Ghost jobs are wreaking havoc on tech workers
Companies increasingly post “ghost jobs” — roles that are already filled, speculative, or never intended to be hired for — to satisfy compliance rules, build talent pipelines, impress investors, or pressure existing staff. Commenters describe how this floods job boards with misleading listings, forces candidates into high-volume, low-return application strategies, and erodes trust in both employers and platforms like LinkedIn and even Hacker News’s own hiring threads. Proposed responses range from stricter legal enforcement and unionization to redesigned job boards that vet employers and community rules requiring posts to represent real, actively hiring positions.
Prevalence and Forms of Ghost Jobs
- Many describe fake or “already filled” roles as common: listings used to collect resumes, test the market, satisfy HR/legal process, or signal growth to investors.
- Government, large enterprises, and H‑1B/PERM immigration processes are called out for mandated postings when an internal/visa candidate is effectively preselected.
- Some managers allegedly post speculative roles (“if a unicorn appears, we’ll hire”) or to gauge how replaceable current staff are.
Impact on Candidates and Employers
- Candidates report spending hours on applications, tests, and video interviews only to be ghosted or later told the role is frozen or never real.
- Several note emotional harm and wasted “precious capital” (time, money, childcare tradeoffs) vs. employers mostly wasting on‑the‑clock time.
- A few small‑company hiring managers push back, saying they too are overloaded with spammy, unqualified applications; they see the burden as symmetrical.
Platforms, Job Search Strategy, and Networking
- Mixed views on LinkedIn/Indeed: some say they’re spammy and recommend going direct to company career pages or ATS URLs; others report multiple good jobs via LinkedIn, especially from inbound recruiters.
- Strong sentiment that networking and prior connections are far more effective than cold applications, though some report success primarily from job boards.
- One subthread unpacks “networking” as long‑term relationship‑building vs short‑term schmoozing; many find it opaque or socially biased.
HN “Who’s Hiring” Thread
- Users believe ghost jobs and repeat boilerplate ads exist there too.
- Moderator introduces a new rule: only post if you intend to fill the role and will respond to all applicants; discussion centers on how (or whether) this can be enforced.
- Ideas: auto‑detect repeated identical ads, link to previous month’s listing, allow flags or meta‑feedback, or build more structured tooling around the thread.
Legal and Regulatory Questions
- Some argue ghost postings are deceptive and should fall under FTC or state false‑advertising or securities‑fraud doctrines; others highlight enforcement difficulty and side‑effects of existing “fairness” regulations that already drive some fake postings.
- Unionization and worker co‑ops are mentioned as political/structural responses, but how they would directly stop ghost jobs is seen as unclear.
Proposed Fixes and New Services
- Suggestions include: required salary ranges, mandated responses or feedback to candidates, and explicit disclosure of speculative or “pipeline” roles.
- One founder‑type proposes a paid job board that vets employers and bans ghost listings; others question monetizing jobseekers and the classic “dating site” incentive problem.