A Policy Proposal: Transparency and Compensation in Job Postings
Author’s note :
This piece is intended as a general policy framework. Jurisdictional scope and enforcement mechanisms are deliberately left open for discussion.
Problem Statement
A growing share of job postings do not represent genuine employment opportunities in any meaningful sense.
Many listings are:
“Evergreen” roles posted continuously without intent to hire
Pipeline or “ghost” jobs used primarily to collect résumés
Positions lacking approved funding
Roles indefinitely stalled by hiring freezes, internal approvals, or headcount blocks
Despite these conditions, such postings are routinely presented as real, active openings.
Applicants are expected to:
Tailor résumés and cover letters
Complete assessments or assignments
Participate in interviews
Remain available and responsive
These activities consume time, effort, and opportunity cost. Yet applicants typically receive no compensation, no disclosure of constraints, and often no notification of outcome.
This is not a traditional market failure.
It is an information asymmetry that allows organizations to externalize risk and cost onto job seekers.
Core Principle
If an organization is not prepared to hire, it must not present a position as if it is.
And if it solicits applicant labor under false, concealed, or obstructed conditions, that labor must be acknowledged and compensated.
Policy Requirements
1. Mandatory Disclosure of Hiring Status
Any job posting must clearly disclose its hiring status wherever the job appears, including:
The employer’s own careers page
Third-party job boards
Recruiter outreach
Internal referral postings
At minimum, postings must indicate if the role is:
Evergreen / intake-only
Pipeline or future-contingent
Unfunded or pending budget approval
Subject to a hiring freeze or external authorization
Limited to internal candidates
This disclosure must be plainly visible and unambiguous.
Failure to disclose constitutes misrepresentation.
2. Mandatory Applicant Notification
For any applicant not selected, employers must provide notification via:
Email, and
Text message (opt-out permitted)
Notification must occur within two business days of a decision not to proceed.
Silence is not neutral.
Silence causes informational harm.
Applicants who have provided labor must not be left indefinitely uncertain.
3. Compensation for Misrepresentation
When a role is presented as active and viable but is later revealed to be obstructed, unfunded, or non-existent, applicants have incurred uncompensated labor loss.
Enforcement mechanisms may include one or more of the following:
Statutory compensation equal to the advertised wage for documented applicant time
Automatic penalties payable directly to affected applicants
Civil liability triggered by demonstrable misrepresentation
Escalating fines for repeat violations
The precise enforcement model is subject to debate.
The underlying principle is this: time taken under false premises is stolen time.
Why This Matters
Job seekers already operate under economic pressure, debt, and insecurity. Requiring unpaid labor for organizational convenience is not a neutral practice — it is exploitative.
This policy does not prohibit workforce planning or candidate pipelines.
It requires honesty.
Transparency does not slow hiring.
Opacity does.
Anticipated Objections
“This will discourage employers from posting jobs.”
Jobs that are not real should not be posted.
“This is too burdensome.”
Sending an email or text is not burdensome. Silence is a choice.
“Hiring is uncertain by nature.”
Uncertainty is acceptable. Concealment is not.
Conclusion
Modern hiring systems treat applicant time as free, disposable, and infinitely renewable.
It is not.
This proposal does not ask for courtesy.
It establishes accountability.
If organizations want labor, they must respect it — even before a contract is signed.
© 2026 Shamus O’Connor.
This work may be shared, quoted, or referenced for non-commercial purposes with attribution.
Commercial use requires prior written permission.