here to say this. As far as I’m concerned this is a privacy protection.

It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.

> It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.

Only if they left on good terms.

If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.

Not every negative departure is the departee's fault.

As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.

If you spent 2 years somewhere and can’t find a single person to even confirm that you worked the position you’re asserting, something’s wrong.

Have you done this? Because the article says it is not trivial.

It's not just employee degradation, companies don't want to give information about employees for many reasons. Businesses don't want poachers coming into their yard stealing employees. There's fraud and identity theft risks, not just to the employee but the company as well. Businesses don't want others outbidding them on contracts and personnel. And finally, what's the return on investment for former or current employers to spend time detailing their previous and current employees? Are customers going to pay them extra? Will shareholders be happy Wal-Mart gives reviews to the retailer across the street about departing employees during a labor shortage?

> Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose.

Do you mean "Chesterton's Fence"? I get no hits for "Chesteranlon's Razorfence" or "Chesterton's Razorfence."

That is a pretty remarkable corruption of the term, though. Or are you trying to coin a term?

> HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liability reasons, and many corporate HR departments have a policy of confirming only whether an employee worked for the company, and nothing else.

> Choosing a vague term like "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well.

Except that's not what "associate" does -- it's a job-title term associated with low rank. It would have been far more obvious to use "employee" if they wanted a vague term that simply meant employee or something like "title not provided" if they wanted to make it clear what they were doing.

It also sounds like they do load the correct title to this database while the employee is still employed at Apple (otherwise, what would they change when they leave), so it doesn't seem like they're mainly concerned about "confirming only whether an employee worked for the company." If they were, why not just give everyone a generic title in the DB from the start?

> Do you mean "Chesterton's Fence"? I get no hits for "Chesteranlon's Razorfence" or "Chesterton's Razorfence."

It's a merging of Chesterton's Fence and Hanlon's Razor

>>> Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situatio

>> Or are you trying to coin a term?

> It's a merging of Chesterton's Fence and Hanlon's Razor

Given that's a neologism that was literally introduced here, it probably should have had bit more of an introduction. Infix compounds are really weird in English.

Ok? If you have a problem with the phrase or how it was introduced you should tell torstenvl that.

I was just answering the question you asked because I happened to see the context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com