Ghost jobs are essentially the 'vaporware' of the HR world. In any other department, misrepresenting your intent to engage in a transaction would be seen as a breach of professional ethics. The fact that it has become a standard KPI for HR departments to 'keep the pipeline warm' at the expense of thousands of hours of unpaid candidate labor is a massive market failure.
Seems like participation in unemployment should require every job posting to be recorded as to date open, date filled, number of candidates applied, number interviewed. Such information should be public and weekly updated. Companies that do not comply should pay a higher rate.
> In most other situations related to money or contracts, it would be a criminal offense punishable by prison time
What are you thinking of? In most cases, that falls firmly under the category of bullshitting. Annoying. Unprofessional. Dishonest. But rarely criminal.
What makes this possibly illegal (though I'm still unsure if it's crimial) is that it's specifically around employer-employee relations.
Most jobs for women are basically daycare. It makes sense that they want to keep the HR department busy by having them pretend they are going to hire people.
what kind of redpill schizophrenia is this? no business is going to care about unpaid peoples time, and if they have to list a job publicly even if they have internal hires it only makes it worse.
> Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data.
How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just to suck in resumes to some database just seems like it should be illegal. Or just like running scams is illegal but they are in another country "so tough luck, you'll never get us"?
I believe it actually is illegal, via a set of more general rules on data collection, on what constitutes a fraud, etc. May not be spelled out exactly like this specific use case, but still very likely covered by law. Just difficult to prove.
I saw this post on reddit where some sketchy AI company (Alpheva AI) is posting jobs and requesting a screenshot of all applicants having left their app a 5-star review in the app store as part of the application process:
It certainly would be illegal in Europe under the GDPR - data collected for one purpose (handling of applications) cannot be used for another without explicit, informed consent.
The box would need to be off by default and clearly state the purpose. It would at least be possible to verify it exists and no example has been shown.
This seems analogous to the following.
A company asks users to fill out an online survey in exchange for participation in some raffle, except the company never pays out any prize.
As with the job application there was never a guaranteed reward, but it's still easy to see the damage. The company induced to you to provide them with an economically valuable asset (filled out survey/application) for which you expected a fair chance at a reward.
It seems plausible that you could claim damages at least up to the expected value.
Because some animals are more equal than others and the government has decided that companies are not only citizens but the more equal group.
Half the shit companies do that gets them a fine would land any individual in jail for committing the same action, but we let them get away with just paying it off. Simultaneously we give those organizations the same rights.
It’s a system with three classes of citizen where the rich and corporations have a better right to responsibility ratio and the average human has a much worse ratio
To add onto this, the single exception I am aware of to this rule is the result of the gas explosions in Massachusetts.
In that case the company in charge, Columbia Gas, "exited" the market but all the scuttlebutt I heard in the area was that the Mass government was threatening the corporate execution of revoking their charter, which lead to Columbia gas selling their business off at a loss to Eversource
I am not sure if more regulation is a solution, but the lack of respect for job seekers is a real problem.
And not just with ghost jobs. My recent experience as a job seeker was harrowing - even with large, proud companies. I would pass multiple rounds of interviews with senior/director-level interviewers only to never hear back from the company - even after a direct request for an update or feedback. Just total ignorance. Again, this happened with a FAANG+ company.
In the Netherlands by law you have the right to retrieve any written internal correspondence regarding your interviews as to ascertain it was a fair decision and decision making process.
Side effect of this is also to keep any bias out of the equation and, being on the other side, easier to call out colleagues making inappropriate or downright discriminating comments (which in my experience unfortunately happens everywhere still)
The unintended side effect of this is that HR coaches you to be as vague as possible in responses. I can’t give real feedback because some feedback may seem dissimilar to other feedback and look like discrimination if you blur your eyes.
Isn't the side effect also giving incentive to those companies to just not be honest in internal communication? But do the real conversation via call or different channel?
If you make such request, how can you enforce to get all of the comms? I'm curious, would some government institution step in and audit their mail servers, slack channels, google hangouts and all other channels to obtain all of the information?
I happen to agree with you, but it's also worth mentioning that solving whatever problem is creating the need to post ghost jobs in the first place would also make posting them unnecessary (presumably insecurity about the company's ability to assess, hire and retain high quality talent.)
But those are very hard, company-specific problems to solve, hence my agreement :-)
I wonder why people still apply to FAANG companies, there is nothing to be won by working for them. Your work has zero impact, you're actively paid to enshittify stuff over making it better, you have horrible bureaucracy within the company, they lay off thousands of people per year so your job never really is secure, all of FAANG is ethically corrupt beyond means. I'd never hire a FAANG employee to be honest, while working there your skill actively declines because all you really do there is play corporate charade and hope not being laid off.
Aside from the fact that you have no real job security anywhere, people take FAANG jobs for money. Both the high pay at the company itself, and the idea that once FAANG is on your resume, it will command the best jobs afterwards too.
I think they have to pay that high because the work sucks so much in reality. That's the equilibrium point between the demand for people to work there, and the supply of people willing to put up with it.
I had good job security doing in house IT for some companies. Never have seen anyone being laid off, could've stayed there for years to come, the stuff I've built was actively being used and made work easier for people. The domain knowledge I gathered even strengthened my job security as it was more efficient to pay me over having to re-train other people. The only risk to my job was me as I left for a startup after a while. Sure, pay wasn't that high compared to FAANG but at least I didn't make peoples life worse while also hating my job.
I was an employment counselor in the late 1990s. Even then, ½ to ¾ of realistic, worthwhile jobs were phantoms.
FF to now and hiring portals silently drop viable applicants for a long list of never disclosed reasons. I know temp agencies that hire, send the employee out on 1 job then never again.
I've never know a time when hiring wasn't crap for entire classes of viable applicants.
My experience is that most of my time goes to writing cover letter (I should probably copy-paste, but instead I always reflect 'why I'm doing this' and write proper letter), never had to spend 30 minutes entering my details...
I feel the biggest blunder would be when applicant gets a take-home, spends some time on it and then there is no answer. Though I never experienced that myself. I never ghosted a candidate when I was on the other side of hiring table, but I was always finding it draining my energy to write the 'no' responses
When we post a job ad on LinkedIn, I already get 30 spam answers in the first few minutes, people that have obviously spent not a single second reading the requirements. And you want to further automate this? I’ll just ask my people person to automate the response.
We really try to spend the time to answer every application, but since AI generated applications have become a thing, we have decided to not answer those. Why should I spent time if you haven’t spent the time?
The spammers spend almost no time filling any application, no matter how much work is intended. They have scripts for that. Granted, making it standardized means less skilled spammers can spam too.
Making it difficult to apply reduces the number of legitimate applications, however.
That’s a great idea if you’re hiring locally but we do hire international remote and I suspect no one will snail-mail me an application from the Americas or South Africa to Germany.
The employers want applications so badly they are willing to post job ads that don't exist.
The need for a referral to get human eyes on your resume is a different problem that isn't made better by making every application expensive for the applicant. Poor quality applicants have more time, you might say.
I disagree and think that increasing the cost of applying would indeed help this problem. If the number of applications is too high for humans to possibly review, what other possible solution could there be?
The problem posed by this article is that companies are wasting candidates' time by making applying take time while offering no actual position.
What if we imagined that companies charged a fee to apply instead of charging candidate time? Then these ghost positions would be obviously considered fraud. We don't normally pay applicants for their time, but isn't a ghost position requiring substantial time to apply also a fraud on the applicant?
All I'm saying is, by removing the payment in time, you remove the fraud.
Applicant spam is an orthogonal problem that has other solutions. Linked-in could limit applicants to one application every 30 minutes, max 16 per day. Employers can use keyword filtering as they already do.
>it’s to raise stock value by fake growth indicators
how does that work as a growth indicator, are there any known organizations that track your growth based on how many job postings you do, and then use that data to indicate your growth?
I don't doubt that it could happen, but if it did we would have to know about it, I also don't doubt that I don't know about it, but I would like to know.
> how does that work as a growth indicator, are there any known organizations that track your growth based on how many job postings you do, and then use that data to indicate your growth?
As a wild guess this may be part of the story a company tells itself. Every individual and company needs to tell themselves a nice "story" to feel good about themselves. In case of a company "damn, look how many jobs we're posting, we're growing and doing great" is a nice story to tell. Yeah the owners/manager know it's fake, the people writing the post know it's fake, people receiving applications also know it's fake, yet it still works. On paper officially they can tell each other how great they are doing. This is more likely how a large company would operate.
Another, more positive perspective from a small company I worked for is "ABH" (Always be hiring). That means always post jobs, and continue interviewing, because you might find an exceptional engineer for whom you'd make an exception and hire them. But at least in our case it was always an honest effort every time to sit down and evaluate the candidates, pay them to visit and interview face to face and such. It wasn't a game it indeed took quite a bit of effort on our side.
It must fill some purpose though. I doubt it's entirely just marketing in most legitimate companies.
Effectively a/b testing job adds?
Or trying to get a range of candidates so they can find a good fit?
Let's say you have, like, 10 jobs to do but you're only going to hire two people (either loading them up with more work, or internally reshuffling responsibilities, probably a bit of both).
So you advertise for every role in your ideal team, then get the two candidates who plug the most holes, or look like the best fit.
I feel dirty suggesting it, but it probably happens.
I heard an argument that the fake jobs are actually to appease internal employees. "We know you are over-worked, but we are trying to get you some help. Look at these postings -too bad everyone who has applied thus far is a complete dud."
Companies don’t have a legal obligation to publicly disclose revenue in many countries, so if you’re selling business insights you’re always on the lookout for indicators that can be used as a proxy to revenue.
Yes, but also to fake how well they are doing to potential, or current investors.
IMHO, these aren't smart investors.. because this should be something that comes up in due diligence, the amount of money left, the current burn rate, and what the company is doing about the latter. If the company was on paper fully staffed, but also actively hiring. That would be for me an indicator that either the hiring is fake, so what else are they faking. Or that the hiring is real, and they are fiscally irresponsible.
There's another angle to all of this, and that's obviously the company isn't fully staffed, there's still some space in the runway for another hire. It's just that right now its a buyers market from the perspective of the company.. So, well, beggars can be choosers.. They're just holding out until that golden candidate comes along. This obviously sucks, and there SHOULD be a maximum length a company can have a job ad out before they have to explain why it's taking so long.
It's not uncommon for countries to require citizens to disclose Who and How many jobs they applied for this week to collect social security.. There should be something similar for companies who have job ads out.
> "Others, we found, were inflating numbers and trying to show their company is growing, even if it's not."
Sounds like a fraud against investors? That could be a way to attack this problem because in the U.S., many issues get turned into laws and regulations protecting shareholders.
My guess is that most of these jobs actually exist, in the sense that if a stellar candidate were to present theirselves, the organization would find a way to hire them.
In larger organisations I think they'll usually be able to find work for an additional SuperBob. Perhaps not in smaller organisations, but I'd also expect them to be less likely to put up spurious vacancies.
I worked at a company where managers would endlessly push this argument to open a job posting. Of course there was no budget to hire, but they would delude themselves that the perfect candidate was out there and they'd 'be able to make a case' for the budget with the stellar application in hand. Of course they had no idea what that actually entailed otherwise they would do it in advance. To HR's credit at that company their policy was never to advertise a post unless the budget was signed off. They would patiently explain this each time some deluded optimist showed up at their door. I can easily believe in companies where the rules are less explicit that the delusion would manifest as an endless procession of advertised postings that could never be actually hired because there is no money to fund them.
Part of me thinks its to see what the competition is doing, see how others are using ai, to train ai, steal ideas/clients (common in the ad/marketing/design) world, train staff to hire, get free consulting.
Some say it’s to raise stock value by fake growth indicators or motivate employees that they are replaceable, but I think those 2 are just partially the case.
My first job was in an industry where "ghost jobs" had a different meaning. Local mafia used to add fictitious names to the worker register at work sites, and someone would come and collect the pay in cash every month. The daily work reports would show these workers as engaged in some house-keeping work.
A lot of head hunters will dangle job offers that don’t exist just so they can get info on the company you’re working at - basically they’re trying to keep tab on who’s in charge of hiring, so they can contact them.
There are also those who are paid by your boss just to see if any of their team members is looking to take off.
I don’t think there is anything new here though. These practice have existed for a while, and there’s not much you can do about it.
> A lot of head hunters will dangle job offers that don’t exist just so they can get info on the company you’re working at - basically they’re trying to keep tab on who’s in charge of hiring, so they can contact them.
This is quite common especially now when the market is bad.
The pattern is a LinkedIn message with vague description (interesting role at a sector), no mention of rate, names or anything else.
I was applying for a while last year. Spending hours to write a cover letter and then either hearing nothing or getting a canned rejection letter is super frustrating. I've come to the conclusion that putting effort into an application is time wasted, so from now on AI is writing pretty much every single one of my cover letters.
Doing that allows me to send out 5 applications in the time it normally takes me to do 1. Since I've seen no actual correlation between effort and success, I figured quantity will give better results than quality. Of course, I might put in actual effort for an opening that I find really interesting, but that's an exception.
A place that physically operates near me posts job openings all the time, for which I'm well-qualified. After applying to several of them (with a very specific and targeted cover letter) and getting no response, my final attempt was to print out a letter and resume and physically take them over to their office.
I was thinking this would make a positive impression and say hey, I'm really interested and I'm willing to go the extra mile. The person who answered the door and to whom I gave the envelope seemed baffled that anyone would do this... saying, you know you can do this online...
I can only conclude that this is a ghost-job situation, where they didn't envision being called out in person and on site. Otherwise, what kind of dicks don't at least raise a respectful eyebrow at (or at least acknowledge) the guy who drives over to their office to hand-deliver a letter and resume?
After that I knew for sure that I wouldn't want to work for these jagoffs anyway... even if the job were real.
Having been on the other end of this repeatedly (as an engineer with a desk near the door, not a hiring manager) and I hate it when people do this.
People are becoming much more adverse to bring panhandled or solicited in a way they cannot ignore, in the same way spam calls are more annoying than spam texts. It's not "initiative" or "extra mile" shit, it's taking advantage of someone's politeness to waste their time.
It also looks hopelessly boomerish, up there with expecting the firmness of a handshake to land a job. I've seen this happen dozens of times and the resumes always end up in the trash within minutes. I've never seen anyone hired this way.
I can tell you that our HR takes the time to write proper responses to every application, but we straight up delete AI written applications. I honor the effort put into any application, but if people haven’t spent the time, then why should we?
Your HR is the exception though, not the rule. I'm willing to risk this, since it allows me to keep my sanity. And if a company really seems awesome I will still put in the effort.
If you can't be bothered with a simple cover letter (a paragraph or two is fine) highlighting why you are a good fit and just send a CV..... Frankly, it comes across as low effort spamming.
I worked in recruiting for a long time and I can tell you I never saw much in the way of any deliberate strategy to create fake job posts.
The thing is that whether or not a job exists at a point in time is far less black and white than you might naively think.
There are many reasons for it to be somewhat grey and banning the practice doesn’t really mean anything because you would have to quantify precisely under what circumstances a job is allowed to be advertised and as I say, it’s not as clear as you might imagine.
There is absolutely not a one to one relationship between a job and a job ad.
>There is absolutely not a one to one relationship between a job and a job ad.
Isn't this a problem? It means companies are wasting individuals' time (hence money), whereas companies are in a better position to hedge the risk. Would it be legal if I started, for example, posting fake apartment ads and not show up (because the apartment doesn't even exist)? Would it be ethical?
Some anecdotes, specific ways it can be unclear how many job openings exist:
I applied for some jobs, two of them liked me and I reached the point where they were competing with each other for me, and I was in salary negotiations. One of them, suddenly, decided to stop trading. I still don't know why.
Another time, I started working(!) and getting paid, but after 6 months the person who everyone (including themselves) was expecting to leave and for me to replace had still not found a new job (presumably due to all the ghost jobs), and there wasn't enough money for both me and them. Last in, first out, bye to me.
One place hired an PM about two weeks before the investors decided to shutter the entire company. (For actual ghost jobs: in my own job hunt after that, I found listings on job boards for that company, that were clearly from several years before I'd joined given the advertised wage range; as the company had told everyone to stop coming in for their notice period, there wasn't even anyone left to ask for those to be deleted).
Back when my dad was around, one of his anecdotes about interviewing candidates was asking the candidate "Why did you leave your last job?" and getting a reply along the lines of "After 6 months, management found out that our entire floor had been hired to do the same thing as the floor next to us. One of the floors had to go."
A company has a graduate scheme, they might be hiring 4 graduates this year, they might be hiring 40. Only one job advert.
External recruiters might then re-advertise the job with the company name removed, planning to funnel people to the company and collect their 20% commission.
External recruiters with several jobs might merge them into one. $250k job for a senior java developer with 5 years finance experience + $75k job for a junior java developer = advertise $250k job for a java developer.
A company might have a slow, centralised hiring pipeline for some roles. Google has a recruiter check the candidate's resume before putting you into a lengthy 6+ interview gauntlet, but only at the end of it do hiring managers actually check if the resume matches an open job. And if course if it takes 2 months to get through the full pipeline, the jobs open at the end aren't the same as the jobs open at the start.
- the boss has agreed to the role but has reservations, seeing a few candidates solidifies them and permission to hire us withdrawn
- the team is inexperienced at hiring and don't know what they want until they've seen a few candidates
- the company is hiring a new whole team. To make hiring easier, roles that are listed are "representative roles" - the total desired skill set across all roles is accurate but the company doesn't care what the split is, they just want a team that covers it. So a candidate who is a better fit for a listed role can be passed over in favour of one that happens to be the right jigsaw piece.
- circumstances changed since permission to hire was given, and no-one remembered to update the hiring portal; because unless you're actively hiring no-one looks at it.
This last one is quite common, because there are so many applications usually that no-one wants them in their email.
Can we please get back to using job fairs already? Why are companies so irritatingly resistant to getting back to doing things in-person and real-time?
Job fairs? You meen those gigs for meeting the junior HR promo girls that hands you a flyer with the company's carreers url, some branded post-it's and a mini pouch of gummi bears?
Not just HR, but actual team leads and members who you can talk to and mutually evaluate each other, face to face. It's a superb event, highly recommended!
(Looks like they've introduced a new digital system too. Intriguing...)
I know companies that are posting vacancies that currently don't exist in order to keep good candidates on the hook. They tell the candidate that we should keep in touch for when the company is ready to hire them.
I am not sure if it's bad or not. It's true that it kinda wastes the candidate's time. In some cases though, the candidate is so good that the company will create a position just for them.
No... it's worse than that; it's THEFT, and monumentally offensive. It's time that everyone, EVERYONE stop giving entities a free pass on stealing from us by deliberately wasting our time.
In every aspect of life, every hour of our day, we're being ripped off. From the assholes blocking the passing lane, to "ghost jobs," to non-functioning subscription-cancellation phone numbers and Web forms... people should be going apeshit about the despicable and unpunished theft of our time.
I feel like if it’s clear from the listing that it’s a catch-all that might not correspond to any real vacancies, it’s fine. Otherwise I think it’s bad, since it’s lying.
In most other situations related to money or contracts, it would be a criminal offense punishable by prison time.
What are you thinking of? In most cases, that falls firmly under the category of bullshitting. Annoying. Unprofessional. Dishonest. But rarely criminal.
What makes this possibly illegal (though I'm still unsure if it's crimial) is that it's specifically around employer-employee relations.
0. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just to suck in resumes to some database just seems like it should be illegal. Or just like running scams is illegal but they are in another country "so tough luck, you'll never get us"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1pp0iej/thi...
Half the shit companies do that gets them a fine would land any individual in jail for committing the same action, but we let them get away with just paying it off. Simultaneously we give those organizations the same rights.
It’s a system with three classes of citizen where the rich and corporations have a better right to responsibility ratio and the average human has a much worse ratio
In that case the company in charge, Columbia Gas, "exited" the market but all the scuttlebutt I heard in the area was that the Mass government was threatening the corporate execution of revoking their charter, which lead to Columbia gas selling their business off at a loss to Eversource
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiSource#Massachusetts_gas_lin...
And not just with ghost jobs. My recent experience as a job seeker was harrowing - even with large, proud companies. I would pass multiple rounds of interviews with senior/director-level interviewers only to never hear back from the company - even after a direct request for an update or feedback. Just total ignorance. Again, this happened with a FAANG+ company.
Side effect of this is also to keep any bias out of the equation and, being on the other side, easier to call out colleagues making inappropriate or downright discriminating comments (which in my experience unfortunately happens everywhere still)
So everyone gets the same form letter.
Nothing else is going to fix this.
But those are very hard, company-specific problems to solve, hence my agreement :-)
I think they have to pay that high because the work sucks so much in reality. That's the equilibrium point between the demand for people to work there, and the supply of people willing to put up with it.
FF to now and hiring portals silently drop viable applicants for a long list of never disclosed reasons. I know temp agencies that hire, send the employee out on 1 job then never again.
I've never know a time when hiring wasn't crap for entire classes of viable applicants.
No more requiring the candidate to do 30 minutes of data entry to encode their resumé into your HR system.
Then a ghost job wouldn't really waste much time, since uploading a JSON should take 30 seconds.
I feel the biggest blunder would be when applicant gets a take-home, spends some time on it and then there is no answer. Though I never experienced that myself. I never ghosted a candidate when I was on the other side of hiring table, but I was always finding it draining my energy to write the 'no' responses
We really try to spend the time to answer every application, but since AI generated applications have become a thing, we have decided to not answer those. Why should I spent time if you haven’t spent the time?
Making it difficult to apply reduces the number of legitimate applications, however.
Either way, you need an automated first screen.
The need for a referral to get human eyes on your resume is a different problem that isn't made better by making every application expensive for the applicant. Poor quality applicants have more time, you might say.
What if we imagined that companies charged a fee to apply instead of charging candidate time? Then these ghost positions would be obviously considered fraud. We don't normally pay applicants for their time, but isn't a ghost position requiring substantial time to apply also a fraud on the applicant?
All I'm saying is, by removing the payment in time, you remove the fraud.
Applicant spam is an orthogonal problem that has other solutions. Linked-in could limit applicants to one application every 30 minutes, max 16 per day. Employers can use keyword filtering as they already do.
how does that work as a growth indicator, are there any known organizations that track your growth based on how many job postings you do, and then use that data to indicate your growth?
I don't doubt that it could happen, but if it did we would have to know about it, I also don't doubt that I don't know about it, but I would like to know.
As a wild guess this may be part of the story a company tells itself. Every individual and company needs to tell themselves a nice "story" to feel good about themselves. In case of a company "damn, look how many jobs we're posting, we're growing and doing great" is a nice story to tell. Yeah the owners/manager know it's fake, the people writing the post know it's fake, people receiving applications also know it's fake, yet it still works. On paper officially they can tell each other how great they are doing. This is more likely how a large company would operate.
Another, more positive perspective from a small company I worked for is "ABH" (Always be hiring). That means always post jobs, and continue interviewing, because you might find an exceptional engineer for whom you'd make an exception and hire them. But at least in our case it was always an honest effort every time to sit down and evaluate the candidates, pay them to visit and interview face to face and such. It wasn't a game it indeed took quite a bit of effort on our side.
Effectively a/b testing job adds?
Or trying to get a range of candidates so they can find a good fit?
Let's say you have, like, 10 jobs to do but you're only going to hire two people (either loading them up with more work, or internally reshuffling responsibilities, probably a bit of both).
So you advertise for every role in your ideal team, then get the two candidates who plug the most holes, or look like the best fit.
I feel dirty suggesting it, but it probably happens.
It was always a delicate balance between on the one hand projecting success, and on the other not scaring clients you couldn't meet demand.
IMHO, these aren't smart investors.. because this should be something that comes up in due diligence, the amount of money left, the current burn rate, and what the company is doing about the latter. If the company was on paper fully staffed, but also actively hiring. That would be for me an indicator that either the hiring is fake, so what else are they faking. Or that the hiring is real, and they are fiscally irresponsible.
There's another angle to all of this, and that's obviously the company isn't fully staffed, there's still some space in the runway for another hire. It's just that right now its a buyers market from the perspective of the company.. So, well, beggars can be choosers.. They're just holding out until that golden candidate comes along. This obviously sucks, and there SHOULD be a maximum length a company can have a job ad out before they have to explain why it's taking so long.
It's not uncommon for countries to require citizens to disclose Who and How many jobs they applied for this week to collect social security.. There should be something similar for companies who have job ads out.
Sounds like a fraud against investors? That could be a way to attack this problem because in the U.S., many issues get turned into laws and regulations protecting shareholders.
Some say it’s to raise stock value by fake growth indicators or motivate employees that they are replaceable, but I think those 2 are just partially the case.
This. Imagine the bureaucracy. The cure would be worse than the disease.
Random checks and whistleblowing are used in other, more "serious" processes, e.g., tax checks. At least here in Europe.
There are also those who are paid by your boss just to see if any of their team members is looking to take off.
I don’t think there is anything new here though. These practice have existed for a while, and there’s not much you can do about it.
This is quite common especially now when the market is bad.
The pattern is a LinkedIn message with vague description (interesting role at a sector), no mention of rate, names or anything else.
Doing that allows me to send out 5 applications in the time it normally takes me to do 1. Since I've seen no actual correlation between effort and success, I figured quantity will give better results than quality. Of course, I might put in actual effort for an opening that I find really interesting, but that's an exception.
I was thinking this would make a positive impression and say hey, I'm really interested and I'm willing to go the extra mile. The person who answered the door and to whom I gave the envelope seemed baffled that anyone would do this... saying, you know you can do this online...
I can only conclude that this is a ghost-job situation, where they didn't envision being called out in person and on site. Otherwise, what kind of dicks don't at least raise a respectful eyebrow at (or at least acknowledge) the guy who drives over to their office to hand-deliver a letter and resume?
After that I knew for sure that I wouldn't want to work for these jagoffs anyway... even if the job were real.
People are becoming much more adverse to bring panhandled or solicited in a way they cannot ignore, in the same way spam calls are more annoying than spam texts. It's not "initiative" or "extra mile" shit, it's taking advantage of someone's politeness to waste their time.
It also looks hopelessly boomerish, up there with expecting the firmness of a handshake to land a job. I've seen this happen dozens of times and the resumes always end up in the trash within minutes. I've never seen anyone hired this way.
Nice bit of ageism there.
Frankly, if desiring to speak to the engineers hiring me is dismissed as "boomerish", then I'm hardly surprised recruiting is in such a mess.
In this case, the short conversation VerifiedReports had proved that, no, he wouldn't be happy working there. QED.
You are effectively filtering out the remaining companies that do care from the pool that you're talking to.
If you can't be bothered with a simple cover letter (a paragraph or two is fine) highlighting why you are a good fit and just send a CV..... Frankly, it comes across as low effort spamming.
The thing is that whether or not a job exists at a point in time is far less black and white than you might naively think.
There are many reasons for it to be somewhat grey and banning the practice doesn’t really mean anything because you would have to quantify precisely under what circumstances a job is allowed to be advertised and as I say, it’s not as clear as you might imagine.
There is absolutely not a one to one relationship between a job and a job ad.
Isn't this a problem? It means companies are wasting individuals' time (hence money), whereas companies are in a better position to hedge the risk. Would it be legal if I started, for example, posting fake apartment ads and not show up (because the apartment doesn't even exist)? Would it be ethical?
Sounds like you've figured out exactly the problem then. If you're advertising for a job and there isn't a job then you've got a problem.
I applied for some jobs, two of them liked me and I reached the point where they were competing with each other for me, and I was in salary negotiations. One of them, suddenly, decided to stop trading. I still don't know why.
Another time, I started working(!) and getting paid, but after 6 months the person who everyone (including themselves) was expecting to leave and for me to replace had still not found a new job (presumably due to all the ghost jobs), and there wasn't enough money for both me and them. Last in, first out, bye to me.
One place hired an PM about two weeks before the investors decided to shutter the entire company. (For actual ghost jobs: in my own job hunt after that, I found listings on job boards for that company, that were clearly from several years before I'd joined given the advertised wage range; as the company had told everyone to stop coming in for their notice period, there wasn't even anyone left to ask for those to be deleted).
Back when my dad was around, one of his anecdotes about interviewing candidates was asking the candidate "Why did you leave your last job?" and getting a reply along the lines of "After 6 months, management found out that our entire floor had been hired to do the same thing as the floor next to us. One of the floors had to go."
External recruiters might then re-advertise the job with the company name removed, planning to funnel people to the company and collect their 20% commission.
External recruiters with several jobs might merge them into one. $250k job for a senior java developer with 5 years finance experience + $75k job for a junior java developer = advertise $250k job for a java developer.
A company might have a slow, centralised hiring pipeline for some roles. Google has a recruiter check the candidate's resume before putting you into a lengthy 6+ interview gauntlet, but only at the end of it do hiring managers actually check if the resume matches an open job. And if course if it takes 2 months to get through the full pipeline, the jobs open at the end aren't the same as the jobs open at the start.
- the boss has agreed to the role but has reservations, seeing a few candidates solidifies them and permission to hire us withdrawn
- the team is inexperienced at hiring and don't know what they want until they've seen a few candidates
- the company is hiring a new whole team. To make hiring easier, roles that are listed are "representative roles" - the total desired skill set across all roles is accurate but the company doesn't care what the split is, they just want a team that covers it. So a candidate who is a better fit for a listed role can be passed over in favour of one that happens to be the right jigsaw piece.
- circumstances changed since permission to hire was given, and no-one remembered to update the hiring portal; because unless you're actively hiring no-one looks at it.
This last one is quite common, because there are so many applications usually that no-one wants them in their email.
Put a tax of 10% one year's salary on any employee hired without a registry posting. (employers to put the job posting number on the I-9 form)
Put a $1000 tax on any job posting not filled or cancelled within six months. Make that information public.
I got one lead where the guy gave me the link for good candidates and all the others were useless.
RTO for the recruiters, eh?
Not just HR, but actual team leads and members who you can talk to and mutually evaluate each other, face to face. It's a superb event, highly recommended!
(Looks like they've introduced a new digital system too. Intriguing...)
I am not sure if it's bad or not. It's true that it kinda wastes the candidate's time. In some cases though, the candidate is so good that the company will create a position just for them.
No... it's worse than that; it's THEFT, and monumentally offensive. It's time that everyone, EVERYONE stop giving entities a free pass on stealing from us by deliberately wasting our time.
In every aspect of life, every hour of our day, we're being ripped off. From the assholes blocking the passing lane, to "ghost jobs," to non-functioning subscription-cancellation phone numbers and Web forms... people should be going apeshit about the despicable and unpunished theft of our time.