←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 2 comments | 26 Aug 25 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
snapetom ◴[26 Aug 25 16:58 UTC] No.45029247[source]▶
This is going to be very hard to enforce on a Federal level, let alone pass.

Companies are going to play shell games with the titles, responsibilities, and org structure just enough. There might also be 1st Amendment issues, too. The required reporting numbers will be hollow. The end result will be that it will be on the books, but the government won't have any enforceable actions for years.

And when you do see action, it will drag on for years. The feds go after big fish like Microsoft, which will drag it out. Meanwhile, thousands of your Series B-sized companies that are the biggest culprits, will fly under the radar.

I think you're going to see a few states do pass laws like this. The enforcement question will still be there, but it will be on a smaller scale. Results will be varied. Meanwhile, we need to keep naming and shaming companies and recruiters who do this.

Great idea in theory, tough in practice.

replies(6): >>45029375 #>>45029387 #>>45029559 #>>45029866 #>>45029957 #>>45030459 #
toomuchtodo ◴[26 Aug 25 17:07 UTC] No.45029387[source]▶
All regulation is hard to enforce. Have to start somewhere, and then you keep pulling the ratchet via policy.
replies(2): >>45029548 #>>45030216 #
mothballed ◴[26 Aug 25 17:20 UTC] No.45029548[source]▶
If you create regulation you can't effectively enforce it can actually make things worse. This is why you can buy fentanyl on every corner, but now the people supplying it have small nation-state tier armies of guys in hiluxes with machine guns and truck mounted .50 cal anti-armor guns.

Not saying that will happen with ghost jobs, but it's not a given things will improve.

replies(1): >>45029858 #
1. pessimizer ◴[26 Aug 25 17:44 UTC] No.45029858[source]▶
I have absolutely no idea why you think this regulation would be any harder to implement than any other regulation other than a hand-wavy brief first sentence in your first comment. I have no idea what sort of juggling of job titles you're predicting that will deceive anyone for more than 10 seconds. I have no idea what 1st amendment issue you see in advertising for an employment contract that isn't backed by employment; if you advertise asthma medicine that doesn't have any effect on asthma, people understand that it's fraud.

Also, it seems that you're making a parallel case that it makes no difference to the fentanyl market that there is a law against fentanyl, which makes me think that you apply the Law of Averages to every change that you hear anyone suggest.

e.g. if you make a law against fentanyl, some people will stop selling fentanyl, while other people will be more attracted to selling an illegal drug, therefore a law against fentanyl will have no effect on fentanyl use or sales.

The Law of Averages is not real.

replies(1): >>45029975 #
2. mothballed ◴[26 Aug 25 17:53 UTC] No.45029975[source]▶
I haven't argued a single thing in the straw man you've attacked.

I haven't even speculated whether regulation against ghost jobs would be effective. The thing about the 1A and law of averages is totally out of left field and seem like you're taking up issues with some other comment.