211–220 of 253 posts
Earlier 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.
Right?
I was an employment counselor in the late 1990s. Even then, ½ to ¾ of realistic, worthwhile jobs were phantoms. FF to now and hiring portals silently drop viable applicants for a long list of never disclosed reasons. I know temp agencies that hire, send the employee out on 1 job then never again. I've never know a time when hiring wasn't crap for entire classes of viable applicants.
How come temp agencies would only send someone out on one job? They make money based on placements so unless that worker has bad feedback from clients it would make sense to place them again.
There was a clique of employees who were tight with management and got recurring work. This wouldn't have been a problem if the temp agency stopped advertising open jobs when their docket was over-full.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem of enforcement doesn't fall only on the executive branch. They're tasked with executing laws passed by congress. Congress is ultimately a check on the executive, and if they care to have their laws enforced they do have actions they could take.
The branches (including SCOTUS) are not meaningfully different when they are controlled by the same party.
SCOTUS is a bit different as it both isn't driven by political parties and justices have a history of more frequently breaking with the party they are seen as aligned with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem of enforcement doesn't fall only on the executive branch. They're tasked with executing laws passed by congress. Congress is ultimately a check on the executive, and if they care to have their laws enforced they do have actions they could take.
Congres is a rabbit caught in the headlights of the MAGA cult but I admire your optimism.
My point was simply that we can't only blame the white house when laws go unenforced, the other branches of government are intentionally a check on the executive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly would be illegal in Europe under the GDPR - data collected for one purpose (handling of applications) cannot be used for another without explicit, informed consent.
It may be illegal, but shady stuff certainly happens in EU too. Recently investigative journalists here in Finland found out that a significant percentage of job postings over here are indeed fake. Unsurprisingly, worst offenders were recruitment companies, which sometimes listed fake jobs to generate a pool of applicants they can later offer to their clients. Doing this is easy, as no law requires these companies to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
">* 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".
Ghost 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.
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.
But I would add one field: filled internally/externally/H1-B, rather than just "filled".
I am not sure if more regulation is a solution, but the lack of respect for job seekers is a real problem. And not just with ghost jobs. My recent experience as a job seeker was harrowing - even with large, proud companies. I would pass multiple rounds of interviews with senior/director-level interviewers only to never hear back from the company - even after a direct request for an update or feedback. Just total igno…
If there is regulation, it should be about monopolies in general and not trying to micromanage hiring. Companies behave this way because they are in a position to do so. In a real competitive environment they wouldn’t. Poorly thought through band-aid rules don’t change that, in fact they would almost certainly favour the big monopolies with the worst hiring practices who have big HR departments that can handle and ga…
And we also have the same problem that plagues modern life: the glut of choices leading people to think they can do better than they can. The pool is effectively infinite, there must be a better option somewhere. Companies don't hire. Dating has become very hard. Both lie behind very superficial screening gates that do not represent actual value.
In the US a lot of these are pseudo postings for immigration applications. They are technically posting the job, but in pt 3 for on page 72 of a random newspaper in a hope that nobody sees it and applies so they can say “we couldn’t find anyone so we need a visa/green card.” That’s starting to get cracked down on, but it’s been a mess and a sham for a while.
> They are technically posting the job, but in pt 3 for on page 72 of a random newspaper That one is theoretically easy. When you apply, the job you “couldn’t fill” gets auto-posted to a very, very public government-hosted job board (with applicant tracking).
We could at least require that all applications have a standardized format for resumé and a list of legally allowable questions. No more requiring the candidate to do 30 minutes of data entry to encode their resumé into your HR system. Then a ghost job wouldn't really waste much time, since uploading a JSON should take 30 seconds.
When we post a job ad on LinkedIn, I already get 30 spam answers in the first few minutes, people that have obviously spent not a single second reading the requirements. And you want to further automate this? I’ll just ask my people person to automate the response. We really try to spend the time to answer every application, but since AI generated applications have become a thing, we have decided to not answer those.…
And we need to sort out needs vs wants. Job postings should include the required skills (do not submit if you don't meet them) and a separate listing for additional skills that would be desirable. Don't waste everyone's time with a guessing game where people need to decide if they are close enough to the wish list.