Live data from Hacker News

Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

sfgate.com

261–264 of 264 posts

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#261
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

Personally, I find needing to provide references at all to be akin to me needing to get my parents permission. It makes my skin crawl and I will actively screen jobs that require them. The process feels demeaning and dehumanizing. Then you have to bother people who don't really know you anymore and beg them to waste their time on someone else's BS.

i have friends that i worked with, who would gladly be a reference, and i would not mind them doing it, but really, at best they could confirm that i am a nice person to work with. and i would never use anyone as a reference who would not do that. so the whole thing feels rather meaningless.

but that's not the only thing. in germany it is common to ask for written reference letters which are called "arbeitszeugnis" (work report card, like the report card you get from school). that term makes me feel like i was a kid. it clearly establishes a hierarchy. i am the lowly subordinate employee and you are the superior employer that i am to look up to. it gets really wierd when i consider that i have been on the other side as an employer myself. (and by law these letters must be honest and may not contain unfounded negative statements which makes employers avoid writing anything negative because they could get sued.)

and then there are places who ask for actual school report cards or at least grade averages or want to know how i did in math in school, as if that was in any way useful to understand how i would do as a programmer decades later.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. I am seeking a cofounder to build the job board that vets employers, and makes money by charging candidates to access it. Sounds like awful monetization. Dating site issue is right. Your best candidates (so ideally, all the ones you vet) won't be long term subscribers. And sadly, there's way too many grifts in the job system where a candidate paying is a red flag. You'd need to offer the candidates something of va…

What if the employer was charged a subscription fee, instead of waiting until they find a hire to charge? Then the incentive is for the company to find a hire quickly, since they're now paying per month instead of per head. Some companies will balk at this, obviously, since existing services charge them per head and they don't know how fast a viable hire will appear...but I'd guess that this would be highly effective…

having been on the employers side, i agree with that idea because i think it aligns incentives a bit better. with paying per head only, the recruiters are motivated to get me to accept the first candidate they can find with the least amount of work. with a monthly subscription the recruiter can take more time to find a good candidate because it won't hurt their bottom line.

Re: Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers

#263
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the employer was charged a subscription fee, instead of waiting until they find a hire to charge? Then the incentive is for the company to find a hire quickly, since they're now paying per month instead of per head. Some companies will balk at this, obviously, since existing services charge them per head and they don't know how fast a viable hire will appear...but I'd guess that this would be highly effective…

having been on the employers side, i agree with that idea because i think it aligns incentives a bit better. with paying per head only, the recruiters are motivated to get me to accept the first candidate they can find with the least amount of work. with a monthly subscription the recruiter can take more time to find a good candidate because it won't hurt their bottom line.

This sounds like a productive solution, per my reply to @tmn:

> My understanding is that employers already do pay to post on LI, indeed, etc. It simply works out that paying for ghost jobs is worth it, so the enforcement mechanism needs to be a ban/other thing that doesn't rely on pricing

I didn’t realize the LI, indeed, etc. Sites were charging per-head. Could this website be as simple as “an Indeed that charges employers per-month, to disincentivize ghost postings”?

I think the chicken-and-egg problem is a bigger deal than the dating-app problem; while it’s true the best candidates find jobs quickly, they don’t necessarily stop looking. That said if there’s no postings by employers then you’re dead in the water. How could the first 10 employers be recruited?

Post reply on HN