9 ms·

Disagree. If you post a job then reneg on it that still leaves folks out in the cold who are, in earnest, looking for work. Mistakes happen, and I don't blame

Disagree. If you post a job then reneg on it that still leaves folks out in the cold who are, in earnest, looking for work. Mistakes happen, and I don't blame hiring managers for the shifting financial landscapes they often have to face. But that job wasn't solid enough to count as a real position. Lump them together.

lazide 2y ago
A posting which was never intended to be filled is still different than one that was intended to be filled, but never actually happened. Good luck telling them apart however. If you make it so every posting has to be filled or it’s ‘fraud’, it will be an even bigger mess.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  Maybe, but it's too hard to distinguish between the jobs that were posted with intention to not be filled and jobs that were posted with intention to be filled but through other circumstances weren't. So the distinction is moot. It's a lot like this website. It used to be pretty obvious which comments were trolls and which are real people but more and more the people have gotten dumber and the trolls gotten smarter so it's almost impossible to tell the difference between maliciousness and stupidity and for the rest of us it doesn't really matter one way or the other. A person wasting our time is a person wasting our time, the intentions aren't important.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    different is a matter of use case. The difference doesn't matter to the applicant. It probably does if you propose the death penalty for posting fake listings.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      A fine large enough to make bad job postings (genuine or not) unprofitable is fine. We don't need reducto ad absurdum here. Just make businesses put thought into their postings and not let someone who has no idea of the qualifications right them up themselves.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        There is nothing wrong with reductor ad absurdum to make a point about dependency and categories. It is the primary use case. I think there are a million practical challenges to implementing a fine. I wonder if there is enough incentives to draw employers to a verified list service.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Sure there is, it's in the name. We don't need an absurd argument for a punishment that is straightforward to explain. You usually use absurdum to simplify complex topics. Or I suppose to win a presidential debate, these days.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I brought it up because people seemed genuinely confused on the idea that job listing background could matter for one person and not for another. Of course it is subjective until you introduce a context.
  - Bjartr 2y ago
    > So the distinction is moot. From the perspective of an applicant's emotional response, sure, but it's absolutely relevant in order to have a conversation about how to solve it since the different causes may need different approaches, or may occur in sufficiently differing rates to influence which should be addressed first.
    - grajaganDev 2y ago
      The distinction is also moot from perspective of an individuals's time being cavalierly wasted by a large corporation.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Just wait until you start thinking about dating. But if we’re claiming fraud, either way the intent is actually the deciding factor. You can’t commit fraud without a guilty mind (mens rea)- at least in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Modern dating sucks, but at least half the time there's a real human on the other side that isn't a corporation trying to sell me something. And yes, that's what audits are for. To deduce intent by investigating from within, something we could never do.
        lazide 2y ago
        nah, fake profiles are a huge problem. depending on the site, it could easily be 1 to 5 real:fake or more.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I did say 1 in 2 weren't bots. I wouldn't say that's great in any measure when your goal is some form of companionship.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  It's even harder to tell them apart in a bear market where the job market is stacked in favor of employers (for the moment). With the current glut of laid off engineering talent in the hiring pool, if an employer cannot find a candidate, they are not really serious about hiring. Yes, there's more filtering involved now, but you can't say that the candidates don't exist.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Every posting needs to have an honest attempt to fill it. I don't know the exact numbers, but if there 1000 applicants per posting and you end up reposting your job 4 times, there's clearly something amiss.this overlap of 1-4000 applications and not one of them are worth a call? Even if we accept 90% is spam, that's still hundreds of candidates in a "recruiters market" being passed over.
  - lazide 2y ago
    The challenge of course is that ‘I just didn’t like them’ is a valid form of discrimination. So while it may be obviously bullshit (what, you can’t find anyone you actually like out of thousands?), it takes a non trivial amount of paperwork right now to prove it’s bullshit to the degree you could actually punish anyone for it. Especially with the recent administration change.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yeah, the usual product of excessive greed. It's on the exploited to prove stuff with info they don't have access to. At least Lina Khan gave voided non-competes before capitalism took the reigns again.
bdcravens 2y ago
There are job postings out there that are solid, but where the company is unwilling to pay the recruiter markup, and hiring organically just doesn't result in solid candidates. Not every company hiring is a Fortune 500 or Big Tech company looking to get over on the world. Many are smaller companies looking to fill roles but may be lacking in the bandwidth or resources to lower expectations and either pay well over market or hire downmarket and train extensively. To say these companies are hiring fraudulently is unfair.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >hiring organically just doesn't result in solid candidates. If you get one bad hire, it's probably on them If you get 20 bad hires, it's probably on the company. At some point, no matter the size, people really need to look at themselves and say if they are really trying to enhance their shop and let talent succeed, or if they are a churn shop and don't deserve solid candidates to begin with.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    I'm not talking about hires, but candidates. Not all markets are awash in talent in every stack.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      It's the same concept. Even with niche tech. If you can't hire a good candidate in a buyers market, and repeatedly get bad hires, what's your interview pipeline doing? Paying too low, getting reqs wrong in a game of telephone? Hiring through nepotism instead of merit? I'm just a bit tired of the "but we need to avoid bad hires" narrative. Especially since a certain blundermouth more or less said the quiet part out loud for the intentions many have with that. It made sense in 2022, but is that really an issue in 2025? If you can't "find solid candidates" now, how did you Faire in non-bust markets?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lazide 2y ago

A posting which was never intended to be filled is still different than one that was intended to be filled, but never actually happened. Good luck telling them apart however. If you make it so every posting has to be filled or it’s ‘fraud’, it will be an even bigger mess.

kylebenzle 2y ago
Maybe, but it's too hard to distinguish between the jobs that were posted with intention to not be filled and jobs that were posted with intention to be filled but through other circumstances weren't. So the distinction is moot. It's a lot like this website. It used to be pretty obvious which comments were trolls and which are real people but more and more the people have gotten dumber and the trolls gotten smarter so it's almost impossible to tell the difference between maliciousness and stupidity and for the rest of us it doesn't really matter one way or the other. A person wasting our time is a person wasting our time, the intentions aren't important.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  different is a matter of use case. The difference doesn't matter to the applicant. It probably does if you propose the death penalty for posting fake listings.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    A fine large enough to make bad job postings (genuine or not) unprofitable is fine. We don't need reducto ad absurdum here. Just make businesses put thought into their postings and not let someone who has no idea of the qualifications right them up themselves.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      There is nothing wrong with reductor ad absurdum to make a point about dependency and categories. It is the primary use case. I think there are a million practical challenges to implementing a fine. I wonder if there is enough incentives to draw employers to a verified list service.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Sure there is, it's in the name. We don't need an absurd argument for a punishment that is straightforward to explain. You usually use absurdum to simplify complex topics. Or I suppose to win a presidential debate, these days.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I brought it up because people seemed genuinely confused on the idea that job listing background could matter for one person and not for another. Of course it is subjective until you introduce a context.
- Bjartr 2y ago
  > So the distinction is moot. From the perspective of an applicant's emotional response, sure, but it's absolutely relevant in order to have a conversation about how to solve it since the different causes may need different approaches, or may occur in sufficiently differing rates to influence which should be addressed first.
  - grajaganDev 2y ago
    The distinction is also moot from perspective of an individuals's time being cavalierly wasted by a large corporation.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Just wait until you start thinking about dating. But if we’re claiming fraud, either way the intent is actually the deciding factor. You can’t commit fraud without a guilty mind (mens rea)- at least in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Modern dating sucks, but at least half the time there's a real human on the other side that isn't a corporation trying to sell me something. And yes, that's what audits are for. To deduce intent by investigating from within, something we could never do.
        lazide 2y ago
        nah, fake profiles are a huge problem. depending on the site, it could easily be 1 to 5 real:fake or more.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I did say 1 in 2 weren't bots. I wouldn't say that's great in any measure when your goal is some form of companionship.
ryandrake 2y ago
It's even harder to tell them apart in a bear market where the job market is stacked in favor of employers (for the moment). With the current glut of laid off engineering talent in the hiring pool, if an employer cannot find a candidate, they are not really serious about hiring. Yes, there's more filtering involved now, but you can't say that the candidates don't exist.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Every posting needs to have an honest attempt to fill it. I don't know the exact numbers, but if there 1000 applicants per posting and you end up reposting your job 4 times, there's clearly something amiss.this overlap of 1-4000 applications and not one of them are worth a call? Even if we accept 90% is spam, that's still hundreds of candidates in a "recruiters market" being passed over.
- lazide 2y ago
  The challenge of course is that ‘I just didn’t like them’ is a valid form of discrimination. So while it may be obviously bullshit (what, you can’t find anyone you actually like out of thousands?), it takes a non trivial amount of paperwork right now to prove it’s bullshit to the degree you could actually punish anyone for it. Especially with the recent administration change.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Yeah, the usual product of excessive greed. It's on the exploited to prove stuff with info they don't have access to. At least Lina Khan gave voided non-competes before capitalism took the reigns again.

bdcravens 2y ago

There are job postings out there that are solid, but where the company is unwilling to pay the recruiter markup, and hiring organically just doesn't result in solid candidates. Not every company hiring is a Fortune 500 or Big Tech company looking to get over on the world. Many are smaller companies looking to fill roles but may be lacking in the bandwidth or resources to lower expectations and either pay well over market or hire downmarket and train extensively. To say these companies are hiring fraudulently is unfair.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>hiring organically just doesn't result in solid candidates. If you get one bad hire, it's probably on them If you get 20 bad hires, it's probably on the company. At some point, no matter the size, people really need to look at themselves and say if they are really trying to enhance their shop and let talent succeed, or if they are a churn shop and don't deserve solid candidates to begin with.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  I'm not talking about hires, but candidates. Not all markets are awash in talent in every stack.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's the same concept. Even with niche tech. If you can't hire a good candidate in a buyers market, and repeatedly get bad hires, what's your interview pipeline doing? Paying too low, getting reqs wrong in a game of telephone? Hiring through nepotism instead of merit? I'm just a bit tired of the "but we need to avoid bad hires" narrative. Especially since a certain blundermouth more or less said the quiet part out loud for the intentions many have with that. It made sense in 2022, but is that really an issue in 2025? If you can't "find solid candidates" now, how did you Faire in non-bust markets?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]