Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#11

Post by dmurray »

nickff wrote: post #9
LorenPechtel wrote: post #8

Only 17%?? Last time I was job hunting I found that 80%+ of postings were either dupes or bogus. Very vague description of the job? I'm going to keep seeing it for a long time, clearly they are not actually filling the role. Very specific, odd set of requirements, they're going through the motions but they've already picked the person and the ad is designed to match only that person. I think they're going about this…

Those 'one specific person' ads are usually there to comply with an internal requirement or external regulation/law, so they wouldn't be able to say that it was filled, because that would be an admission that the whole process was a sham.

Why? They'd "find" the one specific person, and then report the job was filled by that person, as an internal hire if that was the case.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#12

Post by LorenPechtel »

nickff wrote: post #9
LorenPechtel wrote: post #8

Only 17%?? Last time I was job hunting I found that 80%+ of postings were either dupes or bogus. Very vague description of the job? I'm going to keep seeing it for a long time, clearly they are not actually filling the role. Very specific, odd set of requirements, they're going through the motions but they've already picked the person and the ad is designed to match only that person. I think they're going about this…

Those 'one specific person' ads are usually there to comply with an internal requirement or external regulation/law, so they wouldn't be able to say that it was filled, because that would be an admission that the whole process was a sham.

It would be filled, they would be required to say so. Yes, it's going to look bad, that's the point.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#13

Post by nateglims »

dmurray wrote: post #11
nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 'one specific person' ads are usually there to comply with an internal requirement or external regulation/law, so they wouldn't be able to say that it was filled, because that would be an admission that the whole process was a sham.

Why? They'd "find" the one specific person, and then report the job was filled by that person, as an internal hire if that was the case.

I suspect they mean it's for sponsoring a green card for an existing employee.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#14

Post by nickff »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #12
nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 'one specific person' ads are usually there to comply with an internal requirement or external regulation/law, so they wouldn't be able to say that it was filled, because that would be an admission that the whole process was a sham.

It would be filled, they would be required to say so. Yes, it's going to look bad, that's the point.

The requirement which is driving the posting is a requirement that they search for candidates other than the one specific person they have in mind. If they post it with 'already filled' in the posting, they would not be complying with the requirement. The requirement is usually driven by a law or some policy created outside the hiring process for that position, so the hiring manager(s) are not permitted to do what you suggest.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#15

Post by carefulfungi »

This is explictly restricting speech (restricting the right to advertise for labor) and would have to meet a high first amendment bar in the US.

Pay transparency law supporters have argued successfully that there is a compelling interest in closing gender and racial wage gaps and that salary range information can be mandated in job listings for that purpose. What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the government to control speech?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#17

Post by em-bee »

nickff wrote: post #14
LorenPechtel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be filled, they would be required to say so. Yes, it's going to look bad, that's the point.

The requirement which is driving the posting is a requirement that they search for candidates other than the one specific person they have in mind. If they post it with 'already filled' in the posting, they would not be complying with the requirement. The requirement is usually driven by a law or some policy created outside the hiring process for that position, so the hiring manager(s) are not permitted to do what yo…

the suggestion is to change the law.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#18

Post by Scubabear68 »

Somewhat related, I learned to be very cautious about LinkedIn and their job postings. I hit a couple that looked like regular companies and started to apply, but they were really fake job postings just go harvest your information. Even when you abort the process, it's too late. They take your info and put you on a zillion job sites automatically with endless email spam.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#19

Post by em-bee »

carefulfungi wrote: post #15

This is explictly restricting speech (restricting the right to advertise for labor) and would have to meet a high first amendment bar in the US. Pay transparency law supporters have argued successfully that there is a compelling interest in closing gender and racial wage gaps and that salary range information can be mandated in job listings for that purpose. What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the…

advertising for jobs that aren't actually available is fraud or deception?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#20

Post by mschuster91 »

nateglims wrote: post #13
dmurray wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They'd "find" the one specific person, and then report the job was filled by that person, as an internal hire if that was the case.

I suspect they mean it's for sponsoring a green card for an existing employee.

At large companies, this kind of stuff is the norm even for internal transfers. They got all sorts of whack policies in place, department leads try to work around the red tape and make very very VERY specific job postings that only the actually desired candidate can fill.
Post reply on HN