←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
carefulfungi ◴[26 Aug 25 17:35 UTC] No.45029744[source]▶
This is explictly restricting speech (restricting the right to advertise for labor) and would have to meet a high first amendment bar in the US.

Pay transparency law supporters have argued successfully that there is a compelling interest in closing gender and racial wage gaps and that salary range information can be mandated in job listings for that purpose. What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the government to control speech?

replies(9): >>45029832 #>>45030092 #>>45030131 #>>45030211 #>>45031041 #>>45031437 #>>45032487 #>>45033785 #>>45039658 #
treyd ◴[26 Aug 25 18:05 UTC] No.45030131[source]▶
How is this actually restricting speech? It's not restricting advertisements for labor, it's restricting intentional lies made to misdirect. That's called fraud.
replies(2): >>45030195 #>>45031444 #
terminalshort ◴[26 Aug 25 18:12 UTC] No.45030195[source]▶
No it isn't. Fraud requires damages. Lying is legal. Maybe you could claim damages in the amount of time it takes to apply for the fake job, but it's not really worth it because it wouldn't be worth more than a few bucks.
replies(2): >>45030319 #>>45032025 #
1. _DeadFred_ ◴[26 Aug 25 20:38 UTC] No.45032025[source]▶
If I have 1 month of savings after which I lose my house, my car, maybe my marriage, and I invest time into your fake scheme, what is the cost to me in the end? Much more than a few bucks.

If move cross country because the job market in an area looks really good, only there aren't actually any jobs, what is the cost to me in the end?