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

31–40 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#31

Post by yardie »

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…

I was employed as a contractor for a state agency many years ago. When it was time to convert to permanent full-time they had to advertise my job on the job boards because of some law. I also had to apply to my job in the same fashion. Not a promotion or pay raise was profered, just a straightforward contractor to FTE process. And I almost didn't get it.

So, I convert my resume into the job description that would be posted. Thinking it will get 100% hit rate. Lo and behold, someone else took that job description and basically converted it into their resume. And got a higher ATS score!

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#32

Post by conscion »

guywithahat wrote: post #5

If the number is only 17%, I'm not sure we need to ban them. From my experience the big issue is hiring managers who either 1) are very casual about hiring (i.e. they're willing to wait 6 months and waste everyone's time), or 2) people who like the idea of hiring but keep changing what they want to hire for (like this month we're having issues with testing, so we want a test engineer, but next month we're having issu…

> If the number is only 17%, I'm not sure we need to ban them.

Job hunting is a market and the government should tryu to make every market as efficient as possible. Imagine if you went to any other store and 17% of the items you bought were just junk and didn't work.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#33

Post by apercu »

If I wanted to game my stock price and mislead my competition, a bunch of highly specific (and fraudulent) job postings on my website (in combination with other investor-adjacent reporting) would be a great low cost start.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#34

Post by TimorousBestie »

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…

> 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.

Fraud or specifically false advertisement is not protected by the First Amendment. 15 USC 52 and ff.

> What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the government to control speech?

Ghost job postings negatively impact interstate commerce.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#35

Post by behnamoh »

unfortunately this happens in academia too. last year was brutal for most PhDs in business schools because the number of positions dropped significantly compared to the year before, and the ones that were "on the market" weren't all legit. there were several top tier schools that did the first-round interviews or even flyout seminars only to test the waters, with no intention of hiring. the fact that universities and professors thought it was okay to waste candidates' time was in itself telling about the culture in those schools.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#36

Post by treyd »

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…

How is this actually restricting speech? It's not restricting advertisements for labor, it's restricting intentional lies made to misdirect. That's called fraud.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#37

Post by em-bee »

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?

if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue.

if you hire rarely, same thing, if you can demonstrate that it takes a long time to find the right candidate. or, you could be requested to pause posts.

to handle a possible confusion about multiple listings, each job could have some kind of ID, in any case you wouldn't have multiple job posts in the same listing.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#38

Post by terminalshort »

treyd wrote: post #36
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…

How is this actually restricting speech? It's not restricting advertisements for labor, it's restricting intentional lies made to misdirect. That's called fraud.

No it isn't. Fraud requires damages. Lying is legal. Maybe you could claim damages in the amount of time it takes to apply for the fake job, but it's not really worth it because it wouldn't be worth more than a few bucks.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#39

Post by gosub100 »

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 still won't forgive them for the incident circa 2012 where they were sending out emails from your email account to everyone in your address book or recent contacts list in your own voice (!!) saying "hi $name, I joined linked in come network with me!".

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#40

Post by gosub100 »

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…

Are corporations given the right to free speech?
Post reply on HN