Simple solution: company that has at least X employees cannot post more than f(X) job ads per (unit of time), and at least g(f(X)) need to result in hires within (timeframe) unless literally no one responded.
'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
231–240 of 253 posts
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some animals are more equal than others and the government has decided that companies are not only citizens but the more equal group. Half the shit companies do that gets them a fine would land any individual in jail for committing the same action, but we let them get away with just paying it off. Simultaneously we give those organizations the same rights. It’s a system with three classes of citizen where the…
You do realize that the decisions at the corporations are made by people. You may try to draw a distinction between people and corporations, but in the end it was some person who decided to ghost someone.
You do realize that the people making those decisions at corporations are largely shielded from the liability of said decisions, and that when companies are treated like citizens they almost never get equivalent punishment like human beings do.
I can draw a distinction between people and corporations because it’s literally encoded in the fucking law.
I actually don’t know how or why you would imply that such a distinction doesn’t exist.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#233> Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data. How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just to suck in resumes to some database just seems like it should be illegal. Or just like running scams is illegal but they are in another country "so tough luck, you'll never get us"?
Please stop thinking about laws, and think about enforcement. If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. We have all sorts of fancy laws on the books that aren't enforced. Environmental regs, animal welfare regs, anti trust laws, white collar anti fraud laws. Data laws fall into this bucket. Nobody that would actually enforce those laws gives a dam. We won't be able to solve any of our problems with…
Follow the money, easy payouts for cops and courts is where 95% of enforcement goes. Drug possession is an instant $1000 profit for the local law enforcement, and possibly much more. And if they are poor and challenge it, the extra court fees and court lawyer are also profitable.
Fighting private lawyers is what costs courts money and is why the wealthy get way less criminal punishment.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like participation in unemployment should require every job posting to be recorded as to date open, date filled, number of candidates applied, number interviewed. Such information should be public and weekly updated. Companies that do not comply should pay a higher rate.
Earlier this year was playing around with the idea of creating an app to track job applications and the subsequent interview process for candidates. Then using the data to give users insights into companies and roles and how responsive they are. So (with enough adoption) one could see how long they take to respond or even see other candidates they had responded to for a specific position (maybe even allow competing c…
I think the primary obstacle isn't the data ingestion method, but the fact that companies treat the recruitment lifecycle as a proprietary black box. From an HR perspective, transparency is a liability, not an asset. They have zero incentive to cooperate with an external 'tracking' tool because:
1Information Asymmetry is Power: If candidates knew exactly where they stood or how many 'ghost' positions existed, the company would lose its leverage in salary negotiations and timeline control.
2Legal and PR Risk: Making the pipeline visible exposes a company to accusations of bias or 'unfavorable' hiring patterns. 'Privacy' is often used here as a convenient shield to hide inefficiency or lack of intent.
Even if you solved the email-scraping problem, you'd likely face Terms of Service (ToS) roadblocks or even legal threats from major corporations claiming you are 'scraping' or 'misrepresenting' their internal processes.
The 'pain' of user adoption isn't just about email forwarding; it's about the fact that candidates are often too intimidated to participate in a system that might be seen as 'adversarial' to the very companies they are trying to join. We aren't just missing a tool; we are missing a safe harbor for candidate data sharing.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earlier this year was playing around with the idea of creating an app to track job applications and the subsequent interview process for candidates. Then using the data to give users insights into companies and roles and how responsive they are. So (with enough adoption) one could see how long they take to respond or even see other candidates they had responded to for a specific position (maybe even allow competing c…
Maybe by providing a unique email to the user that he/she will use for the company. Be sure to forward emails to the user also :D
Haha, that's unlikely.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#236Ghost jobs are essentially the 'vaporware' of the HR world. In any other department, misrepresenting your intent to engage in a transaction would be seen as a breach of professional ethics. The fact that it has become a standard KPI for HR departments to 'keep the pipeline warm' at the expense of thousands of hours of unpaid candidate labor is a massive market failure.
How is it different in terms of breach of professional ethics than practice interviews many in tech do, never intending to take the offer? I personally have never done them (part laziness, part ethics, part lucky to have little experience of job insecurity), but have been told a few times by people that do that is stupid that I should stay sharp (and waste 5 people's time to help me for free :))
I see the parallel, but there’s a key difference in intent and scale.
A candidate doing a practice interview is often a defensive reaction to a volatile market—a way to maintain a personal skill. A company posting 'ghost jobs' is a systematic corporate strategy that pollutes market data and wastes thousands of collective hours.
One is an individual trying to survive the system; the other is the system itself failing to act in good faith.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If you consider briefly highlighting the relevant parts of your experience to a potential employer as "fucking shit" , then perhaps you are unsuitable for the role being offered.
translated: stop questioning why the economy depends on the Infant Crushing Machine continuing to Crush Infants
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
">* If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. * Ahhhh! A new English expression, "defecto legal". I like it! It should be the name of a website, defectolegal.com, for purposes TBD later. The proper term is "de facto": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de%20facto "Defecto" is Spanish for the English "defect", a flaw, an error. Don't get me started about "giving a dam".
In English we don’t write commas or periods outside the quotes. The proper way is to write them inside the quotation. - “defect,” a flaw, an error. - about giving a dam.” Don’t get me started about “for purposes TBD later.”
That’s only the case for American English. British English places periods and commas outside the quotes, unless part of a literal quotation.
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#239Doesn’t this come under the banner of fraud?
Re: 'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
">* If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. * Ahhhh! A new English expression, "defecto legal". I like it! It should be the name of a website, defectolegal.com, for purposes TBD later. The proper term is "de facto": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de%20facto "Defecto" is Spanish for the English "defect", a flaw, an error. Don't get me started about "giving a dam".
In English we don’t write commas or periods outside the quotes. The proper way is to write them inside the quotation. - “defect,” a flaw, an error. - about giving a dam.” Don’t get me started about “for purposes TBD later.”
The other person who replied to you noted that this is not true in British English, but beyond that, it appears to me that my generation (Millennials) essentially all came to the same conclusion, which is that punctuation should only be included in the quotation if it's literally part of the text being quoted. (This probably has something to do with the programming mindset.) If you write
>The senator said that the bill was "bloated."
your sentence itself doesn't have a period. In order to give it a period you'd have to write:
>The senator said that the bill was "bloated.".
But then you're saying that the senator described the bill using the (non-)word consisting of the nine characters 'b', 'l', 'o', 'a', 't', 'e', 'd', 'PERIOD'. We've decided that this doesn't make sense.