'Ghost jobs' could soon be illegal in New York
New York is considering a law to curb “ghost jobs” — postings for roles that employers either never intend to fill or leave open indefinitely — aiming to protect job seekers from wasted time and false hopes. Commenters debate how effective such a law could be, given easy workarounds, complex legitimate hiring scenarios, and weak enforcement of existing rules like salary transparency. Many still see value in starting with disclosure and iterative regulation, while others argue existing fraud laws, better enforcement, and reforms to related systems (like H-1B hiring practices and ATS-driven ghosting) might address the root problems more directly.
Overview of the New York “Ghost Jobs” Bill
- Bill S8877 targets “ghost jobs” — job ads with no real intent to hire — by requiring more disclosure and setting penalties.
- Some commenters see it as a first step that will need iteration as employers discover loopholes (e.g., constantly moving the “fill by” date).
Support for the Bill
- Many argue ghost postings waste applicants’ time and are cruel in a weak job market.
- Seen as a way to realign incentives: companies should bear some cost for externalizing time and stress onto job seekers.
- Some want this expanded federally and to other states, including consulting-heavy and visa-heavy employers.
Skepticism and Enforcement Concerns
- Doubts about effectiveness if fines are small enough to be treated as a business expense.
- New York is criticized for weak enforcement of existing salary-transparency rules; fear this law will also sit unenforced.
- Some think existing fraud laws (e.g., wire fraud) could already cover egregious ghost postings if prosecutors chose to act.
Legitimate Edge Cases
- Companies may:
- Be waiting on contracts or budget approvals.
- Struggle to find qualified candidates.
- Have internal confusion about headcount.
- Distinguishing bad-faith ghost jobs from slow or failed searches is seen as technically and evidentially hard.
Broader Hiring Frictions (Ghosting, Feedback, ATS)
- Strong desire to ban ghosting applicants or require at least a minimal rejection email, mainly for psychological closure and planning.
- Others warn this would push everyone into ATS workflows optimized for legal compliance, not transparency.
- EU/GDPR examples are cited where applicants can request interview notes and reasons after rejection.
Visa, Compliance, and “Sham” Listings
- H1B rules that require public postings are cited as a driver of sham ads where no non-visa candidate will ever be hired.
- Commenters suggest fixing these upstream legal incentives rather than only punishing postings.
Platforms, Data Harvesting, and APIs
- Concerns that some job platforms repost listings without employer engagement, effectively creating “phantom” pipelines and harvesting applications.
- A job-posting aggregator wonders if it could be treated as a “third-party platform” under such laws and potentially liable or obligated to report violations.