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

21–30 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#21

Post by pessimizer »

mothballed wrote: post #6
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All regulation is hard to enforce. Have to start somewhere, and then you keep pulling the ratchet via policy.

If you create regulation you can't effectively enforce it can actually make things worse. This is why you can buy fentanyl on every corner, but now the people supplying it have small nation-state tier armies of guys in hiluxes with machine guns and truck mounted .50 cal anti-armor guns. Not saying that will happen with ghost jobs, but it's not a given things will improve.

I have absolutely no idea why you think this regulation would be any harder to implement than any other regulation other than a hand-wavy brief first sentence in your first comment. I have no idea what sort of juggling of job titles you're predicting that will deceive anyone for more than 10 seconds. I have no idea what 1st amendment issue you see in advertising for an employment contract that isn't backed by employment; if you advertise asthma medicine that doesn't have any effect on asthma, people understand that it's fraud.

Also, it seems that you're making a parallel case that it makes no difference to the fentanyl market that there is a law against fentanyl, which makes me think that you apply the Law of Averages to every change that you hear anyone suggest.

e.g. if you make a law against fentanyl, some people will stop selling fentanyl, while other people will be more attracted to selling an illegal drug, therefore a law against fentanyl will have no effect on fentanyl use or sales.

The Law of Averages is not real.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#22

Post by OkayPhysicist »

snapetom wrote: post #2

This is going to be very hard to enforce on a Federal level, let alone pass. Companies are going to play shell games with the titles, responsibilities, and org structure just enough. There might also be 1st Amendment issues, too. The required reporting numbers will be hollow. The end result will be that it will be on the books, but the government won't have any enforceable actions for years. And when you do see actio…

The easy way to enforce this would be to leave it individuals. Applied to a job and heard nothing back? Sue. You'd have to pretty tightly define the law, such that it could be simply applied, but I could imagine all sorts of concrete rules which would significantly improve the status quo. Something like "Public job postings may be up for no more than 60 days for a given position, interview process must last no more than 30 days beyond that. By the end of the subsequent 90 day window, the company must either hire at least one applicant and let the others know they didn't make the cut, or demonstrate that they received zero acceptable applicants by providing concrete reasons for rejection to all applicants.

It's a "shit or get off the pot" type deal: the easiest solution to the problem is to just find an acceptable applicant and hire them.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#23

Post by carefulfungi »

em-bee wrote: post #19
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?

If you advertise a job and fail to find a qualified candidate, and then don't fill that role, is that fraud? If you advertise for talent constantly, interview regularly, and hire rarely (but hire), is that fraud? If you have a single role to fill and advertise it multiple times in multiple states as multiple listings because that's how job posting forums work, is that fraud?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#24

Post by diego_moita »

In the end this is like banning fake news, you just can't.

I suggest people just take a credibility approach. As an example, I no longer bother with HN's "Who's hiring", everything there is bullshit.

Besides, job sites are just social media, their purpose is not to inform, it is to create eyeballs to advertisers. You should discard them, like you should also cancel Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#25

Post by adolph »

snapetom wrote: post #2

This is going to be very hard to enforce on a Federal level, let alone pass. Companies are going to play shell games with the titles, responsibilities, and org structure just enough. There might also be 1st Amendment issues, too. The required reporting numbers will be hollow. The end result will be that it will be on the books, but the government won't have any enforceable actions for years. And when you do see actio…

> Companies are going to play shell games

shades of Sinofsky's description of federal HR reporting

https://x.com/stevesi/status/1953920412506894347

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#26

Post by miladyincontrol »

em-bee wrote: post #19
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?

They are available, just not for you, or oft for anyone inside the country. However proving intent when they will find any and all excuses to pass on local talent is a difficult measure to ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#27

Post by a_cardboard_box »

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…

You seem to misunderstand the proposal. The proposal is that after they have done everything that is already legally required (advertise an open position for some amount of time etc), then they must amend the posting to include that the position is filled by an internal/external/H-1B hire. There is still a period of time when the position is advertised as open.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#28

Post by mothballed »

pessimizer wrote: post #21
mothballed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you create regulation you can't effectively enforce it can actually make things worse. This is why you can buy fentanyl on every corner, but now the people supplying it have small nation-state tier armies of guys in hiluxes with machine guns and truck mounted .50 cal anti-armor guns. Not saying that will happen with ghost jobs, but it's not a given things will improve.

I have absolutely no idea why you think this regulation would be any harder to implement than any other regulation other than a hand-wavy brief first sentence in your first comment. I have no idea what sort of juggling of job titles you're predicting that will deceive anyone for more than 10 seconds. I have no idea what 1st amendment issue you see in advertising for an employment contract that isn't backed by employm…

I haven't argued a single thing in the straw man you've attacked.

I haven't even speculated whether regulation against ghost jobs would be effective. The thing about the 1A and law of averages is totally out of left field and seem like you're taking up issues with some other comment.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#29

Post by didibus »

carefulfungi wrote: post #23
em-bee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you advertise a job and fail to find a qualified candidate, and then don't fill that role, is that fraud? If you advertise for talent constantly, interview regularly, and hire rarely (but hire), is that fraud? If you have a single role to fill and advertise it multiple times in multiple states as multiple listings because that's how job posting forums work, is that fraud?

I think it can be argued that some of those are.

Same as how false price advertising, or I don't know, say you kept calling customer support but never had any problems could start to look like abuse.

Or squatting a business parking lot, you can always say, I eventually might need something from the store and intend to buy from it. I think they'd still have you towed and your argument would fail.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#30

Post by lostlogin »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #18

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.

> I learned to be very cautious about LinkedIn

A rule for life. It’s a spam machine, and nothing more as far as I’m concerned.

Post reply on HN