And I think for most of the rank and file, other than the brand, their work experience would still be considered legit.
Maybe FAANG (honestly not sure what N did, but anyway), you could consider more like tobacco experience. There may be some highly judgemental people that hold it against you, but overall, what most employers care about is the work you did, and not the ethics or your entire industry.
I think the insurance industry is as unethical as one could be, but I wouldn't hold insurance experience against someone, anymore than I would facebook experience.
My dad was a manager of an Enron-linked company. It never really hurt his job prospects, and was actually viewed really highly. He was investigated and found clean. In fact, he took on a lot of debt trying to clean up the mess, which a lot of people admired.
Similarly I know a guy who worked at WeWork. He tried to change things for the better and was ultimately ostracized and fired for it. But he's a good guy and his story clicks.
I think you'll definitely land jobs with such golden stains on your resume, but you'll have to address the elephant in the room - did you make things better or worse?
- being a selective and prestigious company to work for
You can have one without the other. For example Facebook have serious problems with their company ethics but they're still doing great technical work and are selective with their hiring. So being an engineer at Facebook still gives some weight to your resume.
But then the comparison to Enron is weird. The technical part of it doesn't apply at all. And the company ethics problems are playing out in very different ways. Enron were a long-running fraud which is very different from what's happening with the big tech companies. I don't know how Enron resumes are viewed but I imagine that unless you were personally involved in the scandals, it's just a job that you had a long time ago. So the answer to your question is no, it doesn't even make sense to compare them.
Then there's the fact that FAANG isn't a monolith and each company has its own image and individual set of problems. And when there are problems, they have nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of people working for the company.
This was said about Uber when the various "bro culture" stories started to surface. Doesn't sound like it had any negative effect on ex-Uber alumni hire-ability.
Right now seems like Facebook and Amazon are in the crosshairs for different reasons, but I doubt it will have any long term effects on alumni hire-ability.
That said, there are people on Blind saying they would be wary about hiring ex-Amazon anymore for reasons, but I don't know if there is any weight behind those sentiments.
Otherwise, I'd say if you're ex or current FAANGMULA, you're more likely to have to worry about shooing recruiters away than not having them reach out.
A good percentage of us work in systemically problematic industries. I think most would avoid a true villainous company, maybe something like a Blackwater (private armed mercenaries that were sent to places like Iraq/Afghanistan).
Systemically problematic industries are just too large and would require societal changes to rehabilitate them. You can’t really hold it against anyone for working there because we are all part of the machine. We all make it possible.
It might even be good to have so many in these systems, so that we all have some insight into the systemic issues and the amorality of it all.
Enron was not a stain on a resume, not unless you were actually a leader involved in their troubles. I worked in banking shortly after that time, and we had some ex-Enron folks on the team. It wasn't a concern - they were hired for their skills, and any talk of Enron was more about just laughing at having to switch jobs because of it.
FAANG will likely be the same - you did your work for them, and chose to move on at some point. The flaws of their leadership don't negatively impact your tech skills.
I worked in banking during the Great Recession and moved on to insurance for a couple years, before arriving into FAANG.
I don’t think banking or insurance were “better” or “purer” than any FAANG company I’ve worked at.
I haven’t worked in energy, but personally I don’t have the best opinion of Exxon, Shell, Saudi Aramco, etc. either.
So would a FAANG resume be equivalent to Enron? No, I don’t think so.
My spouse works for the state, and the shenanigans and outright theft going on there is its own mess, though certainly not sexy enough to be on the news.
It could be the same from a hire-ability standpoint.
I say this because I don't think Enron was a stain for the average worker there. They were likely doing good work and had no knowledge of the fraud being perpetrated by the C-suite.
So FAANG members might blow up due to privacy, antitrust, or some other abuse. I would assume most workers would still be hireable and the executives would be the ones on the hook (but we know how that goes...).
And I think for most of the rank and file, other than the brand, their work experience would still be considered legit.
Maybe FAANG (honestly not sure what N did, but anyway), you could consider more like tobacco experience. There may be some highly judgemental people that hold it against you, but overall, what most employers care about is the work you did, and not the ethics or your entire industry.
I think the insurance industry is as unethical as one could be, but I wouldn't hold insurance experience against someone, anymore than I would facebook experience.
Similarly I know a guy who worked at WeWork. He tried to change things for the better and was ultimately ostracized and fired for it. But he's a good guy and his story clicks.
I think you'll definitely land jobs with such golden stains on your resume, but you'll have to address the elephant in the room - did you make things better or worse?
For FAANG there's two separate components
- imagine and ethics of the company
- being a selective and prestigious company to work for
You can have one without the other. For example Facebook have serious problems with their company ethics but they're still doing great technical work and are selective with their hiring. So being an engineer at Facebook still gives some weight to your resume.
But then the comparison to Enron is weird. The technical part of it doesn't apply at all. And the company ethics problems are playing out in very different ways. Enron were a long-running fraud which is very different from what's happening with the big tech companies. I don't know how Enron resumes are viewed but I imagine that unless you were personally involved in the scandals, it's just a job that you had a long time ago. So the answer to your question is no, it doesn't even make sense to compare them.
Then there's the fact that FAANG isn't a monolith and each company has its own image and individual set of problems. And when there are problems, they have nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of people working for the company.
Right now seems like Facebook and Amazon are in the crosshairs for different reasons, but I doubt it will have any long term effects on alumni hire-ability.
That said, there are people on Blind saying they would be wary about hiring ex-Amazon anymore for reasons, but I don't know if there is any weight behind those sentiments.
Otherwise, I'd say if you're ex or current FAANGMULA, you're more likely to have to worry about shooing recruiters away than not having them reach out.
Systemically problematic industries are just too large and would require societal changes to rehabilitate them. You can’t really hold it against anyone for working there because we are all part of the machine. We all make it possible.
It might even be good to have so many in these systems, so that we all have some insight into the systemic issues and the amorality of it all.
FAANG will likely be the same - you did your work for them, and chose to move on at some point. The flaws of their leadership don't negatively impact your tech skills.
I don’t think banking or insurance were “better” or “purer” than any FAANG company I’ve worked at.
I haven’t worked in energy, but personally I don’t have the best opinion of Exxon, Shell, Saudi Aramco, etc. either.
So would a FAANG resume be equivalent to Enron? No, I don’t think so.
My spouse works for the state, and the shenanigans and outright theft going on there is its own mess, though certainly not sexy enough to be on the news.
I say this because I don't think Enron was a stain for the average worker there. They were likely doing good work and had no knowledge of the fraud being perpetrated by the C-suite.
So FAANG members might blow up due to privacy, antitrust, or some other abuse. I would assume most workers would still be hireable and the executives would be the ones on the hook (but we know how that goes...).