←back to thread

446 points Teever | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
snapetom ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
1. terminalshort ◴[] No.45030216[source]
Which is why it should not be used to prevent minor annoyances like wasting a few minutes applying for a job that isn't there.
replies(1): >>45030369 #
2. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.45030369[source]
This is not a minor annoyance, this consumes time and resources both for candidates at scale and diminishes the integrity of data from a labor economics perspective ("open jobs"). It is arguably fraud and should be prosecuted as such (and I'm fairly confident this case can be made to an electorate who isn't going to shrug off even more corporate malfeasance in a softening labor market).