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

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#71

Post by azemetre »

a_cardboard_box wrote: post #27
nickff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use to work for a company that got around this by posting the job ad physically outside our offices doors. We were 5 stories in a WeWork space. Probably illegal but I doubt the company cared.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#72

Post by ng12 »

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…

Maybe it would be simpler to just impose a nominal tax on the total number of job openings a company creates throughout the year. Maybe as a % of the role's salary. You could even rebate it against employer payroll taxes so they get the money back when they actually hire someone.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#73

Post by [deleted] »

pacoWebConsult wrote: post #46
TimorousBestie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Ghost job postings negatively impact interstate commerce. Sure, people wasting time applying to ghost jobs has a societal and economic cost, but what is the impact of government regulation of freely advertising job postings? How does that stack up against the compliance cost of ensuring all of these regulations are being met so the company aren't fined, and the loss of legitimate postings to all of the places they…

[deleted]

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#74

Post by gwbas1c »

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…

Oh please! Every time scammers are told to behave, they run around claiming their "free speech" is being impacted.

Free speech is about expressing opinion and fact. It doesn't grant you the right to lie and deceive.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#75

Post by azemetre »

djoldman wrote: post #62

> 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.

What would make it more enforceable?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#76

Post by smt88 »

ng12 wrote: post #72
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…

Maybe it would be simpler to just impose a nominal tax on the total number of job openings a company creates throughout the year. Maybe as a % of the role's salary. You could even rebate it against employer payroll taxes so they get the money back when they actually hire someone.

You should never tax things you want people to do, like posting legitimate job openings

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#77

Post by spaceguillotine »

DelightOne wrote: post #66
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.

i'm so glad that companies don't have feelings tho. Would you mind sharing with everyone else what you are talking about, its very vague with the descriptor of "something similar" doubly questionable with you use of calling humans leeches, when the only leeches i've seen in the business world were the companies that require labor to make money and then pay back a less than equitable amount to the people doing work.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#78

Post by polski-g »

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. Shareholders and their agents ("corporations") have rights to free speech.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#79

Post by whatamidoingyo »

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.

LinkedIn is the absolute worst. For one, there's a checkbox that is clicked by default to "Follow ", which essentially rewards a company for posting a job with thousands of followers (job applicants).

I imagine most companies just want followers on LinkedIn.

Post reply on HN