Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.
I thought that was affirming money was speech?
Kind of... restricting money/spending is restricting speech/reach.
Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
171–180 of 264 posts
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Like it or not, employers will be forced to cooperate with you to get access to the talent pool you attract.
Except for the problem of "talent will be forced to seek out employers, no matter how shitty or stupid the latter behaves, because they'll starve and die within a matter of weeks or months while understaffed companies can survive for years."
Doubly so in tech where the combination of A) A huge hiring spree during covid & following layoffs has created a glut in applicants, B) Economic malaise is slowing the economy, and C) Companies are being irrationally hestitant to hire because of AI.
Ghost Jobs are fraudulent on several levels, they should be legislated out of existance. (The public company favourite of "pretending we're still growing when we're not" is very clear securities fraud.)
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Yelp for interview process? Isn't Glassdoor doing (something like) that?
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#174Earlier 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…
I am a landlord. I charge below market rent because it is enough to meet my financial goals and turning over a new tenant is annoying. I spare no expense on maintenance because I value my assets.
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#175If 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.
That would be a mistake, because "securities fraud" is one of the few ways you can get smacked for lying to the public. Lying to the public about climate change? Meh, it's hard to prove damages from the lie so you'll probably get away with it. However if you lie to shareholders about global warming, and that factors into your outlook of the company, you'll get smacked with securities fraud suits. https://www.bloomber…
Which is funny because startups don't get any consequences for misleading investors/customers with fake job postings and the behavior in that industry is rampant.
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be a mistake, because "securities fraud" is one of the few ways you can get smacked for lying to the public. Lying to the public about climate change? Meh, it's hard to prove damages from the lie so you'll probably get away with it. However if you lie to shareholders about global warming, and that factors into your outlook of the company, you'll get smacked with securities fraud suits. https://www.bloomber…
Which is funny because startups don't get any consequences for misleading investors/customers with fake job postings and the behavior in that industry is rampant.
startups aren't public companies.
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree that there isn't any legislation that will "fix this problem" (other than perhaps abolition of H1B). If it helps soothe the feelings of those who think hiring managers are demon spawn out to get them, I can add, as one of those who spent a whole season this year doing basically nothing but conducting first-round interviews all day, to hire four open SWE seats, it's misery out here for us, too. It w…
> people sending ringers to do their coding exercises for them including different ringers or two ringers at once (oops) Found this part mildly fascinating. That it's more lucrative for a significant portion of the population to be so highly skilled at programming that they can regularly serve as "ringers" to falsify entrance exams, than it is to simply complete such an exam and get a job in America. Must make great…
It's not being skilled at programming, it's being skilled at interview programming, which is very different.
Also ringers are black market, so you can be hired everywhere and not blocked by not being in the USA in the first place. You can pass the interview, but you can't find a job that hires you in the USA because of non-interview reasons or market conditions. Anybody could become a ringer because it's a purely skill based job you can self teach, while getting a job at an Indian big tech might require a degree from an ITT or even just a degree at all might be too much for you.
Honestly they would be a great hiring pool on some level if the reasons why they can't get hired had nothing to do with skill but more socioeconomic barriers like that.
I've never hired a ringer, been a ringer or even looked into it, so it's total conjecture on my part.
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Most people need a job to live. Other marketplaces for things people need to live are heavily regulated from seed to stomach.
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#179This 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)
If they were advertising for labor, this wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is that they are not trying to fill the position (or even have a position open).
Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
#180Earlier 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 do intend to hire, that's different than the problem being discussed.
I admit some companies fail to fill roles due to incompetence, but sadly the law can't force competence.