Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would rather have more detailed job postings required. Like salary range, a "desired start date", shift time (if applicable), hours expected, description of duties that isn't vague and open-ended (i.e. no "other duties as assigned"), etc.
If a company posts a job application saying they REQUIRE 40 hours yet they pay salary, they should lose the exempted status for that particular job. Too much exempt status abuse going around that is a lot more important than this. If I'm salary and I can get my work done in 30 hours, I should be able to leave and still get my full pay. That's the whole point of exempt, no? Pay me based on projects done, not time at the office?
Exempt status was originally created for executives who almost always work overtime and would've been too expensive to pay overtime for. People with executive pay like that don't need overtime to make their bills. Let's leave exempt for these positions.
I'd pay higher taxes for something to address the blatant exempt abuse in the United States. I know that would mean higher pay for most Americans, and that's something I care about, higher quality of life for Americans. Not being spiteful to corporations for little to no positive outcome.
As with many of OP’s ideas, this one is an impractical plan that would be incredibly costly to try and implement, have all sorts of unforeseen negative repercussions, be impossible to enforce, and wouldn’t accomplish his goal, all in an effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Why do people assume a job posting is fake just because they don't get selected?
Because it's easier to believe that nefarious "elites" are playing games and laughing instead of accepting that they simply are not qualified or desired. Some people are doomed to always go through life believing that the world is stacked against them and everyone else has it in for them because they're simply incapable of looking in the mirror and saying, "What I'm doing isn't working. I need to change, no matter how painful that might be."
To build on OPs idea, I'd like a government-run database of people who are always complaining about this sort of thing so I can instantly filter them out of my candidate pool and never have to worry about getting stuck with a sniffly whiner who believes the world owes them something.
LOL what? Oh I beg of you - start your own business.
By the way, we already have this problem you're proposing as a solution to something (I'm not sure what).
It's called public sector employment. To the tune of about 2 Million federal workers where we could probably get by quite nicely with 25% of them, if that.
And if you don't abide by this law, heavy penalties and fines. Then we will finally see how many of these private/public sector "Job openings" are legitimate. And we would also see just how many "openings" disappear from these employer's websites and then we will all know this was nothing but a complete farce the entire time designed with smoke and mirrors to make the impressions, the company is doing well to the shareholders.
Oh this would be a thing of beauty. Lets make it happen. I can't tell you how many jobs I see sit on these websites for months-years or just get taken down and then I hear it was never even filled.
It should take no longer than 2 months to get a position filled, and if you weren't really hiring, there should be no need to put an opening up on your website.
And if the employer's are forced to not have to fill the position with someone, there needs to be a damn good reason. And "Throwing the extra duties on another employee" should not suffice and if they do, there better be a pay increase since they are pulling double duty.
This will at least help alleviate this ever-increasing employee abuse we have today
You've missed your opportunity, the Marxists lost the election.
Why? I see all kinds of potential issues, and I see no real benefit to anyone except maybe the unqualified person who gets the job because they have to hire someone. Why would you force a private business to hire someone who can't do the job?
As with many of OP’s ideas, this one is an impractical plan that would be incredibly costly to try and implement, have all sorts of unforeseen negative repercussions, be impossible to enforce, and wouldn’t accomplish his goal, all in an effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
No. It would be super cheap actually.
Never post anything. Advertise the job by referral and word of mouth only.
Never post anything. Advertise the job by referral and word of mouth only.
That would be one of the unintended consequences I spoke about.
Others that come to mind would be to hire the worst possible person at day 59 to avoid the fine, then fire them on day 61.
Only hire contract workers.
An explosion in 3rd party recruiters who shop candidates to companies, and companies only post once they see enough possible candidates shopped first.
An increase in promoting from within because higher level jobs are harder to fill. Conversely, only posting low level jobs, then seeing if a highly qualified candidate comes along and grabbing 5hem for an unadvertised job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
