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

141–150 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#141

Post by elevation »

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.

You don't need the legislation for this.

You are free to build a job marketplace that profiles employer posting behavior and shares relevant info with applicants. Like it or not, employers will be forced to cooperate with you to get access to the talent pool you attract.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#142

Post by snapetom »

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?

Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#144

Post by xp84 »

bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131
xp84 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. This kind of mustachio-twirling caricature isn't a helpful mental model of how business works. Businesses are just large bunches of people, each trying to maximize various metrics given the incentives they interact with. None of those people, including the owner, is automatically pro-slavery, which is the other word for "wants free labor." Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize t…

You're arguing with me, but this statement... > Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize their money and work expended to whatever degree possible. ...is exactly in agreement with what I said above. The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. E.g., If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. I would also accept…

> The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures.

> property but no rent

I mean, I guess sure, but... only lunatics think that exists legally and sustainably.

Certainly no one who has managed to get a business degree, or attain any leadership role, thinks so foolishly.

Normal businesspeople know that if you pay minimum wage you can expect only a weak effort, and also they don't waste their mental energy fantasizing about anybody 'working for free.'

As a manager, I fantasize about getting everyone under me paid enough to hold turnover very low (because turnover sucks), but not so highly that my team becomes a poor ROI that economically should be replaced with (AI, an offshore team, a couple people from a consulting firm, etc.) -- and I'm sure the CEO and any non-crazy shareholders want that equilibrium as well.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#145

Post by xp84 »

tptacek wrote: post #134
xp84 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> posting legitimate job openings You want to incentivize them FILLING job openings. Nobody cares how many jobs are posted. And posting 100 openings and filling 50 is the stated problem trying to be solved here. The rebating idea resolves this quite neatly though. Make posting a job opening that eventually gets filled free after rebate[1], and posting a "dangling" job opening that never fills incurs tax. Now, I can t…

Nothing like this is ever going to happen. It would be incredibly expensive (on both the employer and the government side) to administer, and it would be portrayed as a tax on hiring, because that's exactly what it would be. Rules about what a job posting can and cannot say can definitely happen, and have happened (see: salary ranges, because of Colorado's requirements). That's what CNBC depicts this proposal as comp…

I agree with you that what I described can't and won't happen.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#146

Post by TrousersHoisted »

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…

Yeah, I saw that figure and thought: Total BS.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#147

Post by TrousersHoisted »

philipallstar wrote: post #85
em-bee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

H1Bs aren't the only problem, though.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#148

Post by coredog64 »

mxuribe wrote: post #120
maxk42 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, would that convince an investor such as myself that your company is suddenly worth more? Generally when I'm looking at a company's financials more employees means less profitable.

If i post a bunch of ghost/fake jobs, then investros *could potentially* see that as a signal that i am growing, and they should invest NOW before its too late...as one example. Another example, could be that my competition sees "enough/so many open jobs", that they might assume their market position is less than it might be - think of it as a sort of distant intimidation...but also, could be an approach for that com…

You need to think outside the box. Once you've determined that a particular technological avenue is a dead end, gin up a bunch of job postings that would suggest that you're doubling down on it and watch your competitors set money on fire trying to catch up.

(There's a classic story from the Windows 3.x era regarding pen computing, where Microsoft spent money on it and advertised that solely to force competitors to expend efforts where Microsoft knew there was no payoff)

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#149

Post by atcon »

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…

The compelling interest for state and federal governments would be to ensure a fair marketplace by prohibiting false advertising and deceptive practices. California is considering Assembly Bill 1251 (Banning “ghost” job postings) to deter “unfair competition” in the labor marketplace. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab...>

Regarding First Amendment conflicts with commercial speech, the Supreme Court described its four-step analysis in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Svc. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (stating “For commercial speech to come within the First Amendment, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.”) Hence, the FTC Division of Advertising Practices (DAP) https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consume...> has survived legal scrutiny of its enforcement authority due to its compelling interest in fair public markets.

As the Congressional Research Service pointed out, FTC enforcement actions regarding ghost jobs would be difficult, since employer intent is not easily discoverable and consumer harm not easily quantifiable. On the other hand, “While employers generally do not have a legal duty to respond to job applicants, differing responses based on protected characteristics could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other employment laws.” page 2, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1297...>

For instance, if an employer used job postings to hire from certain countries or age groups, this would likely violate Title VII since national origin and age are protected classes under Title VII, eg Mobley v Workday (where plaintiffs argue the Workday job postings platform violated Title VII) https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/08/21/judge-ord...>

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#150

Post by mxuribe »

coredog64 wrote: post #148
mxuribe wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i post a bunch of ghost/fake jobs, then investros *could potentially* see that as a signal that i am growing, and they should invest NOW before its too late...as one example. Another example, could be that my competition sees "enough/so many open jobs", that they might assume their market position is less than it might be - think of it as a sort of distant intimidation...but also, could be an approach for that com…

You need to think outside the box. Once you've determined that a particular technological avenue is a dead end, gin up a bunch of job postings that would suggest that you're doubling down on it and watch your competitors set money on fire trying to catch up. (There's a classic story from the Windows 3.x era regarding pen computing, where Microsoft spent money on it and advertised that solely to force competitors to e…

For sure, you're right that there are vastly more creative and devious ways to leverage jobs against one's competition. :-)
Post reply on HN