4 ms·

If you advertise a job and fail to find a qualified candidate, and then don't fill that role, is that fraud? If you advertise for talent constantly, interview r

If you advertise a job and fail to find a qualified candidate, and then don't fill that role, is that fraud? If you advertise for talent constantly, interview regularly, and hire rarely (but hire), is that fraud? If you have a single role to fill and advertise it multiple times in multiple states as multiple listings because that's how job posting forums work, is that fraud?

didibus 1y ago
I think it can be argued that some of those are. Same as how false price advertising, or I don't know, say you kept calling customer support but never had any problems could start to look like abuse. Or squatting a business parking lot, you can always say, I eventually might need something from the store and intend to buy from it. I think they'd still have you towed and your argument would fail.
- carefulfungi 1y ago
  I've conducted probably 700+ interviews as a hiring manager. A lot of candidates I've spoken to assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. The org chart is dynamic and is affected constantly by changing priority, changing budgets, promotions and departures, and the talent you're attracting. You can't effectively staff at scale under a rule that 1 job listing = 1 box in an org chart. Or at least I've not seen it done - I'd appreciate counter examples :-)
  - ironman1478 1y ago
    Apple does. That's exactly how they hire. I've also seen robotics startups so the same. It's not impossible at places that are growing.
  - jakeydus 1y ago
    Honestly you could have just saved us all this time by stating you're a hiring manager up front. I appreciate your optimism regarding the nature of these postings, but I've seen at multiple companies them doing exactly what they describe in the article - fake job postings to improve their appearance to investors, fake job postings to justify H1B positions, etc. Every time I was at a company that got bought by private equity, the former appeared in huge numbers. As soon as we got acquired, in preparation for downsizing, the latter appeared in huge numbers. So you'll forgive me if "managing job hard :(" doesn't land for those of us who are applying for those jobs that don't exist.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      The problem is H1B. If that goes away, or is massively reduced, then that will help a lot.
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    I'd be ok with this IF AND ONLY IF the job listing is explicit that it's a lead generation/ recruitment pipeline builder. But, it should be in big, bold text: THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL POSITION, WE MAY OR MAY NOT EVER HIRE ANYBODY, BUT SEND US YOUR DETAILS AND MAYBE WE'LL CALL YOU. Of course, I'm assuming companies with actual positions to fill would gain an advantage here, but the whole recruiting industry is so broken, I'm not sure. Either way, the true ghost listings - positions that are box-ticker listings for internal candidates or H1Bs are pretty awful.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    A lot of candidates assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. what does that mean? if you are hiring you describe the qualifications that you are looking for. if you have a range of qualifications, you say so. if it is not a specific job, then don't describe it as such. i'd happily apply to a listing that doesn't advertise a specific role as long as my qualifications match. if candidates come to the wrong conclusion, then maybe the job description was not clear about that. i can see the problem with a broad listing that could be a match for anyone from junior and up, but we are talking about changing laws, so this could be taken into account.
  - didibus 1y ago
    I don't think those are an issue though, these companies are actually hiring at high rates and filling positions. I don't think it would fall into ghost posting. Also, from my experience, there tends to be hiring pools, because they know it's a matter of days before they need someone else.
em-bee 1y ago
if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. if you hire rarely, same thing, if you can demonstrate that it takes a long time to find the right candidate. or, you could be requested to pause posts. to handle a possible confusion about multiple listings, each job could have some kind of ID, in any case you wouldn't have multiple job posts in the same listing.
- sib 1y ago
  >> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a negative.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. if not, why didn't you and why would you then be claiming that you can't find anyone? if you did interview them and they failed, then you have all the proof you need.
    - sib 1y ago
      >>>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. >>> Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a negative. >> if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. That is the point of my anecdote; we did interview them. And yet, we did not hire them, for a variety of reasons. For example, they may not have passed the interview. Or a reference check may have raised concerns. Or we may have hired another candidate whom we also interviewed and who did better. Your implication, that they should have an easy and presumptively correct right to sue (and win) unless we can "demonstrate ... that the candidate was not qualified," is extremely expensive. It can easily cost 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars to defend a lawsuit.
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
No. Obviously not. Are you intentionally being difficult? The article clearly addresses this and the main point is that these jobs are being posted with no intention to fill the role.
nitwit005 1y ago
If you do intend to hire, that's different than the problem being discussed. I admit some companies fail to fill roles due to incompetence, but sadly the law can't force competence.

didibus 1y ago

I think it can be argued that some of those are. Same as how false price advertising, or I don't know, say you kept calling customer support but never had any problems could start to look like abuse. Or squatting a business parking lot, you can always say, I eventually might need something from the store and intend to buy from it. I think they'd still have you towed and your argument would fail.

carefulfungi 1y ago
I've conducted probably 700+ interviews as a hiring manager. A lot of candidates I've spoken to assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. The org chart is dynamic and is affected constantly by changing priority, changing budgets, promotions and departures, and the talent you're attracting. You can't effectively staff at scale under a rule that 1 job listing = 1 box in an org chart. Or at least I've not seen it done - I'd appreciate counter examples :-)
- ironman1478 1y ago
  Apple does. That's exactly how they hire. I've also seen robotics startups so the same. It's not impossible at places that are growing.
- jakeydus 1y ago
  Honestly you could have just saved us all this time by stating you're a hiring manager up front. I appreciate your optimism regarding the nature of these postings, but I've seen at multiple companies them doing exactly what they describe in the article - fake job postings to improve their appearance to investors, fake job postings to justify H1B positions, etc. Every time I was at a company that got bought by private equity, the former appeared in huge numbers. As soon as we got acquired, in preparation for downsizing, the latter appeared in huge numbers. So you'll forgive me if "managing job hard :(" doesn't land for those of us who are applying for those jobs that don't exist.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    The problem is H1B. If that goes away, or is massively reduced, then that will help a lot.
- alistairSH 1y ago
  I'd be ok with this IF AND ONLY IF the job listing is explicit that it's a lead generation/ recruitment pipeline builder. But, it should be in big, bold text: THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL POSITION, WE MAY OR MAY NOT EVER HIRE ANYBODY, BUT SEND US YOUR DETAILS AND MAYBE WE'LL CALL YOU. Of course, I'm assuming companies with actual positions to fill would gain an advantage here, but the whole recruiting industry is so broken, I'm not sure. Either way, the true ghost listings - positions that are box-ticker listings for internal candidates or H1Bs are pretty awful.
- em-bee 1y ago
  A lot of candidates assume job listing advertisements are an org chart. In reality, job listings (at scaling companies especially) are a lead generation tool to attract desired talent into a hiring pipeline. what does that mean? if you are hiring you describe the qualifications that you are looking for. if you have a range of qualifications, you say so. if it is not a specific job, then don't describe it as such. i'd happily apply to a listing that doesn't advertise a specific role as long as my qualifications match. if candidates come to the wrong conclusion, then maybe the job description was not clear about that. i can see the problem with a broad listing that could be a match for anyone from junior and up, but we are talking about changing laws, so this could be taken into account.
- didibus 1y ago
  I don't think those are an issue though, these companies are actually hiring at high rates and filling positions. I don't think it would fall into ghost posting. Also, from my experience, there tends to be hiring pools, because they know it's a matter of days before they need someone else.

em-bee 1y ago

if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. if you hire rarely, same thing, if you can demonstrate that it takes a long time to find the right candidate. or, you could be requested to pause posts. to handle a possible confusion about multiple listings, each job could have some kind of ID, in any case you wouldn't have multiple job posts in the same listing.

sib 1y ago
>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a negative.
- em-bee 1y ago
  if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. if not, why didn't you and why would you then be claiming that you can't find anyone? if you did interview them and they failed, then you have all the proof you need.
  - sib 1y ago
    >>>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. >>> Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a negative. >> if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. That is the point of my anecdote; we did interview them. And yet, we did not hire them, for a variety of reasons. For example, they may not have passed the interview. Or a reference check may have raised concerns. Or we may have hired another candidate whom we also interviewed and who did better. Your implication, that they should have an easy and presumptively correct right to sue (and win) unless we can "demonstrate ... that the candidate was not qualified," is extremely expensive. It can easily cost 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars to defend a lawsuit.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

No. Obviously not. Are you intentionally being difficult? The article clearly addresses this and the main point is that these jobs are being posted with no intention to fill the role.

nitwit005 1y ago

If you do intend to hire, that's different than the problem being discussed. I admit some companies fail to fill roles due to incompetence, but sadly the law can't force competence.