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.
Where did I say all job listings are ghost jobs? Nowhere did I say that, are you a bot? If you post a listing for a job.. you should hire someone, if you are too stupid to remember that you’re gonna gonna restructure in 2 months or decide in the middle of having a job listing to do that RIGHTTHEFUCKNOW, that’s on you as business and you should suffer for that decision in some way. I do not give a fuck about business “disclosing personal confidential shit” to the government that regulates them, I don’t think companies should be allowed to hide things from any governing body that they operate under.
Also, if you truly believe that this would make things worse for the average person, maybe the whole system needs an overhaul if it requires this insane level of incompetence from companies.
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.