'Ghost jobs' could soon be illegal in New York

Assuming a world where there is a set of employers that would actually like to hire someone and a set of workers who are desiring employment, the set of listings that are not seeking to hire (or are only floating a job listing in perpetuity on the off-chance that some overqualified sap will take up their offer for less than they would expect in the market) encourage bad behavior from the other two parties.

It becomes substantially more difficult to parse through a pile of job listings to find what is a real (or realistic) listing and encourage the "shotgun approach" for applicants.

The flood of competing fake listings and the resultant tidal wave of shotgunned-resumes requires employers to spend more time cross-posting openings to reach real applicants and sorting through a greater number of low-effort bad-fit applications

Mild legislation that requires expected hiring dates and requires employers to say if they are just collecting resumes or face fines does not totally fix the issue but it is a welcome change in the right direction.

That part is annoying, but the open-ended nature of it is a true problem. Having a deadline on a thumbs up/down decision at least lets you move on with your life.

In college, I interviewed with two different local companies that had internships that would continue as part-time positions during the year. Both interviews went well and I felt that the interaction was positive overall. I was confident that I would at least have a good shot at each position after the interview. Both companies ghosted me.

For someone just developing their career and who was excited to work with actual professional companies (instead of the minimum-wage jobs offered to most students), that was kind of a big deal. Looking back, I'm pretty sure that's what really instilled a lot of the cynicism toward interviews I carried even after getting an internship and graduating into a full-time sysadmin position. I honestly got lucky getting the position I did, and I think without that success my cynical view would have spiraled downward.

> Getting ghosted is part of life.

The argument is that it shouldn't be. Responses like yours when people express hope that things can change is just digging your feet in because you think that other people have to deal with the same hardships you did. Everyone acknowledges that getting ghosted sucks, so maybe having a bit of empathy and sending something, even an automated message, should be encouraged more.

What you describe is more like SPAM: Unsolicited bulk rejections to applications that were never sent

Unfortunately, that is exactly how you end up with legalese and laws that are hard for normal people to understand: because bad-faith actors will invent ambiguity, litigate definitions, and argue over the exact meaning of every word.

It's like trying to tell a child "No jumping on the bed!" and they keep doing it while insisting they're not jumping, they're hopping, and then go into a diatribe about the difference between jumping and hopping until you say something like "Do not jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, vault, stomp, rebound, or otherwise employ your feet, legs, knees, or body weight to produce repeated or excessive vertical motion upon, across, or within the boundaries of the bed."

And then they remove the mattress from the bed, put it on the floor, and start jumping on it, and say that wasn't against the rules because you only specified the bed, and declare that a mattress on its own does not constitute a bed.

(I'm sure you're fully aware of this, but just to add on to what you're saying that I agree with...)

This is all an intentional messaging strategy for kicking the can down the road indefinitely done by people who stand to lose if things are changed for the better of the masses.

Same exact strategy is used (often by the same people) to dismiss the idea of more fair taxation and lots of other things we supposedly can't ever make any progress on because our first attempt to address an obvious problem might not be perfect.

https://github.com/Leader-board/OA-and-Interviews/blob/main/...

Once they take in your job application, they're processing your data. You've then got a right, wherever you're from, to see what information they hold on you. That includes interview feedback, test scores and so on.

Prison for illegal behaviour should be applied to the C suite.

"Are they eligible for rehire?" is the nudge nudge wink wink around "well, most of you have policies around providing formal references about performance, so here's one way we can try to gauge".

I agree with many, pointing that companies will (try) find ways to fleece any regulation imposed. And I am not a fan of regulations myself, at all. But I think it is fair to hold businesses to some standard in many aspects, including hiring. It is already being done in regards to some, like discrimination and equality. Un- and under-employment is a matter, dealt with by society through institutions and funded by taxpayers. The "clearance rate" of job applications (from both "buy" and "sell" sides) is, therefore, a state concern. I do not think extending requirements of "business license" to demonstrate "genuine intent" would place insurmountable burden on HRs or CEOs. But of course, such extension must have some teeth.

To be clear, the current situation with excessive ghosting is not helped by decades-old push to "commoditize" jobs, particularly IT jobs. And the regulations we discuss will be a not very well-veiled recognition of its de-facto success. Which I am also not a fan of. But flip side seems worse, when companies are allowed to pretend they'd only settle for unicorn while not demonstrating a "unicorn-shaped sieve" at all.

Employers can reject candidates for employment gaps. They can do this without allowing candidates to explain. Or they can decide to reject an explanation. Candidates should have equivalent information. And equivalent choice.

> The actual way to improve it is to reform the laws that cause companies to list jobs they have no true intention of filling as a requirement for complying with some other law.

The evidence this is the real problem is what?

> The incentive also exists, for the kinds of employers who would post ghost jobs, to also force in-person work again. You don't have to pay these fines to multiple states on one ghost job if the job is only available in one location.

49 states to go to implement this.