'Ghost jobs' are on the rise – and so are calls to ban them

2025-12-185:06209246www.bbc.com

Companies are advertising vacancies that have already been filled or might not have ever existed.

Megan LawtonBusiness reporter

AFP via Getty Images A man looking at a jobs websiteAFP via Getty Images

One UK study found that 34% of advertised vacancies didn't really exist

The phrase "ghost jobs" might sound like something from Halloween, but it refers to the practice of employers advertising vacancies that don't exist.

In some cases the positions may have already been filled, but in others the job might not have ever been available.

It's a real and continuing problem on both sides of the Atlantic.

Up to 22% of jobs advertised online last year were positions listed with no intent to hire, according to a study across the US, UK and Germany by recruitment software provider Greenhouse.

A separate UK study put the figure even higher, at 34%.

Meanwhile, the most recent official data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that while there were 7.2 million job vacancies back in August, only 5.1 million people were hired.

Why are firms posting ghost jobs, and what is being done to tackle the problem?

In the US, a jobhunting tech worker called Eric Thompson is making politicians in Washington DC increasingly aware of the issue.

In October of last year Mr Thompson, who has more than 20 years of experience in the tech sector, was made redundant from a start-up. He spent the following two months unsuccessfully applying for hundreds of jobs.

"I looked at everything under the sun, applying for positions at my current level, and ones that were more senior and junior," he says.

It dawned on Mr Thompson that some of the advertised jobs simply didn't exist. The experience led him to set up a working group calling for legislation to ban the practice of fake job adverts in the US.

Continuing to meet with members of the US Congress, he has led the formulation of proposed legislation called The Truth in Job Advertising & Accountability Act.

This calls for expiration dates for listings when hiring is paused or completed, auditable hiring records, and penalties for employers who post misleading or non-existent roles. Mr Thompson hopes that some members of Congress will sponsor the legislation.

He has also started a petition, which has so far generated over 50,000 signatures. Alongside the signatures, he says he receives messages from people describing how ghost jobs have chipped away at their confidence and impacted their mental health. Something he describes as "shameful".

The New Jersey and California state legislatures are also looking at banning ghost jobs.

Eric Thompson Eric Thompson smiling at the cameraEric Thompson

Eric Thompson wants US politicians to ban ghost jobs

The Canadian province of Ontario, is however, leading the way. As from 1 January companies will have disclose whether an advertised vacancy is actively being filled.

Ontario is also moving to tackle the separate recruitment issue of "ghosting", whereby companies don't reply to applicants. Firms in the province with more than 25 employees will now have to reply to someone they have interviewed with 45 days. However, they still won't need to contact anyone they didn't chose to interview.

Deborah Hudson, an employment lawyer based in Toronto, says she's already been approached by companies "trying to get it right". But she has concerns about how the rules will be enforced.

"My cynical side, after almost 20 years in this field, wonders how they're actually going to monitor and regulate this. I don't think the government has the resources to investigate, so employers may still get away with noncompliance. But if people run into problems, they can make a complaint and it will be looked into."

Elsewhere in Canada, and in the US and UK there is no legal requirement to reply to candidates. Nor are there any current moves in the UK to tackle either ghost jobs or recruitment ghosting.

Ailish Davies, a jobseeker from Leicester in the UK, says that being ghosted by the small firms and big corporations alike is "soul destroying".

She adds: "The amount of time I've spent putting effort into tailoring an application, to hear nothing back, it knocks you down."

Ms Davies, who has been working in marketing for more than 10 years, describes one occasion where a hiring manager asked for her availability for an interview, and after she replied, she never heard back.

"Employers should treat job seekers with more compassion because the current job market is not a nice place to be."

Jasmine Escalera is a career coach and recruitment expert based in Miami.

She first became aware of ghost jobs through the women she coached. "They kept seeing the same job posted again and again, and asking me if they should reapply.

"They were applying into a black hole. The morale of any job seeker gets crushed."

newNsight Photography Jasmine Escalera talking into a microphonenewNsight Photography

Jasmine Escalera says that some firms may be trying to pretend that they are growing

So why are companies posting ghost jobs? Dr Escalera's research suggests a variety of reasons.

"We surveyed hiring managers, and found some companies post positions to create a talent pool," she says. "It isn't that they don't want to hire, it's more they're not hiring immediately.

"Others, we found, were inflating numbers and trying to show their company is growing, even if it's not."

Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data.

Whatever the reason for the fake adverts, Dr Escalera cautions that it is giving governments a false picture of job markets, which has negative, real-world consequences.

"We use data to develop policy and understand what market trends look like, and so if that data is somehow skewed, then we're not able to create the policies or provide the support that job seekers and employees need right now," she says.

For jobhunters hoping to avoid ghost jobs, Dr Escalera advises that they try to network with hiring managers.

"You will know a position is real if you're having conversations with real humans who work at that organisations," she says.

But, she adds, you should also look for red flags. "If you see that a job is being posted multiple times during a certain time frame, or that the job posting has been open for a while, then it is possible the posting is staying open because the job is not intended to be filled."


Read the original article

Comments

  • By rdtsc 2025-12-187:008 reply

    > Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data.

    How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just to suck in resumes to some database just seems like it should be illegal. Or just like running scams is illegal but they are in another country "so tough luck, you'll never get us"?

    • By cons0le 2025-12-1811:595 reply

      Please stop thinking about laws, and think about enforcement. If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. We have all sorts of fancy laws on the books that aren't enforced. Environmental regs, animal welfare regs, anti trust laws, white collar anti fraud laws. Data laws fall into this bucket. Nobody that would actually enforce those laws gives a dam. We won't be able to solve any of our problems with new laws, until we can actually enforce the laws already on the books

      • By giardini 2025-12-1817:412 reply

        ">* If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. *<"

        Ahhhh! A new English expression, "defecto legal". I like it! It should be the name of a website, defectolegal.com, for purposes TBD later.

        The proper term is "de facto": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de%20facto

        "Defecto" is Spanish for the English "defect", a flaw, an error.

        Don't get me started about "giving a dam".

        • By dogemaster2032 2025-12-1820:362 reply

          In English we don’t write commas or periods outside the quotes. The proper way is to write them inside the quotation.

          - “defect,” a flaw, an error.

          - about giving a dam.”

          Don’t get me started about “for purposes TBD later.”

          • By ConspiracyFact 2025-12-196:181 reply

            The other person who replied to you noted that this is not true in British English, but beyond that, it appears to me that my generation (Millennials) essentially all came to the same conclusion, which is that punctuation should only be included in the quotation if it's literally part of the text being quoted. (This probably has something to do with the programming mindset.) If you write

            >The senator said that the bill was "bloated."

            your sentence itself doesn't have a period. In order to give it a period you'd have to write:

            >The senator said that the bill was "bloated.".

            But then you're saying that the senator described the bill using the (non-)word consisting of the nine characters 'b', 'l', 'o', 'a', 't', 'e', 'd', 'PERIOD'. We've decided that this doesn't make sense.

            • By dogemaster2032 2025-12-207:27

              Your point that this is a generational change is interesting and reminds me of boomers who still write double space after a period.

          • By guffins 2025-12-194:00

            That’s only the case for American English. British English places periods and commas outside the quotes, unless part of a literal quotation.

      • By DrScientist 2025-12-1814:10

        There are lots of forms of 'don't care'. Don't care because:

        - they have limited resources and they are prioritising something else,

        - there is little realistic chance of getting a conviction.

        - it's not one of their politically set department targets

        - they fundamentally don't think it should be illegal - say historic blasphemy laws still on the books.

        Is your main concern resources or enforceability, lack of political focus or some combination of all of the above?

      • By franktankbank 2025-12-1814:432 reply

        This really has me thinking I ought to just delete my Linkedin. I can't say I've ever got anything out of it except spam and fomo. I don't even like to keep it up-to-date because someone is just ripping that information off.

        • By nerdsniper 2025-12-1815:141 reply

          I believe a LinkedIn profile is mandatory to apply to YC. I could assume you might not be interested in applying to YC, but it’s an interesting fact, and might generalize somewhat for many other applications.

          • By franktankbank 2025-12-1815:41

            I think that is a mutually beneficial signal probably.

        • By sparrish 2025-12-1816:44

          FWIW - I deleted my linkedin about a year ago and I've received more spam since I deleted it than when it was active.

      • By AngryData 2025-12-191:11

        Follow the money, easy payouts for cops and courts is where 95% of enforcement goes. Drug possession is an instant $1000 profit for the local law enforcement, and possibly much more. And if they are poor and challenge it, the extra court fees and court lawyer are also profitable.

        Fighting private lawyers is what costs courts money and is why the wealthy get way less criminal punishment.

      • By giardini 2025-12-1817:321 reply

        ">If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal.<"

        Ahhhh! A new English expression, "defecto legal". I like it! It could be the name of a popular website.

        The proper term is "de facto": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de%20facto

        A defect is a flaw, an error, and "defecto" is Spanish for the English "defect". The meaning of "defecto legal" (English) thus remains in the wind, TBD. But I look forward to it's landing.

        • By disqard 2025-12-1820:36

          s/it's/its/g

          You want the possessive ("its"), not the shortened form ("it is") which would make that sentence:

          "...look forward to it is landing"

          Thank you for sharing the Spanish interpretation, TIL :)

    • By josefrichter 2025-12-187:253 reply

      I believe it actually is illegal, via a set of more general rules on data collection, on what constitutes a fraud, etc. May not be spelled out exactly like this specific use case, but still very likely covered by law. Just difficult to prove.

      • By randycupertino 2025-12-188:051 reply

        I saw this post on reddit where some sketchy AI company (Alpheva AI) is posting jobs and requesting a screenshot of all applicants having left their app a 5-star review in the app store as part of the application process:

        https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1pp0iej/thi...

        • By cons0le 2025-12-1812:01

          This is another thing were it clearly is illegal, but good luck actually trying to sue or get them to stop it. Worst case scenario they'll set up another cheap company on paper, and keep doing the same scam

      • By Xylakant 2025-12-187:362 reply

        It certainly would be illegal in Europe under the GDPR - data collected for one purpose (handling of applications) cannot be used for another without explicit, informed consent.

        • By reeredfdfdf 2025-12-1816:101 reply

          It may be illegal, but shady stuff certainly happens in EU too.

          Recently investigative journalists here in Finland found out that a significant percentage of job postings over here are indeed fake. Unsurprisingly, worst offenders were recruitment companies, which sometimes listed fake jobs to generate a pool of applicants they can later offer to their clients. Doing this is easy, as no law requires these companies to disclose who their clients are when creating job postings. It's also very common for same position to get posted multiple times.

          Other than wasting applicant's time, this behavior also messes up many statistics, which use job postings to determine how many open positions there are available. Basically the chances of finding a job are even worse for unemployed people than stats would imply.

          • By Xylakant 2025-12-1818:25

            Oh, I agree that illegal stuff happens in the EU aplenty. The question was whether this is illegal and it almost certainly is. Job postings from recruiters - while morally reprehensible - may just skirt the law, but straight up using applications for profile building, marketing and other purposes almost certainly isn’t permitted

        • By pydry 2025-12-188:521 reply

          Im sure it isnt that hard to get candidates to tick another check box that says the data can be used for other stuff.

          • By Xylakant 2025-12-189:141 reply

            The box would need to be off by default and clearly state the purpose. It would at least be possible to verify it exists and no example has been shown.

            • By cluckindan 2025-12-1812:361 reply

              ”We and our 972 partners…”

              • By Y_Y 2025-12-1813:18

                Corporations are people, and very promiscuous ones at that.

      • By khelavastr 2025-12-189:39

        Don't ignore free speech of job search applicants .!

    • By reustle 2025-12-1811:29

      I think there’s a good chunk of the SF tech event scene built around pulling in qualified email addresses, too. “Apply to attend”

    • By lovich 2025-12-187:233 reply

      Because some animals are more equal than others and the government has decided that companies are not only citizens but the more equal group.

      Half the shit companies do that gets them a fine would land any individual in jail for committing the same action, but we let them get away with just paying it off. Simultaneously we give those organizations the same rights.

      It’s a system with three classes of citizen where the rich and corporations have a better right to responsibility ratio and the average human has a much worse ratio

      • By VerifiedReports 2025-12-187:302 reply

        Citizens United, a monumental betrayal of every citizen.

        • By Y_Y 2025-12-1813:222 reply

          > The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within sixty days of general elections or thirty days of primary elections violate the freedom of speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

          I'm sure we're on the same side, but I want to point out that that case didn't make a huge difference. By that I mean it removed a ban on political broadcasts near elections, most of the "money is speech, super pacs can do anything at all" stuff was already legal.

          • By BobaFloutist 2025-12-1823:34

            Right, but if you try to make a gentle, common-sense, broad consensus law and the Supreme Court squashes it as violating the constitution, that also prevents any potential future more stringent regulation.

          • By red-iron-pine 2025-12-1814:46

            > it removed a ban on political broadcasts near elections,

            Propaganda works, and this was a BIG change, as it now let unlimited shady corpo money spam agit-prop with no consequence.

            this was step 1 on living in a post-truth world.

        • By danaris 2025-12-1815:161 reply

          While this is true, the first such betrayal came in 1976, with Buckley v Valeo.

          This was (AIUI) the US Supreme Court decision that established the precedent that money counts as protected speech.

          So much of the rot that has occurred since then can be traced back to this.

      • By lovich 2025-12-188:11

        To add onto this, the single exception I am aware of to this rule is the result of the gas explosions in Massachusetts.

        In that case the company in charge, Columbia Gas, "exited" the market but all the scuttlebutt I heard in the area was that the Mass government was threatening the corporate execution of revoking their charter, which lead to Columbia gas selling their business off at a loss to Eversource

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiSource#Massachusetts_gas_lin...

      • By xhkkffbf 2025-12-1816:171 reply

        You do realize that the decisions at the corporations are made by people. You may try to draw a distinction between people and corporations, but in the end it was some person who decided to ghost someone.

        • By lovich 2025-12-190:22

          You do realize that the people making those decisions at corporations are largely shielded from the liability of said decisions, and that when companies are treated like citizens they almost never get equivalent punishment like human beings do.

          I can draw a distinction between people and corporations because it’s literally encoded in the fucking law.

          I actually don’t know how or why you would imply that such a distinction doesn’t exist.

    • By zingababba 2025-12-1815:08

      I swear to god a couple of the interviews I have been in lately have felt more like free consultations rather than me applying for a job.

    • By the_real_cher 2025-12-187:24

      Its straight up wire fraud.

    • By terminalshort 2025-12-187:353 reply

      It's technically fraud, but there aren't any damages.

      • By YmiYugy 2025-12-188:321 reply

        This seems analogous to the following. A company asks users to fill out an online survey in exchange for participation in some raffle, except the company never pays out any prize. As with the job application there was never a guaranteed reward, but it's still easy to see the damage. The company induced to you to provide them with an economically valuable asset (filled out survey/application) for which you expected a fair chance at a reward. It seems plausible that you could claim damages at least up to the expected value.

        • By Dayshine 2025-12-1812:342 reply

          Except a job offer is generally non binding, so they could interview you, offer the job, then withdraw it.

          So never being offered a job because it doesn't exist doesn't lose you anything.

          • By amypetrik8 2025-12-1921:15

            >So never being offered a job because it doesn't exist doesn't lose you anything.

            Ah well look, if the job posting was just to collect resumes with zero intention to actually hire, you did lose some things:

            - actual time spent applying to a job that was never open - emotional damage on focus to try to get this job - loss of free market value of your data (company profited from this data, when you could have profited from it) - damages for acquisition of your personal data under a fraudulent basis (when otherwise, maybe you did not want your data shared)

          • By jagoff 2025-12-1813:18

            Spotted the HR worker posting ghost jobs

      • By darreninthenet 2025-12-188:22

        In the UK at least Fraud doesn't require any damages, just an intent to gain something of value on the criminals side.

      • By moralestapia 2025-12-189:061 reply

        Your time might be worthless but mine isn't.

        • By terminalshort 2025-12-1811:463 reply

          Yeah, you go ahead and sue someone for the few minutes of your time it took to send in a application for a fake job. Then you'll really see what wasting time looks like.

          • By danaris 2025-12-1813:051 reply

            But this is part of the problem with crimes and enforcement in the modern age: sure, I might have only wasted a few minutes of my time. But I'm just one of hundreds or thousands of people who were tricked into wasting that time, by this one act.

            Multiply this across all the fraudulent job postings, and it really starts to add up.

            It's clear (to me, at least) that we need better laws to handle this sort of wide-but-shallow attack on people. It's analogous to spam.

          • By palmotea 2025-12-1813:43

            > Yeah, you go ahead and sue someone for the few minutes of your time it took to send in a application for a fake job. Then you'll really see what wasting time looks like.

            1. That is exactly what class actions are for, because small damages multiplied by many people are big damages.

            2. That's also why we need punitive damages, so someone can't get away with unlawful actions by deliberately coasting along under the threshold where it makes sense to sue. For instance, IIRC, you can collect something like $5000 from someone who doesn't put you on their "do not call list" when requested. That amount has nothing to do with the value of the "few minutes of your time it took to" answer a telemarketing call.

          • By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-12-1815:25

            You are missing a point. The only thing it really does is force people to pursue other forms as online channel is too polluted for anyone with sense/options/skill ( or all of the above ). So it leaves desperate, optionless, those without skills and everyone else who fell through the cracks. Another system undermined for no clear benefit. It does not benefit the employer. It does not benefit the employee. It does benefit some data brokers.. and only then for a bit until the rest of the market catches up..

            But was it worth it?

    • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:232 reply

      America has no data protection law, apart from some hyper-specific ones: healthcare, video rental records. That makes all of this data sharing completely legal. As well as that, it is widely agreed there that lying is free speech.

      It is not wire fraud because you do not pay to apply. (In general; places that charge applicants are even more scammy.)

        • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:402 reply

          Exactly - no national, general data protection law. Although the California one looks pretty similar to the GDPR from the summary, it's not truly national.

          • By red-iron-pine 2025-12-1814:53

            it is de facto national because California has the most people and is insanely wealthy; there is no F500 company handling broad consumer data that does not have a presence or customers there.

            there have already been CCPA enforcements against companies like Tractor Supply, Sephora, Honda, and Google (tho the GOOG was more of a "violated a lot of stuff including CCPA").

            It doesn't have enough teeth to scare FAANGs, who have the money and technical ability to do whatever, but it can definitely keep companies in line.

            source: did CCPA compliance and security at multiple F500

          • By renegade-otter 2025-12-1811:311 reply

            Even if there was, under the current regime, the probability of it being enforced is near-zero, especially if you are in the good graces of the child king.

            • By _heimdall 2025-12-1812:442 reply

              The problem of enforcement doesn't fall only on the executive branch. They're tasked with executing laws passed by congress. Congress is ultimately a check on the executive, and if they care to have their laws enforced they do have actions they could take.

              • By pjc50 2025-12-1814:211 reply

                The branches (including SCOTUS) are not meaningfully different when they are controlled by the same party.

                • By _heimdall 2025-12-1818:181 reply

                  That's a very pessimistic view. That boils our system of three branches of government to a purely partisan game of capture the flag in which we all lose if one team captures all three at one.

                  SCOTUS is a bit different as it both isn't driven by political parties and justices have a history of more frequently breaking with the party they are seen as aligned with.

                  • By ben_w 2025-12-1914:161 reply

                    2024 has not been a year for optimism about the American system of checks and balances functioning as advertised.

                    Even more broadly, there's an old quote:

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge (or ammo). Please use in that order.
                    
                    The soap box is under threat: https://reason.com/2025/12/18/this-tennessee-man-spent-37-da... and https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5349472/students-protes...

                    The ballot box is under threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding_in_the_...

                    Judiciary is under threat: https://www.gov.harvard.edu/2025/07/24/the-u-s-judicial-cris... and https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/judicial-independence-t...

                    That just (to much the same horror and sense of unreality I had watching the 9/11 attacks unfold) leaves the ammo box.

                    Now, I'm British by birth, a country where even the police are not routinely armed, so the American view that weapons are a "fundamental right" is utterly alien to me, and this difference is one of the reasons why I never seriously considered moving to Silicon Valley at any point in my career.

                    Trump seems pro 2nd Amendment: is that because he is afraid and needs them to like him, or because isn't afraid as he has an army and a secret service to keep him safe, or does he just plain like guns and hasn't even thought about personal risk despite getting shot at?

                    • By _heimdall 2025-12-1920:14

                      Well no disagreement there, unfortunately.

                      I definitely agree our democracy seems to be under attack on multiple fronts, and at least the people I'm often around regardless of political affiliation seem to have lost sight of how our system is intended to work.

                      A violent civil war wouldn't surprise me, though I don't think we're close to it yet and I hope I never see it happen. Though I would prefer seeing that rather than seeing our system successfully destroyed and replaced with what seems to be coming up, an authoritarian socialism of one form or another.

              • By expedition32 2025-12-1814:431 reply

                Congres is a rabbit caught in the headlights of the MAGA cult but I admire your optimism.

                • By _heimdall 2025-12-1818:19

                  Hah, oh it isn't optimism. I don't think congress will do anything about enforcement but that is nothing new.

                  My point was simply that we can't only blame the white house when laws go unenforced, the other branches of government are intentionally a check on the executive.

      • By TeMPOraL 2025-12-1812:151 reply

        "healthcare, video rental records" wait what? One of these things, etc. Curious how that came to be? Is it like special rules for (IIRC) onions in finance?

  • By ZuoCen_Liu 2025-12-187:404 reply

    Ghost jobs are essentially the 'vaporware' of the HR world. In any other department, misrepresenting your intent to engage in a transaction would be seen as a breach of professional ethics. The fact that it has become a standard KPI for HR departments to 'keep the pipeline warm' at the expense of thousands of hours of unpaid candidate labor is a massive market failure.

    • By wombatpm 2025-12-189:362 reply

      Seems like participation in unemployment should require every job posting to be recorded as to date open, date filled, number of candidates applied, number interviewed. Such information should be public and weekly updated. Companies that do not comply should pay a higher rate.

      • By firstplacelast 2025-12-1810:052 reply

        Earlier this year was playing around with the idea of creating an app to track job applications and the subsequent interview process for candidates. Then using the data to give users insights into companies and roles and how responsive they are. So (with enough adoption) one could see how long they take to respond or even see other candidates they had responded to for a specific position (maybe even allow competing candidates to chat? or see where others are in the interview pipeline).

        I could not figure out a way to painlessly gather this info without monitoring users' emails (privacy nightmare) or having users forward emails to the app (too painful/not conducive to user adoption). But if anyone has any ideas how to get around that?

        • By ZuoCen_Liu 2025-12-191:58

          I think the primary obstacle isn't the data ingestion method, but the fact that companies treat the recruitment lifecycle as a proprietary black box. From an HR perspective, transparency is a liability, not an asset. They have zero incentive to cooperate with an external 'tracking' tool because: 1Information Asymmetry is Power: If candidates knew exactly where they stood or how many 'ghost' positions existed, the company would lose its leverage in salary negotiations and timeline control. 2Legal and PR Risk: Making the pipeline visible exposes a company to accusations of bias or 'unfavorable' hiring patterns. 'Privacy' is often used here as a convenient shield to hide inefficiency or lack of intent. Even if you solved the email-scraping problem, you'd likely face Terms of Service (ToS) roadblocks or even legal threats from major corporations claiming you are 'scraping' or 'misrepresenting' their internal processes. The 'pain' of user adoption isn't just about email forwarding; it's about the fact that candidates are often too intimidated to participate in a system that might be seen as 'adversarial' to the very companies they are trying to join. We aren't just missing a tool; we are missing a safe harbor for candidate data sharing.

        • By Manozco 2025-12-1814:501 reply

          Maybe by providing a unique email to the user that he/she will use for the company. Be sure to forward emails to the user also :D

      • By LorenPechtel 2025-12-1820:031 reply

        I don't think number interviewed is relevant--I don't care so much about exactly how their screening works, just that it lead to hires. The rest of it, though, definitely, and any job ad must include a link to the database.

        But I would add one field: filled internally/externally/H1-B, rather than just "filled".

    • By p-e-w 2025-12-188:541 reply

      > In any other department, misrepresenting your intent to engage in a transaction would be seen as a breach of professional ethics.

      In most other situations related to money or contracts, it would be a criminal offense punishable by prison time.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-12-189:271 reply

        > In most other situations related to money or contracts, it would be a criminal offense punishable by prison time

        What are you thinking of? In most cases, that falls firmly under the category of bullshitting. Annoying. Unprofessional. Dishonest. But rarely criminal.

        What makes this possibly illegal (though I'm still unsure if it's crimial) is that it's specifically around employer-employee relations.

        • By pharrington 2025-12-1811:382 reply

          Fraud is very illegal.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-12-1815:07

            > Fraud is very illegal

            Fraud requires intent. And a lot of commercial bullshitting either does not have fraudulent intent, or has it but in an entirely unprovable way.

          • By Nextgrid 2025-12-1813:12

            Only when done by individuals, or against rich people.

    • By sershe 2025-12-1820:291 reply

      How is it different in terms of breach of professional ethics than practice interviews many in tech do, never intending to take the offer? I personally have never done them (part laziness, part ethics, part lucky to have little experience of job insecurity), but have been told a few times by people that do that is stupid that I should stay sharp (and waste 5 people's time to help me for free :))

      • By ZuoCen_Liu 2025-12-192:08

        I see the parallel, but there’s a key difference in intent and scale. A candidate doing a practice interview is often a defensive reaction to a volatile market—a way to maintain a personal skill. A company posting 'ghost jobs' is a systematic corporate strategy that pollutes market data and wastes thousands of collective hours. One is an individual trying to survive the system; the other is the system itself failing to act in good faith.

    • By whatsupdog 2025-12-188:576 reply

      [flagged]

      • By 3D30497420 2025-12-189:012 reply

        I'm not sure I'm following. How would does the gender balance of HR have a role to play here?

        • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:10

          Incredible levels of misogyny from the tech world, even on the "respectable" side of HN.

        • By vkou 2025-12-189:071 reply

          Nothing. It has nothing to do with this.

          • By Ylpertnodi 2025-12-189:231 reply

            Maybe it does. It's a fair question.

            • By orwin 2025-12-189:57

              Is HR the department that post jobs and requirements in your company? Because at mine, HR is involved during recruitment, but they sure don't fill job posting or look at CV, that's just isn't their job. They are mostly involved if the company wants to transfer your contract from contractor to permanent employee.

              And if HR is posting on job boards, that's the original mistake. But gender ratio in HR is so irrelevant compared to the questions 'why is HR posting about engineering open positions' I can say quite confidently: that's not a fair question, at all, and smell like some ragebait or culture war shit.

      • By hhh 2025-12-189:13

        what kind of redpill schizophrenia is this? no business is going to care about unpaid peoples time, and if they have to list a job publicly even if they have internal hires it only makes it worse.

      • By CalRobert 2025-12-1810:17

        I can assure you plenty of male managers have wasted my time.

      • By harvey9 2025-12-1811:44

        HR departments post the jobs other departments tell them to post so unless there's a lot of HR-role ghost posts I would say these things are unrelated.

      • By carlosjobim 2025-12-1810:58

        Use that to your advantage. Learn techniques that work better on women. Assuming there is a job opening at all in there somewhere.

      • By naian 2025-12-189:421 reply

        [flagged]

        • By bilekas 2025-12-1810:541 reply

          > Most jobs for women are basically daycare.

          I didn't realise we still had jobs specific for only women. This is such an out of left field comment that I have to ask for some of your references where you got this. Please tell me one job offer which says "Women Only".

  • By dandare 2025-12-188:329 reply

    I am not sure if more regulation is a solution, but the lack of respect for job seekers is a real problem.

    And not just with ghost jobs. My recent experience as a job seeker was harrowing - even with large, proud companies. I would pass multiple rounds of interviews with senior/director-level interviewers only to never hear back from the company - even after a direct request for an update or feedback. Just total ignorance. Again, this happened with a FAANG+ company.

    • By Jur 2025-12-189:174 reply

      In the Netherlands by law you have the right to retrieve any written internal correspondence regarding your interviews as to ascertain it was a fair decision and decision making process.

      Side effect of this is also to keep any bias out of the equation and, being on the other side, easier to call out colleagues making inappropriate or downright discriminating comments (which in my experience unfortunately happens everywhere still)

      • By geraldwhen 2025-12-189:21

        The unintended side effect of this is that HR coaches you to be as vague as possible in responses. I can’t give real feedback because some feedback may seem dissimilar to other feedback and look like discrimination if you blur your eyes.

        So everyone gets the same form letter.

      • By lukan 2025-12-189:23

        Isn't the side effect also giving incentive to those companies to just not be honest in internal communication? But do the real conversation via call or different channel?

      • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:16

        Unfortunately, many companies have chosen to comply with anti-discrimination laws by not giving any feedback. Nothing is less discriminatory than an empty string.

      • By hmmmhmmhm 2025-12-189:232 reply

        If you make such request, how can you enforce to get all of the comms? I'm curious, would some government institution step in and audit their mail servers, slack channels, google hangouts and all other channels to obtain all of the information?

        • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:14

          The next stage of complaint is actually the local Information Commissioner.

          Companies will usually comply with this, because it's very difficult to instruct staff to not comply with the law without leaving any records or risking one of them leaking it. However they will check what the legal minimum is and do that.

        • By throw3e98 2025-12-189:301 reply

          I take it you are unfamiliar with the legal process of "discovery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

          • By hmmmhmmhm 2025-12-189:461 reply

            I wonder, is there a precedence of applicant dragging the company to court over their response to such request?

            • By throw3e98 2025-12-2017:01

              Yes, it's very common when dealing with smaller businesses that don't have great legal compliance to get a court order forcing production of documents

    • By andy99 2025-12-1811:051 reply

      If there is regulation, it should be about monopolies in general and not trying to micromanage hiring. Companies behave this way because they are in a position to do so. In a real competitive environment they wouldn’t. Poorly thought through band-aid rules don’t change that, in fact they would almost certainly favour the big monopolies with the worst hiring practices who have big HR departments that can handle and game compliance.

      • By LorenPechtel 2025-12-1820:07

        I don't think it's a non-competitive environment, but that the interests are out of alignment. The penalty for the manager who makes a bad hire is a lot worse than the manager who fails to make a hire.

        And we also have the same problem that plagues modern life: the glut of choices leading people to think they can do better than they can. The pool is effectively infinite, there must be a better option somewhere. Companies don't hire. Dating has become very hard. Both lie behind very superficial screening gates that do not represent actual value.

    • By hexbin010 2025-12-1810:54

      > I am not sure if more regulation is a solution,

      But if we do create more legislation, make sure it's regulatory capture in a weak disguise but celebrate it with lots of political spin!

    • By random9749832 2025-12-1810:20

      I got feedback from FAANG+ once after multiple rounds with director / manager etc.

      I just got told I didn't seem "motivated" enough despite spending several rounds / days / hours interviewing and bunch of leetcode questions. Not even that I wasn't skilled or good enough or didn't pass the questions. Pretty sure the last guy just didn't like me for whatever reason.

    • By suyash 2025-12-1810:54

      Apple did that to me as well.

    • By another_twist 2025-12-1810:471 reply

      Definitely one of the As in the FAANG. In fact both the As have terrible recruiting practices. One is a known ghoster and given that you were ghosted after a senior level meeting tells me which one.

      • By sparrish 2025-12-1816:50

        Care to share with the rest of the class?

    • By gedy 2025-12-1811:15

      Glassdoor pulled that crap with me ironically after a lot of interviews for a senior position that they reached out to me for.

    • By zwnow 2025-12-188:548 reply

      I wonder why people still apply to FAANG companies, there is nothing to be won by working for them. Your work has zero impact, you're actively paid to enshittify stuff over making it better, you have horrible bureaucracy within the company, they lay off thousands of people per year so your job never really is secure, all of FAANG is ethically corrupt beyond means. I'd never hire a FAANG employee to be honest, while working there your skill actively declines because all you really do there is play corporate charade and hope not being laid off.

      • By mckn1ght 2025-12-189:022 reply

        Aside from the fact that you have no real job security anywhere, people take FAANG jobs for money. Both the high pay at the company itself, and the idea that once FAANG is on your resume, it will command the best jobs afterwards too.

        I think they have to pay that high because the work sucks so much in reality. That's the equilibrium point between the demand for people to work there, and the supply of people willing to put up with it.

        • By zwnow 2025-12-189:18

          I had good job security doing in house IT for some companies. Never have seen anyone being laid off, could've stayed there for years to come, the stuff I've built was actively being used and made work easier for people. The domain knowledge I gathered even strengthened my job security as it was more efficient to pay me over having to re-train other people. The only risk to my job was me as I left for a startup after a while. Sure, pay wasn't that high compared to FAANG but at least I didn't make peoples life worse while also hating my job.

        • By danaris 2025-12-1816:50

          I'm choosing to leave a job in tech in academia after 15 years.

          If I wanted to, I could stay here until I retire (in another 20+ years), barring the complete destruction of the university I work for.

          The position I'm moving to is also in academia (this time public sector in the EU), and I'm given to understand that as long as I can make it through the probationary first year, so long as I keep doing a halfway decent job there I can stay there for as long as I want, too. (We will, of course, have to see how true that is!)

          Job security does exist; you just have to be willing to leave the Silicon Valley bubble.

      • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:20

        I was going to say "money" then post some links to example jobs .. but of course FAANG for US/CA jobs don't advertise salaries.

      • By sokoloff 2025-12-1810:29

        I can think of hundreds of thousands of reasons per year that people might seek employment at a FAANG company.

      • By Delphiza 2025-12-189:13

        Money, mostly

      • By jamesnorden 2025-12-1812:45

        Money.

      • By integralid 2025-12-1811:081 reply

        As a bright eyed young engineer I worked for a year in FAANG and loved it[1]. Free lunches, all that scale, opportunities to learn, kool-aid, and at that point i truly believed the company cared about making the world a better place [2]. So regarding:

        >there is nothing to be won by working for them

        As you can see above, not everyone sees it like that. And HR is working hard to pretend you're a big deal and not just a cog. People who read HN are a bit of a bubble in being disillusioned.

        >I'd never hire a FAANG employee

        Uhh, ok?

        [1] but I had enough pride to quit after a year when they pulled off something I was not OK with.

        [2] to be fair, I think at that time most employees did

        • By zwnow 2025-12-1811:24

          > Free lunches, all that scale, opportunities to learn, kool-aid

          Lmao.

      • By mixmastamyk 2025-12-1817:12

        “No one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

      • By unmole 2025-12-189:161 reply

        This sounds like a cope.

        • By zwnow 2025-12-189:20

          This sounds like a bootlicking

    • By pydry 2025-12-188:543 reply

      >I am not sure if more regulation is a solution

      Nothing else is going to fix this.

      • By DavidPiper 2025-12-189:142 reply

        I happen to agree with you, but it's also worth mentioning that solving whatever problem is creating the need to post ghost jobs in the first place would also make posting them unnecessary (presumably insecurity about the company's ability to assess, hire and retain high quality talent.)

        But those are very hard, company-specific problems to solve, hence my agreement :-)

        • By harvey9 2025-12-1811:34

          Sometimes it's sending false market signals: a company that's hiring must be doing well, right?

        • By pydry 2025-12-1813:12

          Not really. Make posting fake jobs illegal. Strengthen some whistleblowing laws. Watch as it stops.

      • By hmmmhmmhm 2025-12-189:282 reply

        Maybe official 'name and blame' service where anybody could post their experience under their real name?

        • By danaris 2025-12-1813:19

          Unfortunately, in America, at least, that would be likely to lead to a lot of lawsuits—lawsuits that should be shot down under the SLAPP category, but it takes enough money and time just to respond to a lawsuit that many people would be unwilling to take the risk by posting anything.

        • By pjc50 2025-12-1810:181 reply

          It's a multiparty problem. I really wouldn't want to post negative experiences of companies under my and their real name while still looking for jobs elsewhere.

          Glassdoor could only possibly be accurate because it was anonymous. Of course, that also makes it easier to fake.

          • By pydry 2025-12-1813:19

            It'd actually be easier for a government app to verify identities and (especially if mandated by law) protect your anonymity.

            The private sector is great at lots of stuff but running a clean marketplace isnt one of them - the incentives are off.

HackerNews