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

221–230 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#221

Post by Gormo »

spaceguillotine wrote: post #77
DelightOne wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Companies" are organizational paradigms that people use to pursue their goals. Everything is people.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#222

Post by Gormo »

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?

No one is "given" a right to free speech -- rather, in the United States, the constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to free speech, and enjoins the government from infringing upon it. This applies regardless of what organizational structures people use to coordinate their affairs.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#223

Post by Gormo »

gosub100 wrote: post #158
snapetom wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.

I thought that was affirming money was speech?

No, that ruling was almost exactly the opposite. The FEC tried to argue, based on the "electioneering communication" provisions of the McCain-Feingold act, that expression of opinions that might benefit a candidate was equivalent to a monetary donation to that candidate, so their authority to regulate campaign donations included the power to suppress the publication of certain political speech.

Basically, they were arguing that "speech is money". The court ruled against that, and reaffirmed that speech in itself is always protected by the first amendment, regardless of who may benefit from it or what resources were allocated to facilitating it.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#224

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #185
Group_B wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not every company is some large mega corp

Ironically small businesses tend to be the most egregious violators of labor laws and humanity in general. Mega-corp isn't typically evil, it just wins a lot by being incredibly advantaged in whatever it pursues. Teams of lawyers, armies of engineers, rows of consultants. Small businesses on the other hand tend to be the ones dumping oil in the river, firing employees that they don't want to back pay, bankrolling fam…

>When I worked for my first mega-corp after years of small business jobs, I was blown away by how by-the-book it all was.

Big organisations tend to accrete rules as they age until it's almost impossible to do anything apart from the core function.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#225

Post by wqaatwt »

WalterBright wrote: post #217
wqaatwt wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> replace them with taxing things we don't want people to do Because your tax revenue will collapse if people actually stop doing those things?

It's not possible for people to not pollute, for example.

Well yes, but if you reduce pollution by 50% then you need to double the tax and so on and so forth.

If it’s not something that’s enforced globally you will either end up destroying certain industries and or having massive inefficiencies.

My point is that sin taxes might be a good way to discourage certain behaviors but not as good as a consistent revenue source.

Also there is a risk of perverse incentives like what happened in Tsarist Russia when most government revenue was coming from alcohol taxes.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#226

Post by NoGravitas »

tptacek wrote: post #199
casey2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that at all unreasonable? Why is misinformation somehow ok when it directly harms workers? Don't like it that you have to change your behavior because of some abusers? Sorry but that's how society works for the rest of us.

The problem is that employers and prospective employees will disagree about what is and isn't "misinformation", and only a trial can resolve that question when the law gives a cause of action for it.

Sure, but the threat of having to spend money on a trial should incentivize employers to be factual and clear in their advertisements. Edge cases will get sorted out by trials at first, but then there will be case law that will discourage people from bringing questionable cases.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#227

Post by NoGravitas »

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…

Were a lot of those the same job being offered through different recruiters, though?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#228

Post by guywithahat »

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.

I can’t possibly imagine the government making job hunting, a task that’s hard to define and changes rapidly, more efficient

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#229

Post by NoGravitas »

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…

I want to downvote you, but you are technically correct. I think most of us agree that there exists a compelling interest, but that in practice the case would be made that this should be struck down because it restricts speech, and the captured judiciary would certainly uphold that argument.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#230

Post by legacynl »

gruez wrote: post #160
spaceguillotine wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>i'm so glad that companies don't have feelings tho. Nobody is concerned about companies being sad, they're concerned about making the labor market in an give jurisdiction hostile enough that companies opt out entirely. >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. define "equitable".

> making the labor market in an give jurisdiction hostile enough that companies opt out entirely.

At some point you'd have to realize that continuing to give companies what they want out fear of them leaving, will only incentivize companies to be scummier and scummier.

Second of all, how would you imagine companies opting out of a jurisdiction? Wouldn't that create an enormous hole in the market for other less-scummier companies to jump in, albeit at perhaps lower margins?

Post reply on HN