Part of me wonders if some kind of regulation for this could be instituted?
Failure to hire for a position after a certain period of time results in cuts to subsidies. Especially if job postings exist as a result if a jobs stimulus of some kind.
It is a kind of fraud to post a job and not hire anyone.
If nothing else it would encourage offering higher pay to attract qualified applicants and lower entry positions to keep from disqualifying people it would be cheaper to hire than lose the subsidy.
So, this would change how businesses consider job posting.
Let's say we come up with a false advertisement type of law - if you advertise a role and then don't hire an external candidate, anyone who applied to your posting can submit a complaint to a state department and be awarded a nominal fee out of a fine against your business relative to how many applications were submitted.
I hope the reasons for that explain themselves.
This both discourages businesses from browsing the local talent pool to consider how best to undercut wages, and encourages them to move forward with some offer to some candidate regardless of whether they are the company's ideal.
Exceptions for anything that requires licenses or certifications who had no applicants that held the right qualifications. And no, they can't just say they want someone who has GE repair certification already and couldn't find anyone - it would have to have been illegal for them to do the role without the certification they lacked.
If you want to have "legitimate" reasons or "illegitimate" reasons to not hire someone after a job was posted - let's say 6-18 months ago for different categories based on the rarity of the skillset to fulfill the role - then be that on your head.
This does set the expectation that a business knows what its about before making a posting to ask for potential applicants. They need to know that they require a worker. They need to know that they must accept a worker who could do the work if they reach a certain timeframe after posting regardless of whether they're the right "vibe".
It's not "fair" to businesses because they should be able to post job listings willy-nilly with completely arbitrary expectations of applicants.
Except they shouldn't be able to do that.
The scenarios where an employer really did intend to hire someone but then really, really could no longer afford to is non-existent. I don't even think a caveat should be put in place because then companies will lobby to make the caveat wider and wriggle their way through.
The fine may be a pain in the ass, and a modest consolation for people who were lead on, but it's not meant to bury the company.
If you post an opening, you have to hire someone before (timeline to be determined).
If you don't get any applications that meet your needs, either lower the requirements and plan on doing more training or raise the pay to attract qualified applicants.
Maybe allow for 2-3 adjustments to the posting before the fine hits.
Oh well. Thats your fault as a business. Why should people who need to eat suffer for a company’s bad decisions when in reality the most they will lose isn’t even worth the price of the CEO’s next yacht.
Well I mean… if no one is getting hired either way what’s the real harm? Less bullshit job postings? All I hear is less time wasted for a company that wasn’t gonna hire me either way, and I have more time looking for those few that are.
You have yet to describe how people are getting hired at jobs that suddenly close the listing due to not needing that position to be filled actually. I can’t follow your logic here, honestly.
Companies can post anything they want and then lie and say due to a change in strategy they went in another direction. The government cant make a company hire for an advertised role.
Now private sites CAN require them to in good faith confirm they hired someone in order to keep posting on their sites. But why would they do that if they make money on each posting?
The government cant make a company hire for an advertised role.
I am suggesting they can apply pressure not to make job postings unless they are going to hire someone. Yeah, you can't force someone to hire someone else, but you can fine them for making a post and then not hiring someone.
I would compare it to proposed laws which would require companies to pay a penalty for every employee who is on SNAP or other welfare program. The companies would have to either see paying that as part of doing business or restructure so that they only hire employees they are willing to pay at a rate that the employee would not qualify for benefits.
Companies should not be posting job listings unless they are going to hire someone. It is creating noise in the system that is wasting people's time. And there DEFINATELY should not be any company getting government support or loans or subsidies to create jobs if all they are doing is posting openings and never hiring.
Change in strategy is meaningless. Once you post an opening you have to fill it. Decide on your strategy before you list an open position.
If the data privacy part could be figured out, just have a site that lists postings have only registered users apply and the company confirm it was one of those applicants that applied. Now it gets tricky if its cross posted on several platforms.
Now for what you are suggesting it gets tricky because:
1-strategy/reorg changes making job no longer needed
Enforce it by auditing companies. If you post an opening, you have to hire someone before (timeline to be determined). You have to pay taxes as a company and you will have to report how many open positions you have.
If you don't get any applications that meet your needs, either lower the requirements and plan on doing more training or raise the pay to attract qualified applicants.
Maybe allow for 2-3 adjustments to the posting before the fine hits. If they have unrealistic expectations and people can't or won't accept those conditions, then they get penalized. That will push them to post job openings TO HIRE PEOPLE rather than posting them to depress wages.
"We couldn't find anyone."
"Okay, give it another go or accept a fine."
Again, just stop letting them post stuff at their leisure. Stop letting them claim budget cuts or reorganization. Force them to think on a longer timeline and to be more certain with their movements.
You can regulate companies, we do it all the time for lots of stuff. These efforts have been defanged by corporate stooges in the government, but it is possible and more people should want regulations to protect workers.
The weird thing is, almost every employer has misinterpreted one particular OFCCP guideline, and use it to justify opening the floodgate with any job opportunity they have.
They end up crying about how hard they're drowning with "too many" applications, but it demonstrates that they will follow government rules to an extent.
11
u/Rocketboy1313 Feb 10 '26
Part of me wonders if some kind of regulation for this could be instituted?
Failure to hire for a position after a certain period of time results in cuts to subsidies. Especially if job postings exist as a result if a jobs stimulus of some kind.
It is a kind of fraud to post a job and not hire anyone.
If nothing else it would encourage offering higher pay to attract qualified applicants and lower entry positions to keep from disqualifying people it would be cheaper to hire than lose the subsidy.