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

81–90 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#81

Post by hyperpape »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #51
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…

It is absolutely 80%+. The majority of the time, it is a company looking to sponsor an H1B for a role or they have an H1B in the role who they want to sponsor for PERM status (Green Card) and the law requires them to post the job to prove there are no Americans available. The next most common reason is they have identified an internal candidate for the role but corporate policy requires all jobs to be posted external…

80% of what? There are 85,000 H1B visas per year, and vastly more job postings (and hirings of citizens) each year.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#82

Post by IshKebab »

azemetre wrote: post #75
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?

I think realistically the only way you could enforce this is to legally required registration of job adverts with the government (you register the advert, you receive an ID; anyone advertising jobs without a valid ID is heavily fined), and then also require companies to register the outcome of the advert (internal hire, external hire, withdrawn, etc.).

Then it would be possible to actually identify suspicious behaviour, and you could publish stats about companies' hiring practices so candidates can avoid them etc.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#83

Post by philipallstar »

jakeydus wrote: post #57
carefulfungi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly you could have just saved us all this time by stating you're a hiring manager up front. I appreciate your optimism regarding the nature of these postings, but I've seen at multiple companies them doing exactly what they describe in the article - fake job postings to improve their appearance to investors, fake job postings to justify H1B positions, etc. Every time I was at a company that got bought by private…

The problem is H1B. If that goes away, or is massively reduced, then that will help a lot.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#84

Post by jacobgkau »

alistairSH wrote: post #59
a_cardboard_box wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is still "broken" since the position was never really open in the first place - it's still a ghost listing, as the position was always going to an internal hire or H1b or whatever.

Yes, but requiring the post-fill disclosure will at least make data available to work the problem further.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#85

Post by philipallstar »

em-bee wrote: post #17
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…

the suggestion is to change the law.

Reducing regulations around H1B requirements (and fixing that by just reducing H1Bs) and internal hiring would be the way to solve it.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#86

Post by befictious »

IshKebab wrote: post #82
azemetre wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would make it more enforceable?

I think realistically the only way you could enforce this is to legally required registration of job adverts with the government (you register the advert, you receive an ID; anyone advertising jobs without a valid ID is heavily fined), and then also require companies to register the outcome of the advert (internal hire, external hire, withdrawn, etc.). Then it would be possible to actually identify suspicious behavio…

then it would just be like real estate with off market listings where companies have a black market hiring pool and then just do the legal loophole steps of registering before "officially" posting and immediately hiring their desired candidate... which would probably have the shady side effect of making the policy "look efficient" without actually solving the job search problem.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#87

Post by bethekidyouwant »

gwbas1c wrote: post #74
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.

Who decides?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#88

Post by hopelite »

apercu wrote: post #33

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.

yes, and that's what is done.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#89

Post by jjcob »

azemetre wrote: post #75
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?

I think you should focus on things you can enforce. For example, in Austria companies are required to provide certain information in job ads (eg. salary range, weekly hours, type of contract) and it's trivial to enforce because you can see if the information is there or not. I'm not sure if it helps with ghost job ads, though.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#90

Post by neonrider »

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…

I'm not familiar with the process of passing a law. Is it one of those situations where the ask is open to negotiation? Like, if I want to be given a finger I first need to ask for the whole arm kinda deal? If it's the case, then as you said, perhaps the real ask is what's in the summary.
Post reply on HN