Most active commenters
  • LorenPechtel(3)

←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 13 comments | 26 Aug 25 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
LorenPechtel ◴[26 Aug 25 17:21 UTC] No.45029568[source]▶
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 backwards. Leave the ad up, but they are required to amend it with external hire/internal hire/H-1B when the position is filled. Let people see what has happened in the past. And all jobs must be associated with some entity and indicate how long that entity has existed.

replies(4): >>45029638 #>>45030436 #>>45032384 #>>45039564 #
nickff ◴[26 Aug 25 17:27 UTC] No.45029638[source]▶
Those 'one specific person' ads are usually there to comply with an internal requirement or external regulation/law, so they wouldn't be able to say that it was filled, because that would be an admission that the whole process was a sham.
replies(2): >>45029663 #>>45029688 #
1. LorenPechtel ◴[26 Aug 25 17:30 UTC] No.45029688[source]▶
It would be filled, they would be required to say so. Yes, it's going to look bad, that's the point.
replies(1): >>45029732 #
2. nickff ◴[26 Aug 25 17:34 UTC] No.45029732[source]▶
The requirement which is driving the posting is a requirement that they search for candidates other than the one specific person they have in mind. If they post it with 'already filled' in the posting, they would not be complying with the requirement. The requirement is usually driven by a law or some policy created outside the hiring process for that position, so the hiring manager(s) are not permitted to do what you suggest.
replies(3): >>45029798 #>>45029974 #>>45030013 #
3. em-bee ◴[26 Aug 25 17:39 UTC] No.45029798[source]▶
the suggestion is to change the law.
replies(1): >>45031226 #
4. a_cardboard_box ◴[26 Aug 25 17:53 UTC] No.45029974[source]▶
You seem to misunderstand the proposal. The proposal is that after they have done everything that is already legally required (advertise an open position for some amount of time etc), then they must amend the posting to include that the position is filled by an internal/external/H-1B hire. There is still a period of time when the position is advertised as open.
replies(2): >>45030637 #>>45031014 #
5. yardie ◴[26 Aug 25 17:57 UTC] No.45030013[source]▶
I was employed as a contractor for a state agency many years ago. When it was time to convert to permanent full-time they had to advertise my job on the job boards because of some law. I also had to apply to my job in the same fashion. Not a promotion or pay raise was profered, just a straightforward contractor to FTE process. And I almost didn't get it.

So, I convert my resume into the job description that would be posted. Thinking it will get 100% hit rate. Lo and behold, someone else took that job description and basically converted it into their resume. And got a higher ATS score!

6. alistairSH ◴[26 Aug 25 18:51 UTC] No.45030637{3}[source]▶
Which is still "broken" since the position was never really open in the first place - it's still a ghost listing, as the position was always going to an internal hire or H1b or whatever.
replies(2): >>45031202 #>>45043934 #
7. azemetre ◴[26 Aug 25 19:22 UTC] No.45031014{3}[source]▶
I use to work for a company that got around this by posting the job ad physically outside our offices doors. We were 5 stories in a WeWork space. Probably illegal but I doubt the company cared.
8. jacobgkau ◴[26 Aug 25 19:34 UTC] No.45031202{4}[source]▶
Yes, but requiring the post-fill disclosure will at least make data available to work the problem further.
9. philipallstar ◴[26 Aug 25 19:36 UTC] No.45031226{3}[source]▶
Reducing regulations around H1B requirements (and fixing that by just reducing H1Bs) and internal hiring would be the way to solve it.
replies(1): >>45032399 #
10. TrousersHoisted ◴[26 Aug 25 21:12 UTC] No.45032399{4}[source]▶
H1Bs aren't the only problem, though.
replies(2): >>45033232 #>>45037380 #
11. edoceo ◴[26 Aug 25 22:40 UTC] No.45033232{5}[source]▶
They (H1B) seem to the "low hanging fruit" many (not just in this thread) are pointing to. I spend time in hiring circles and I hear this sentiment frequently. And the Ghost Post issue too. I think Ghost is bigger issue than H1B. Don't have a good solution.
12. philipallstar ◴[27 Aug 25 09:45 UTC] No.45037380{5}[source]▶
They're enough, and they cause many other problems. If we limit ghost jobs to salary benchmarking then that's a massive reduction.
13. LorenPechtel ◴[27 Aug 25 19:26 UTC] No.45043934{4}[source]▶
The point was not to solve it, but to expose it.