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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.