←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 3 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 #
1. OkayPhysicist ◴[26 Aug 25 17:45 UTC] No.45029866[source]▶
The easy way to enforce this would be to leave it individuals. Applied to a job and heard nothing back? Sue. You'd have to pretty tightly define the law, such that it could be simply applied, but I could imagine all sorts of concrete rules which would significantly improve the status quo. Something like "Public job postings may be up for no more than 60 days for a given position, interview process must last no more than 30 days beyond that. By the end of the subsequent 90 day window, the company must either hire at least one applicant and let the others know they didn't make the cut, or demonstrate that they received zero acceptable applicants by providing concrete reasons for rejection to all applicants.

It's a "shit or get off the pot" type deal: the easiest solution to the problem is to just find an acceptable applicant and hire them.

replies(1): >>45031539 #
2. sokoloff ◴[26 Aug 25 19:54 UTC] No.45031539[source]▶
No, the easiest solution is to avoid doing anything that would qualify as a “public job posting” until you’re absolutely out of other options, which is probably worse than the status quo.
replies(1): >>45034396 #
3. alexchantavy ◴[27 Aug 25 01:24 UTC] No.45034396[source]▶
This. The unintended side effect is worse and I feel like the only winners would be the lawyers in the middle.

There are many ways for a company to justify leaving a posting up if sued:

- candidate’s resume did not meet bar so company did not interview

- candidate could not be scheduled

- candidate was interviewed but did not pass

- offer was given to competing candidate but competitor rejected so company couldn’t fill position and still had to leave posting up

Companies would then need to keep super detailed records on job postings which is overhead, and then many would just choose to not publicly post to avoid the hassle