Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 264 posts

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#251

Post by arp242 »

neilv wrote: post #250
arp242 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say job posts have to be truthful, and it's by default implied that they actually good faith intend to fill the position as described, in a timely manner, and that interviews will only be conducted in good faith. If the default isn't true, they should disclose that. Very few people would disagree with that premise. The thing is that bad faith actors doing bad faith things are not going to abide by the rules on…

There's definitely a chunk of bad-faith people, who'll lie, cheat, and steal, but I think it's the minority. There's a lot of questionable things that decent people do, in good faith, because they consider it normal and OK. If you tell people "actually, the convention here on that is something different", then I think most will respect that. One way this doesn't work is if there's a lack of trust. For example, if an…

Maybe; I don't want too be too cynical about it, but I suspect many people don't really read it in the first place, and if you're the sort of person posting fake jobs then I don't expect you're really deterred by this.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#252

Post by microtherion »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #155
thegrim33 wrote: post #82

Well I opened the article, near the beginning I saw the text: "81% of recruiters admitted to posting ads for positions that were fake or already filled." Instantly that felt completely insane to me, my bullshit detector went off the chart, so since they provided a source, I followed up on the source to see the evidence for myself. What do you know, the source is from a "my perfect resume" website that apparently cond…

This isn't new. Forbes also interviewed someone who made such a study. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karadennison/2023/11/27/how-gho... You probably need to pay to see their surveys, but even if you don't trust that: the bureau of labor has had to make huge adjustments all this year and last year. This isn't just some bad optics.

Unless I misunderstand you, you're citing a completely irrelevant factoid. Employment statistics are based on actual people working, not job ads posted. And the revisions [1] (which sometimes are upward) have nothing to do with ghost jobs, but are due to additional data coming in over time, leading to refinements of the original estimate[2].

[1] https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm [2] https://thedispatch.com/article/jobs-report-revisions-explai...

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#253

Post by arwhatever »

matt3210 wrote: post #2

I’m not shocked at all. Another issue is recruiters posting fake jobs and asking for references as step one. Soon as I say “I don’t provide references until the last step, and only to the company hiring” they hang up on me

Had one group request references at the beginning, checked them, then my references got to infer that I didn't get the job offer. In fact if I recall, that group ghosted me, leaving me to infer as well.

But then later another group asked me for references at the beginning, I declined to provide them, and then they were okay with proceeding through the interview process.

Maybe it would work in the general case to always reply to such a request with "some previous group ghosted me, and so I've vowed to withhold the references until later in the process."?

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#254

Post by dang »

edanm wrote: post #231
dang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's against the rules to call out hiring companies in the thread, primarily because we don't want off-topic arguments and because it would be too easy to exploit it for shenanigans. But since people have been increasingly saying that this is a problem, let's do something about it. My current thought is to add a new instruction at the top asking companies to please only post in the thread if they're committed to resp…

I don't love this idea. I feel like it's just going to force even more busybody work into the process - now companies will need to "respond" to every applicant, no matter how irrelevant, so that response isn't going to be high-information anyway. Someone else suggested a good idea - make companies link to their previous request. Or even better - don't allow companies to post the exact same listing for months in a row…

Aren't there two distinct issues?

(1) I applied for a job from $Company and never got a response.

(2) I don't believe $Company is really hiring.

I'm hearing both of these concerns from users. They overlap but aren't the same. Linking a job ad to the previous job ad addresses #2 but not #1.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#255

Post by neilv »

arp242 wrote: post #251
neilv wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a chunk of bad-faith people, who'll lie, cheat, and steal, but I think it's the minority. There's a lot of questionable things that decent people do, in good faith, because they consider it normal and OK. If you tell people "actually, the convention here on that is something different", then I think most will respect that. One way this doesn't work is if there's a lack of trust. For example, if an…

Maybe; I don't want too be too cynical about it, but I suspect many people don't really read it in the first place, and if you're the sort of person posting fake jobs then I don't expect you're really deterred by this.

Good point about not many people reading it, but there was a nice all-caps "NEW RULE" at the top today, so we'll see.

Definitely some people who will disregard rules they know are rules, but I think there's also a lot of people who just thought fake job posts were the convention, and now they'll change behavior.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#256

Post by edanm »

dang wrote: post #254
edanm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't love this idea. I feel like it's just going to force even more busybody work into the process - now companies will need to "respond" to every applicant, no matter how irrelevant, so that response isn't going to be high-information anyway. Someone else suggested a good idea - make companies link to their previous request. Or even better - don't allow companies to post the exact same listing for months in a row…

Aren't there two distinct issues? (1) I applied for a job from $Company and never got a response. (2) I don't believe $Company is really hiring. I'm hearing both of these concerns from users. They overlap but aren't the same. Linking a job ad to the previous job ad addresses #2 but not #1.

Yes, if you consider #1 an issue, then you're right. But I'm not sure that's an issue that should actually be addressed, because:

1. It's not anything new, unlike this "ghost jobs" thing which is a supposed new phenomenon. This makes it less likely that the status quo can be improved.

2. I believe the reason the status quo is as it is is because most companies are inundated with job applicants, many of them not even passing a basic qualifying test (e.g. people with no FE experiecnce applying to FE positions with min. required experience of 5 years).

I don't know if this is true for the HN thread, having never posted to it. It's possible it's much higher signal here so this issue becomes less relevant.

Anyway, just my 2 cents, mostly as an outsider to these threads.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#257

Post by johnnyanmac »

microtherion wrote: post #252
johnnyanmac wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't new. Forbes also interviewed someone who made such a study. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karadennison/2023/11/27/how-gho... You probably need to pay to see their surveys, but even if you don't trust that: the bureau of labor has had to make huge adjustments all this year and last year. This isn't just some bad optics.

Unless I misunderstand you, you're citing a completely irrelevant factoid. Employment statistics are based on actual people working, not job ads posted. And the revisions [1] (which sometimes are upward) have nothing to do with ghost jobs, but are due to additional data coming in over time, leading to refinements of the original estimate[2]. [1] https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm [2] https://thedispatch.c…

My implications are that companies are either lying and being readjusted from later audits, or government is choosing not to take data into account until later, where impact is lessened. It's not a "ghost job" in the modern meaning, but it does seem to be pretending there are a lot more jobs than in reality.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#258

Post by machomaster »

edanm wrote: post #231
dang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's against the rules to call out hiring companies in the thread, primarily because we don't want off-topic arguments and because it would be too easy to exploit it for shenanigans. But since people have been increasingly saying that this is a problem, let's do something about it. My current thought is to add a new instruction at the top asking companies to please only post in the thread if they're committed to resp…

I don't love this idea. I feel like it's just going to force even more busybody work into the process - now companies will need to "respond" to every applicant, no matter how irrelevant, so that response isn't going to be high-information anyway. Someone else suggested a good idea - make companies link to their previous request. Or even better - don't allow companies to post the exact same listing for months in a row…

> I don't love this idea.

What is this confusing sentence suppose to communicate? That you adore the idea? Or like it? Or hate it? Or are neutral? Or are indifferent? Or any other thousands of options? Nobody knows.

Why being so incredibly vague and off-putting?

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#259

Post by ouddv »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #138
ouddv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At large tech companies, the pay is entirely driven by level and rating; so there's no savings in salary; just added costs to comply with the directive. It's endlessly frustrating that the US government wants to centrally plan my hiring decisions.

Ok, so why are you hiring H1B's at this point then if there's "just added costs to comply with the directive"?

Because sometimes we fail to find a qualified American candidate.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#260

Post by edanm »

machomaster wrote: post #258
edanm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't love this idea. I feel like it's just going to force even more busybody work into the process - now companies will need to "respond" to every applicant, no matter how irrelevant, so that response isn't going to be high-information anyway. Someone else suggested a good idea - make companies link to their previous request. Or even better - don't allow companies to post the exact same listing for months in a row…

> I don't love this idea. What is this confusing sentence suppose to communicate? That you adore the idea? Or like it? Or hate it? Or are neutral? Or are indifferent? Or any other thousands of options? Nobody knows. Why being so incredibly vague and off-putting?

I'm sorry, I certainly don't mean to be off-putting.

The way I parse a sentence like "I don't love this idea", and the way I meant it, is that I think the idea has some merit, it's not terrible, but I'm not fully on board, it has more work to do. It's not all the way to "I don't like it" but it's not great yet.

In any case I elaborated in the rest of the post a bit more on this so I think you can see from the context what I meant.

Post reply on HN