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

61–70 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#61

Post by alistairSH »

carefulfungi wrote: post #47
didibus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've conducted probably 700+ interviews as a hiring manager. A lot of candidates I've spoken to assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. The org chart is dynamic and is affected constantly by changing priority, changing budgets, promotions and departures, and the talent yo…

I'd be ok with this IF AND ONLY IF the job listing is explicit that it's a lead generation/ recruitment pipeline builder. But, it should be in big, bold text: THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL POSITION, WE MAY OR MAY NOT EVER HIRE ANYBODY, BUT SEND US YOUR DETAILS AND MAYBE WE'LL CALL YOU.

Of course, I'm assuming companies with actual positions to fill would gain an advantage here, but the whole recruiting industry is so broken, I'm not sure.

Either way, the true ghost listings - positions that are box-ticker listings for internal candidates or H1Bs are pretty awful.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#62

Post by djoldman »

> What counts as a “ghost job”? A job listing is considered a ghost job if:

> · There is no intent to fill the role

> · It’s not currently funded

> · It’s posted to collect résumés, test the market, or boost visibility

> · It’s recycled indefinitely without an actual opening

https://www.truthinjobads.org/faq

Even if this gets passed, it's probably unenforceable.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#63

Post by alistairSH »

gosub100 wrote: post #40
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?

Yes. Loosely, corporations are just groups of people acting with similar goals and interests, so the free speech right flows to the company.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#64

Post by em-bee »

carefulfungi wrote: post #47
didibus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've conducted probably 700+ interviews as a hiring manager. A lot of candidates I've spoken to assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. The org chart is dynamic and is affected constantly by changing priority, changing budgets, promotions and departures, and the talent yo…

A lot of candidates assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline.

what does that mean? if you are hiring you describe the qualifications that you are looking for. if you have a range of qualifications, you say so. if it is not a specific job, then don't describe it as such. i'd happily apply to a listing that doesn't advertise a specific role as long as my qualifications match.

if candidates come to the wrong conclusion, then maybe the job description was not clear about that.

i can see the problem with a broad listing that could be a match for anyone from junior and up, but we are talking about changing laws, so this could be taken into account.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#65

Post by didibus »

carefulfungi wrote: post #47
didibus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've conducted probably 700+ interviews as a hiring manager. A lot of candidates I've spoken to assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. The org chart is dynamic and is affected constantly by changing priority, changing budgets, promotions and departures, and the talent yo…

I don't think those are an issue though, these companies are actually hiring at high rates and filling positions. I don't think it would fall into ghost posting. Also, from my experience, there tends to be hiring pools, because they know it's a matter of days before they need someone else.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#66

Post by DelightOne »

tptacek wrote: post #53

The controls summarized in the CNBC piece seem reasonable, or, if not that, then at least not all that onerous. The controls in the actual proposal are less reasonable: they create finable infractions for any claim in a job ad deemed "misleading" or "inaccurate" (findings of fact that requires a an expensive trial to solve) and prohibit "perpetual postings" or postings made 90 days in advance of hiring dates. The con…

Making people able to sue for anyone feeling bad about not having gotten the job is a path you should not take. We have something similar in Germany and its horrible for companies. Leeches bleeding you dry.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#67

Post by liquidise »

conscion wrote: post #32
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.

This is a superb take. I've admittedly always thought of interviews as a process in desperate need of improvement. Thinking of it as a market is a helpful perspective shift on some long-standing ideas.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#68

Post by farceSpherule »

Good luck getting anywhere with this... Companies will lobby hard to squash it.

Ghost jobs help companies do one important thing: hire the person they already selected and want in the position but have to go through the "interview" process to make things look "transparent." They post the job, "interview" some folks, included their preferred candidate, then miraculously "select" their preferred candidate over everyone else.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#69

Post by gwbas1c »

conscion wrote: post #32
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.

Ever go to Fry's back in the day? A lot of the items they sold were junk, but they had a liberal return policy.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#70

Post by gwbas1c »

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…

My Dad told me he worked for a manager who always kept a job open "just in case" someone good walked through the door. It also made it easier to hire if he got a phone call within his network, because he didn't need to jump through hoops to open the req.

(Although it's not the approach I would take if I was a manager,) I do think there's merit in the approach. It was a real opening that could be filled, just not one that they were actively seeking people for. (IE, if someone applied, the resume would be reviewed.)

This was the 1980s or 1990s, though, so I doubt it was SPAMMed with applicants like what happens today, though.

Post reply on HN