TLDR: NEW YORKâNew York passed a bill to curb ghost jobs if Kathy Hochul signs it. Firms must disclose hiring dates and remove posts within two weeks of filling.
Key Takeaways:
- Ghost jobs happen when employers post listings without real hiring intent, often due to weak oversight.
- The bill would cover companies with 100 plus employees and job posting platforms, requiring caps locked all caps disclosures within 90 days.
- Noncompliance could cost $2,500 per unlawful post, doubling for late takedowns, pushing companies to clean up listings fast.
Job hunting already feels like applying into fog, and ghost jobs make it worse. This proposal is a rare chance to replace silence with a real timeline and a real price for pretending.
Job hunting already feels like applying into fog, and ghost jobs make it worse. This proposal is a rare chance to replace silence with a real timeline and a real price for pretending.
Q&A
What happens to employers and staffing platforms if job postings must be taken down quickly after hiring starts?
They may shift to fewer posts, tighter internal approvals, and faster removal workflows so listings do not linger beyond the new deadlines.
Why could the requirement of all caps disclosure change behavior more than traditional job listing rules?
It turns a vague practice into a standardized, high visibility statement that is easier to audit and harder to bury in fine print.
How might employers respond if they still have not decided whether a role will open within 90 days?
They would need to provide a projected hiring timeframe anyway, which could encourage more realistic planning or more careful language.
If ghost jobs also come from third party platforms, what does this imply for compliance outside direct employers?
Platforms could become a primary enforcement target, pushing them to monitor listings for status changes and remove outdated postings sooner.
Could tougher penalties finally outperform uneven enforcement seen in salary disclosure laws?
Potentially, because escalating per post fines create clearer deterrence, but outcomes will hinge on how actively regulators pursue violations.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!