Every Employee Who Leaves Apple Becomes an 'Associate' (washingtonpost.com) 192
Inside Apple, your job classification can mean a lot. The difference between a "level 4" engineer and a "level 5," for instance, could mean a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. And those titles help determine how much Apple employees can make when they leave the company for another job. But there's a hitch. From a report: In widely used databases that companies refer to for verification of job information, Apple changes the job title for every employee, whether they're a PhD in computer science or a product manager, to "associate," the company confirms. Apple's approach is bizarre if not unique, experts in employment practices say, but until now has gone largely unnoticed by anybody but a handful of job applicants whose resume conflict with official databases maintained by job verification services run by companies such as Equifax and Lexis-Nexis. The title "associate" is generally used to connote more junior roles. Entry-level retail workers, for instance, are often called associates. Law firms refer to recent law school hires in the same way, and in universities, associate professors are ranked below those with the title "professor." Further reading: SEC Looking Into Apple's Use of Nondisclosure Agreements, Whistleblower Says.
databases maintained by job verification services? (Score:2)
Does HR fill in the info into the databases maintained by job verification services and at other places do they just put in basic info?
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely looks like revenge to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. Standard policy at most companies is to only verify the employment dates and absolutely zero else including reason for separation, salary, position, or responsibilities. Many won’t even verify what division someone worked at.
Responsibility goes to the employee to provide a promotion or offer letter, or performance evaluation to validate their title.
it's fraud (Score:2, Interesting)
They never worked a full day under the title "associate". Reporting the most recent title where a paycheck has actually been given is the correct response that an inquiry to HR should result. Any untrue response is potentially fraud is money is changing hands. And a violation of employment law in Apple's own state.
I hope HR and Legal have a lot of fun working together in the future. Because it's obvious they haven't spent much time together before. (typical of Silicon Valley tech companies)
standard reporting (Score:3)
Some companies only respond with "confirming employment, and hire and departure dates" for reference checks. This minimizes the possibility of compliance issues. Individual managers are not permitted to provide any, or any more, information. They are instructed to redirect reference check to HR.
It's not a totally unreasonable approach as it prevents a vindictive manager from disseminating incorrect information. It also protects against law suits.
Re: (Score:2)
Some companies only respond with "confirming employment, and hire and departure dates" for reference checks. This minimizes the possibility of compliance issues. Individual managers are not permitted to provide any, or any more, information. They are instructed to redirect reference check to HR.
Most companies I have worked for do just that and no more; for the veery reason you mention:
It's not a totally unreasonable approach as it prevents a vindictive manager from disseminating incorrect information. It also protects against law suits.
No smart company wants to risk a lawsuit because something they said was either wrong of open to interpretation. A manager might not even be vindictive but what is said could be misinterpreted. It's not just the ex employee that could sue, you don't want to give a glowing review only to have them do something that their new employee feels happened because they hired them based on your review.
Re: (Score:2)
Doe whichever state we're talking about, have a law saying the former employer is required to share the job title? It might be as simple as "Associate" meaning "none of your damn business, competitor" (aka NULL, Declined to State, 867-5309, NO PLATES, Your Mom, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
If what you want is honesty and transparency, make Apple report the person's salary to anyone who asks. That speaks volumes more than some made-up title.
Re: (Score:2)
The former employee can easily do this with a check stub or W2. Most even break out bonuses from salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Associate was their double secret title, known only to Steve Jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, should HR say they were “Employee?” That is about all most employers will ever give.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a "Member of Technical Staff" at several places. This isn't so unusual to apply a very general job title to a large swath of employees, or even all of them. But what is unusual is retroactively changing a person's role. This could be done to hide information from the public. To punish those who leave the company. To suppress wages in your industry. All sorts of shady crap are potentially possible with the non-standard behavior at Apple's HR department.
The obsession with titles (Score:2)
Sorry cupcake. You might be "Big Swinging D***" in your delusional mind, but the database only calls you "associate"! Love it.
(Slightly off-topic, I know.) The more someone is obsessed with having the right title on their business card, the more of a problematic sociopath they will turn out to be. I've learned that if it starts with a fight over a meaningless title, it will get worse from there.
Deliver results. That is what matters. Your title does not.
Re:The obsession with titles (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I work, employees can choose their own titles.
One of the shipping clerks has "Supreme Commander" printed on her business cards.
Letting people choose their titles makes them happy and is way cheaper than paying them more.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of this episode of Cheers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That shipping clerk might be an Asgard in disguise.
Re: (Score:3)
The obsession is valid when questioned. I don't give a flying fuck what my title is, but I do not find it at all pleasant having to explain to someone looking at my employment history why I went from Senior Engineer to Principal Engineer and then to Senior Engineer again not because I was demoted or fucked up, but rather because my company decided to restructure and reclassify its grades during a merger. It's usually sufficient enough to point out that going back to Senior engineer came with a $20k salary i
OK, Apple Genius Bar applying for Data Architect (Score:3)
Sorry cupcake. You might be "Big Swinging D***" in your delusional mind, but the database only calls you "associate"! Love it.
(Slightly off-topic, I know.) The more someone is obsessed with having the right title on their business card, the more of a problematic sociopath they will turn out to be. I've learned that if it starts with a fight over a meaningless title, it will get worse from there.
Deliver results. That is what matters. Your title does not.
You must not work in tech. It's completely unregulated, which means there's ABSOLUTELY NO PENALTY for lying during the application process. It's entirely on the employer to screen COMPLETE bullshitters and I have had to do so before. Removing the ability to verify title from a large employer makes it worse.
For example, someone who says they have a PhD from MIT but can't name a single building, street, or landmark on campus. I've had people say they have 20 years of experience in a language that's 10 ye
Re: (Score:2)
Also street and building names? I remember my dorm names and could certainly describe the layout, inside and out, of every major building on c
We don't obsess, but decision-makers do (Score:2)
If you have the wrong title, you're in danger of getting passed up for raises when the time comes. Larger companies can and do limit compensation based on your title alone - regardless of how valuable you may be to a company.
It's the easiest way for larger organizations to make general/sweeping decisions about pay cuts/raises.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry cupcake. You might be "Big Swinging D***" in your delusional mind, but the database only calls you "associate"! Love it.
(Slightly off-topic, I know.) The more someone is obsessed with having the right title on their business card, the more of a problematic sociopath they will turn out to be. I've learned that if it starts with a fight over a meaningless title, it will get worse from there.
Deliver results. That is what matters. Your title does not.
'Titles' absolutely do matter---to the gatekeepers. If you're applying for 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo' for Spacely Sprockets, then HR (more likely their HR Software) will have screened you 14 ways to Sunday. And, if your CV/Resume says you were 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo' at Apple as one of your past jobs, but they're now labeling you as 'Associate', you can bet the gatekeepers (or their software) are going to reject your CV/Resume and you won't even be considered for an interview at Spacely
Re: (Score:3)
Oh my god, you are the silliest, most obnoxious snowflake I have ever seen.
The results you deliver is what matters to THE COMPANY. The job title is not there for the benefit of the company. Instead, it, along with the paycheck and the benefits, are what matters to the EMPLOYEE.
Only a total douchebag has no concern at all about what the employee gains. You are basically saying the employee should work for free. This is called slavery.
Titles, benefits, and pay are COMPENSATION for working. Nobody works w
Apple is the opposite of Walmart (Score:3)
Apple is the opposite of Walmart.
Their store cashiers are called "Geniuses" and their PHDs are called "Associates".
sorry ass-hole (Score:2)
You can fuck off now.
You're comparing upselling to fraud enablement (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is the situation that we live in Bullshitters and mediocre people with titles that they use to jump from place to place. Their results don't matter because they hide their lack of competence in the team (the famous "we" for problems and the famous "I" for taking credit).
Everyone with half a brain upsells. When I interview, I don't correct people if they think I worked on the entire project and not just my subset. I don't entirely make up a position or even an entire category of technology. I don't tell people I managed 100 engineers when I am simply a software engineer. I don't tell people I am a data architect for a large project, either.
Removing the ability to verify past job titles is enabling outright fraud, not just upselling
Conflict resolution (Score:2)
All my pay stubs, at all my employers over the years, have listed my job position/category, so a copy of the last stub should clear that up for prospective employers -- even if you obscure the pay amount ...
Re:Conflict resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
a piece of paper/online report probably isn't going to trump what HR gets from their background check reports. and thats if you're even given an opportunity to dispute their findings instead of "we went with another candidate"
Re: (Score:2)
a piece of paper/online report probably isn't going to trump what HR gets from their background check reports. and that's if you're even given an opportunity to dispute their findings instead of "we went with another candidate"
Sure, but if a company is going to ignore you and your stated qualifications simply because Lexis-Nexis (or whoever) reports a different job category for you, like "Associate" -- especially if this is a well-known issue -- then do you really want to work for them anyway? Fuck 'em, their loss...
Hopefully, better companies know background checks aren't infallible and will ask you about any discrepancies, especially simple ones like this -- if you're otherwise qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think reading TFS (I know, I know) the issue is that people entering their job applications online get dinged and blocked long before they get a chance to show anyone their paystubs.
Of course, most people probably can't do an employment background check on themselves and don't know what those entities report about them, so anything they enter could mismatch. If a companies ignore applicants for stuff like that, then they're idiots -- especially if the reported job status is lower or more generic than what the applicant reports. Granted that may be difficult is the process is automated, but then again, if that's so, they're also idiots.
Personally, I never had (or noticed) an issue
Re: (Score:2)
What, you've never forged a pay stub? Well aren't you a goody two shoes. The rest of us started forging those decades ago so the bank would give us a loan.
A former employer isn't a reliable source (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't judge an applicant based on what their former employer says about them the same way you shouldn't trust a person based on what their ex says about them. Of course, good luck explaining that when you don't even get to the interview because a "job verification service" decides that you "lied" on your CV.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't judge an applicant based on what their former employer says about them the same way you shouldn't trust a person based on what their ex says about them. Of course, good luck explaining that when you don't even get to the interview because a "job verification service" decides that you "lied" on your CV.
Nailed it..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right about not judging them, but the problem is that HR is never dinged for the rockstar they didn't hire, but rather, for the dud they do. So it costs them nothing to overlook excellent candidates (because they never know), but much more if they fail to catch the guy who shouldn't have been hired in the first place. In most companies, HR's job is to discriminate, not to discover. In terms of paring down a large set of resumes to a smaller set, any arbitrary reason which isn't illegal will
Does Apple have an "associate" position? (Score:2)
If this is only applied to ex-employees, then nothing wrong whatsoever.
If there are actual 'associate' positions in Apple, then this could be viewed as a demotion.
Since the word 'associate' is vague, it is not inaccurate.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is only applied to ex-employees, then nothing wrong whatsoever. If there are actual 'associate' positions in Apple, then this could be viewed as a demotion. Since the word 'associate' is vague, it is not inaccurate.
Except that it is wrong---because the gatekeepers (or their software) that compare your CV versus these databases will decide you're lying if it says 'Associate', when you were the 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo'--which is what your CV says you did there.
Just automation of policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple = Evil cult (Score:4, Insightful)
What are their business cards like? (Score:2)
I worked in the café... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets sabotage our former employees.. (Score:2)
Not necessarily nefarious (Score:2)
employee privacy (Score:2)
why should a 3rd party company have detailed job titles for any employees of any company? I consider that a data breach. so much for tik tok, facebook, google being the privacy bad guys.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Actually who leaves... (Score:2)
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:5, Informative)
I may add -- it's a normal practice to say that someone's an associate when they're employed in such a role. It's NOT a normal practice to imply that a more senior employee left the company as an associate, out of malice because they had the temerity to quit.
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:4, Insightful)
Counterpoint, I don't particularly want future employers to feel like they're entitled to know anything other than "yes, he worked here". They do not do background checks on people they aren't interested in hiring, anything found at this point can only be used against me. All they need to know is yes, he worked here.
They need to offer me a salary appropriate for the job I'm applying to, and whatever years of experience I have. Not just enough to beat what they think my former employer was paying me, or what I wrote on the job app. If they think I was truly an "associate" and offer minimum wage +1, I will know this is not a place I want to work, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Counterpoint: The normalization of this behavior will allow actual "associates" (actually anyone who cares to lie) to claim higher paying positions than would normally be offered due to the inability for anyone to verify anything useful about a candidate's previous employment. It is designed to frustrate the entire purpose of verification, leading to a world where it is not done, because it no longer has value.
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds fine. This entire system heavily favors people who spend their entire lives tethered to a corporation and heavily punishes contractors, people who travel heavily, entrepreneurs and a list of others. I'm not sure we want to keep it. I once worked with a guy who told me "I'm just here to establish a salary history, I'll be gone next year". While he was fine to work with, keeping in mind he's a dead man walking and acted the part, it was kind of silly. He had other income and priorities and was just abusing a broken system.
I agree hiring an under-qualified person to be your vice president of saying important things is a tragic misstep, but that's why you have interviews and why you invest more heavily in employees you have in hand and groom them to those positions.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually thought the system favors contractors, because you get a massive long and impressive sounding resume in fast track time.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comments are a little hard to reconcile, since you seem to be saying contractors are treated unfairly, and then the next paragraph you say companies should invest more in their employees rather than hiring high end talent. Here is something of a rebuttal:
Nobody wants to hire a contractor and invest in training, corporate culture integration and upskilling only to have that contractor leave for your competitor in 6 months. Contractors have the reputation they've earned in my experience.
About Upskillin
Re: (Score:3)
I would never have got a job since university without bullshitting. I remember when Java was 5 years old, you'd see job ads with employers wanting 10 years of Java experience. Employers have insane expectations, and the whole system is one where whoever can bullshit the most convincingly, wins. Having to not contradict some database, doesn't really change the essence of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
when Java was 5 years old, you'd see job ads with employers wanting 10 years of Java experience.
They know what they're doing. This is because they're required to offer the job domestically before hiring H1B employees. "Sorry, we couldn't find anyone in the US with the right qualifications."
Re: (Score:3)
Years ago, I got a Job doing PHP because they asked "what function do you think you use most?". I answered "Seriously I probably use echo() the most." Later I found out they had written that question to weed out bullshitters who claim some exotic encryption function or whatever... but they also found it funny that I said echo instead of print (for those of you not doing PHP, echo and print do the same thing, but echo was considered more elite at the time). The point is, bullshitting may have got you the
Re: (Score:3)
"The practice recently came to light when Cher Scarlett, a former Apple software engineer who raised concerns about alleged discrimination and misconduct at the company, filed a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that when Apple changed her job title to “associate,” it delayed the hiring process at a prospective employer by nearly a week, during which time the company rescinded the offer. Scarlett said the job verification service hired to vet her résum
Re: (Score:2)
I think in some states that is all they are allowed to verify. I'm not sure if titles is covered, but I know there are some rules around what a previous employer can say to someone validating employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying whether or not I think such lawsuits are justified, but the reality is that enough people have filed such lawsuits that many companies have decided to avoid the issue entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is why are the employers so fixated on the title of the person of their previous jobs.
Titles are cheap, and easy to give out. Most sales guys even Junior ones right out of school, get a title like VP of sales, but would probably just be paid commission, and not get the good accounts unless they stay in that career for a while, so they may be making minimum wage, while the Jr. Programmer may be making more money than him, and if that Jr. Programmer needs to have customer exposure, they may get
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because prestigious titles at *Apple* (and other top tier companies) aren't easy to get.
Just like how an Oscar has a lot more value than your high school award for best acting.
I would have thought this was blatantly obvious, but apparently not.
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:2)
I'm very grateful that I don't work at a company that relies on such checking services. Maybe Iâ(TM)ve been lucky by relying on my personal judgement and have not had to deal with the annoyance, cost and inconvenience of getting rid of somebody within their trial period due to them not living up to expectations, etc. Ultimately, a previous job title is only a clue and doesn't tell you if somebody is suitable for your particular open position or whether it's somebody you can work with.
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:4, Interesting)
For the most part is Someone had worked at a Famous company that too has little say.
Big companies means that people can do their one job and well enough not to get noticed and thrive with meritocracy.
I once worked for a company that required a 4 hour coding test for candidates. It required overlapping 2 HTML DIV, Creating a simple C# form that validates a proper zip code with leading 0's as a possibility, and debug a medium complex SQL stored procedure. There were a lot of people with fancy titles and resumes from big companies who bombed the test, while others who came from small unknown companies or had just worked for the state or local government, were able to answer it off right away. We had one person who give us a big fit that he had to take a test, because he worked for a fortune 500 company. We are like fine you just wont get a job, have a good day. Now the test isn't the only factor, we hired people who did poorly on the test, because they had other attributes that we liked and they turned out to be good employees, also we had people who did good on the test, that turned out to be a big mistake (mostly due to their personality). However in general the test correlated with their performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:5, Insightful)
As the employer, they can assign their employees any title they choose. As long as it's universal and everyone knows about it, I don't see an issue. A judge would laugh your lawsuit right out of the courtroom, possibly slapping you for contempt for wasting the court's time.
You mean EX employer.
There is one main reason "employee verification services" exist,; to confirm your PREVIOUS employment history.
And verification, implies you are validating their resume, and if I'm not specifically hiring an "associate", then this re-labeling bullshit, is bullshit, and can be quite impactful in the hiring process.
Another way of realizing how wrong this is? Shoe me who else is doing this across the entire industry of employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At least in some jurisdictions, if a company provides incorrect information, then they can be held liable. If everyone is labelled the same by policy, then it is legally safe. Some companies have a policy of no-comment on any previous employee, also for the same reason.
It really helps to leave on friendly terms with your boss / coworkers in these jurisdictions.
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that what Apple is doing, is simply refusing to supply a job title. And since there is probably some mandatory field, they are just saying this person was an employee. Personally I think it's a bit dodgy that companies are sharing your history with some 3rd party database, but I suppose if they're going to do it, they're under no obligation to share everything. And "associate" is just an alias for "employee".
Re: (Score:3)
Literally no one gives a fuck about the "current relationship". The entire basis for this is what the person's former job was. "employee" is the correct answer. You don't go and do a reference check expecting the answer to come back "currently unemployed".
"Associate" is not a relationship, it's a job title.
I really wish people on Slashdot would try and actually play a meaningful part in the ongoing discussion and topic rather than just writing pedantic shit to pointlessly argue.
Re:So they're libeling... (Score:4, Informative)
And almost no major company actually provides any information beyond: yes, this person worked here from this date to that date. End of story. There's too much liability otherwise.
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:2)
At my company, we will confirm dates of employment and title.
Anything further would be a personal recommendation from a manager or other staff member
But on the company letter head? Dates and title only.
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:2)
There is no legal upside to say good things about past employees, and yes there are some downsides.
If you claim someone is outstanding at X and the next employer disagrees they may think you intentionally lied to them, this could be construed as fraud.
If you say good things about some but not others, you create differences that could be explored by those not having good things said about them as potential discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim someone is outstanding at X and the next employer disagrees they may think you intentionally lied to them, this could be construed as fraud.
Only if you're a moron.
Simply lying to someone isn't fraud.
There has to be some exchange of consideration, and an intention to gain that consideration by deceit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
As defined by Black’s legal dictionary, fraud:
“A knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment.“
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney. You can heap all the good phrases you want on an ex-employee. If your employers are only verifying you worked, with zero additional information, it's because you were a bad employee.
Plenty of companies have a policy of not doing what you just said. HR provides little info. All employees are instructed to refer reference checkers to HR. If they do so, that doesn't mean you were a bad employee.
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:3)
Re: So they're libeling... (Score:2)
You can't judge if somebody is at the level they claim they are by talking to them?
Not after the fact (Score:3, Interesting)
Not after-the-fact they can't; that's fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they changed it, microseconds before you were terminated.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like no other employer does this other than Apple.
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:3)
If the employers are so incompetent that they would rely on such a database to tell them what position you held then you don't want to work there anyway, they are already spectacular fuckups.
This meme again. Look some of the best jobs in the world are those behind some of the dumbest HR policies. Unless you work in HR, what HR does has zero bearing on how good your job may or may not be. That is unless you work for a 2 person startup where your senior programmer is also your HR manager...
Judging a company by the fuckup that is widely known as the HR department is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Look some of the best jobs in the world are those behind some of the dumbest HR policies.
Which are these best jobs in the world?
Re: (Score:3)
No, HR is a "separate" business function, one with zero clue or bearing as to the functioning of an organisation's core competence. Again there's an exception here: If the company is a HR consultancy and has a crap HR department.
If you somehow weasel your way through a shit HR department all that means is that you will wind up working mostly with people who should never have been hired.
And now you're just acting like you've never applied for a job before. Again HR is separate "value added" service, not decision makers. They are a shit department that ultimately have no say on who is hired, though they often have a say on who isn't, and their basis for that is usua
Re: (Score:2)
No, HR is a "separate" business function
There is no such thing as a separate business function. It's all part of the business. Part of meaning not separate.
And now you're just acting like you've never applied for a job before. Again HR is separate "value added" service, not decision makers.
No, HR very much is part of the decision making process. They invalidate candidates, for example. You're acting like you know nothing about HR. When I got hired at IBM, I was identified and attracted to the position by an incredibly competent and diligent HR employee. This person made very high quality decisions. Then her competence was identified and she was transferred to another department
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you would say whoever hired you was extremely competant, and whoever hired everyone else was incompetant :-). Was she really competant though, or did she just defer decision making to someone more knowledable, wheas the other HR people just decided themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you would say whoever hired you was extremely competant, and whoever hired everyone else was incompetant
Don't worry, I'm well aware of my limitations and failings, and they are many. However, there's more than ample evidence to support the idea.
Was she really competant though, or did she just defer decision making to someone more knowledable, wheas the other HR people just decided themselves?
She was the head of HR for our department, so if she was deferring the decision it would have been to the people who were most competent — the heads of the various teams in our department, presumably. And that would have meant that she was doing what was wise, and therefore she would have been behaving competently. It's people acting beyond their competence that
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to hire hourly temps for a PhD Computer Science position? Would that also apply to Surgeons or Cancer Researchers?
Re: (Score:2)
Daily operations is of course offshored where corrective action happens much faster with many more eyeballs confirming work that they do not know the fictio
job title very to much place to place and even dep (Score:2)
job title very to much place to place and even department to department.
And what about people doing dual roles?
Moving department to department?
People who float department to department / project to project all the time?
You mean a probationary period? (Score:2)
What you are describing is basically a probationary period (usually 6 to 12 months) where either the employer or employee can terminate employment with no notice or cause required. It's pretty common in most places.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Most probationary periods in IT are 3-months that I've seen going from contract-to-hire to employee status.
If a company is doing a 6-month term then there is some kind of an issue with that company internally such as high turn-over rate or departmental problems.
A 12-month conversion term or probationary period is frankly way too long since that's usually the term or actual contractor contracts normally. Conversions happen well within that period most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)