The primary negative aspect of Ghost jobs (from the perspective of job applicants) is not simply that it "feels bad" but that it floods the usual channels of seeking work with garbage data.

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.

> The reason ghosting is offensive is it feels so disrespectful and impersonal.

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.

Getting a rejection message, even an automated one, removes ambiguity. You're no longer wondering if you missed a call or an email went to spam, you have it right there in writing.

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.

At least this would give you the leverage of seeing that the role is or is not still posted. It would give you a job to do as a candidate in enforcing honesty and seeing that the company wasn't stringing others along with fake postings to create the impression of growth. I would much prefer this to a "no consequences" system for people actively wasting my time.

An automated message would be perfectly fine, since it would still allow me to cross off that application. The people behind the message are of little import. We are unlikely to have any further interactions anyway

the reason ghosting is offensive is that it keeps you waiting to hear back, with the probability you have been ghosted gradually increasing over time, rather than just letting you close that mental channel.

> Getting ghosted is part of life

Only if you tolerate assholes in your life. Many don’t.

Nobody cares about getting a bespoke hand crafted notification, it's just nice sometimes to check that one off in the list.

I honestly don’t see how the two compare. I’m merely asking for a response to a query that I sent myself.

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

There are a lot of regulations I would like to get rid of because they are already being evaded, or otherwise have bad second order consequences; and those second-order consequences are themselves an annoying part of the fabric of daily life that I'm familiar with.

> I hate this mentality: "We can't possibly regulate companies, because they are so clever and they'll find loopholes and work around any law we make!" So write better laws! Add provisions for loopholes you anticipate. Add wording to remove ambiguity that the company will try to use to weasel their way out.

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.

> We've tried one thing, and it didn't work so we're all out of ideas!

(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.

Have a read here!

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.

They literally hire someone to be the head of the company, and pay them obscene amounts to set the company culture and policies but somehow they mostly avoid being responsible for bad company behaviour.

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

Distribute the jail time among the shareholders. That will get them to incentivize legality over profits REAL quick

Frankly, I'd just prefer really huge fines, preferably scaled as a percentage of either gross or net revenue or profit.

Part of the law was broad. Part of the law was narrow. How did you establish the broad part was intended broad and the narrow part was not intended narrow?

I mean, agreed. I'd go even further and say the whole "Eligible for rehire?" question is an effort to backdoor this into employment verification. Employment verification should be "First date of employment? Last date of employment? Thank you."

"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".

In trading (of securities) posting an order without intent to execute is considered market manipulation, which is illegal and harshly prosecuted. There is a consideration that change of mind is possible, but you'll have a hell of a lot to prove in such case before authorities let you off.

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.

The proposed law would require disclosure. Not legal penalty for no hire before the projected date.

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?

you're not engaging with all the political and game theory issues that make that difficult to do in practice. Let alone the uncertainty that impacts businesses (even ones that are acting in good faith)

I will keep this in mind while working with reps in other states to encourage a more aggressive policy stance with regards to ghost jobs.

> 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.