←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: 0.646s | source
Show context
guywithahat ◴[26 Aug 25 17:17 UTC] No.45029519[source]▶
If the number is only 17%, I'm not sure we need to ban them.

From my experience the big issue is hiring managers who either 1) are very casual about hiring (i.e. they're willing to wait 6 months and waste everyone's time), or 2) people who like the idea of hiring but keep changing what they want to hire for (like this month we're having issues with testing, so we want a test engineer, but next month we're having issues with embedded software, so we need a new embedded engineer.

I really don't think there are bands of hiring managers posting fake job ads to make their company look more impressive, I think it's just bands of hiring managers who want a senior engineer with direct experience for <140k

replies(5): >>45029639 #>>45030063 #>>45030233 #>>45031001 #>>45031399 #
Zigurd ◴[26 Aug 25 19:46 UTC] No.45031399[source]▶
This "a senior engineer with direct experience for <140k" is a fake job.
replies(2): >>45031840 #>>45032790 #
1. defen ◴[26 Aug 25 20:20 UTC] No.45031840[source]▶
I've done consulting work for a company with an open job req (it's been open for over 6 months) for a senior embedded engineer in a high cost of living area, offering 140k and no equity. In the meantime they've been paying me $240/hour to do the same work that person would do. It truly makes no sense to me, why they wouldn't just raise their offer to 200k or whatever. But it does happen.
replies(1): >>45031985 #
2. crooked-v ◴[26 Aug 25 20:34 UTC] No.45031985[source]▶
I would bet it's so they can cook the accounting by counting you as a "temporary" expense, unlike the salary of the as yet nonexistent permanent hire.