A Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0178897782
- News link: https://politics.slashdot.org/story/25/08/27/1938243/a-proposal-to-ban-ghost-jobs
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/25/tech-worker-was-frustrated-with-ghost-jobs-now-hes-trying-to-pass-a-national-ban.html
> "There's nothing illegal about posting a job, currently, and never filling it," says Thompson, a network engineering leader in Warrenton, Virginia. Not to mention, it's "really hard to prove, and so that's one of the reasons that legally, it's been kind of this gray area." As Thompson researched more into the phenomenon, he connected with former colleagues and professional connections across the country experiencing the same thing. Together, the eight of them decided to form the TJAAA working group to spearhead efforts for federal legislation to officially ban businesses from posting ghost jobs.
>
> In May, the group drafted its first proposal: The TJAAA aims to require that all public job listings include information such as:
> - The intended hire and start dates
> - Whether it's a new role or backfill
> - If it's being offered internally with preference to current employees
> - The number of times the position has been posted in the last two years, and other factors, according to the draft language.
>
> It also sets guidelines for how long a post is required to be up (no more than 90 calendar days) and how long the submission period can be (at least four calendar days) before applications can be reviewed. The proposed legislation applies to businesses with more than 50 employees, and violators can be fined a minimum of $2,500 for each infraction. The proposal provides a framework at the federal level, Thompson says, because state-level policies won't apply to employers who post listings across multiple states, or who use third-party platforms that operate beyond state borders.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/25/tech-worker-was-frustrated-with-ghost-jobs-now-hes-trying-to-pass-a-national-ban.html
[2] https://www.truthinjobads.org/
Waste of time (Score:2)
This is going to turn out like how we're chasing down illegal immigrant farm workers while actual harmful criminals go free. You going to investigate each ad? Plus how do you prove it without being draconian against the innocent? As in sometimes, there might be an opening and then some budget cut or market change and the opening is not longer relevant or fundable?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you sadly
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's fine to just send a message by making it technically illegal with no plan or method for enforcement. It would be better than what we have, and it could be used as a fallback in specific cases to give a person grounds to sue. And even then, it won't stop it and it won't be easy to prove, but just having the chance of having an expense to defend it in court is possibly enough to discourage the most blatant cases.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think it's fine to just send a message by making it technically illegal with no plan or method for enforcement.
No. This is the worst possible choice. It inevitably leads to selective enforcement: a tool to punish those who are disfavored or uncooperative.
at the very least do it for H1B jobs (Score:2)
at the very least do it for H1B jobs
Proving intent is hard (Score:3)
It's very possible, and should be legal, for a business to put out job advertisements when they are hoping to find a perfect fit to apply and otherwise just hire no-one. That's legit.
This group seems upset that they've probably applied to hundreds of jobs and haven't gotten hired. There could be lots of explanations for that.
Title (Score:2)
I understand his frustration, but realistically I think this would be very difficult to enforce.
There are positions that we've been generally interested in filling that takes months or even more than a year to fill, because of the lack of qualified applicants (either because they don't want to work in the middle of nowhere, don't want to move there without some type of moving bonus, or they don't like the salary offered).
Re: (Score:2)
> There are positions that we've been generally interested in filling that takes months or even more than a year to fill, because of the lack of qualified applicants (either because they don't want to work in the middle of nowhere, don't want to move there without some type of moving bonus, or they don't like the salary offered).
This - especially regarding the suggested requirement of:
> It also sets guidelines for how long a post is required to be up (no more than 90 calendar days)
but also this is problematic:
> how long the submission period can be (at least four calendar days) before applications can be reviewed
So now you're forcing the employer to limit applications to 90 days (and then what? Post it yet again? What a waste of time for both the employer and potential applicants), and forcing them to wait 4 days before they can fill
I hope they do not succeed (Score:4, Interesting)
My small 10-person company has been trying to hire an experienced software dev/architect for about 6 months. We are offering about $200K + benefits for the position and it can be remote as long as it is within the US. At first we tried hiring directly, when that did not produce results, we signed on with a recruiter. And there the results were even less compelling. We interviewed plenty of people, but did not find anybody who we considered qualified. I am not sure why this is. Maybe we are too small or not offering enough money to attract the correct candidates.
I can totally see why some of the candidates we rejected might think that we are advertising a ghost position.
Re: (Score:2)
and how many people got auto rejected? How many people where turned down for faking stuff just to get seen by an real person?
are you looking for very people experienced with rare skills? or need stuff like must have skills with X that is like 5 years out of date running on 10 year old hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
Send me an email. I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and own a small (9 person) dev shop. I might be able to help you.
Proprietary information ... (Score:2)
The proposal infringes on the protection of internal information.
Imagine what investors, shareholders, and competitors could glean from information like:
- The intended hire and start dates
- Whether it's a new role or backfill
- If it's being offered internally with preference to current employees
- The number of times the position has been posted in the last two years, and other factors, according to the draft language.
Re: (Score:2)
> The proposal infringes on the protection of internal information.
... or AI bots.
Okay, but ... (Score:5, Funny)
> A Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs
How will he haunt the halls of Apple? :-)
I guess ... (Score:2)
... Casper will be out of work.
Re: (Score:1)
Casper can be a pole-dancer, he has a nice boooty
Government Contracting requires Ghost Jobs (Score:2)
The way our governments hire contractors pretty much requires every employer that wants to compete for a given contract to round up a bunch of prospective employees -- but not actually hire them unless they win the award. There is lots of hurry up and wait when trying to work for a government. One contract I was part of the pursuit on did not announce a winner until 2 years after the RFP submissions. At which time the winner went back to all those people they had resumes for and tried to bring them on bo
I like it but it won't work (Score:2)
They'll simply tweak the job description every time it's re-posted and claim it's a new position never before made public.
But then how will they avoid immigration laws? (Score:2)
But then how will they skirt the restrictions on hiring foreign workers only when American workers aren't available?
Re: (Score:2)
> But then how will they skirt the restrictions on hiring foreign workers only when American workers aren't available?
Much like they do now, by shifting the job requirements and such until they get the employees they want. I doubt that any real enforcement on this is possible as anyone posting bogus job openings can create excuses on how there's no "ghost jobs" listed. They can point to changes in the economy, as in the pay must be adjusted or the job eliminated because of budget issues. They can point to technology changes, some new AI made a job redundant or some new 3D printer technology didn't pan out like they hope