General Question: Job Postings - Mandatory?

[winorlose1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Is it true that every private sector employer (whether privately held or publicly traded on the stock market) MUST post all open employment positions publicly (and even conduct interviews) even if the employer does not intend to hire for a certain position outside the company?

Just a general question here out of curiosity. It's just something that I have argued with many people over the years (I'm no the "Nay" side - I don;t believe that private companies are bound by law to publicly post openings). People who are on the other side of the argument seem to be pretty "sure" that all employers must post all open positions publicly regardless of the company's intentions to not hire outside applicants.

I refuse to believe that a company is required, by law, to waste it's time and money posting ads and interviewing people when they have no intention of hiring outside the company. Job posting/Help wanted ads are very expensive and the time interviewing and setting up interviews is also very costly.

Not to mention, it is also a waste of time for job seekers, who could use their time more productively than applying for "openings" that actually don't exist and going to interviews for positions that he/she is pre-determined not to obtain.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Is it true that every private sector employer (whether privately held or publicly traded on the stock market) MUST post all open employment positions publicly (and even conduct interviews) even if the employer does not intend to hire for a certain position outside the company?

Just a general question here out of curiosity. It's just something that I have argued with many people over the years (I'm no the "Nay" side - I don;t believe that private companies are bound by law to publicly post openings). People who are on the other side of the argument seem to be pretty "sure" that all employers must post all open positions publicly regardless of the company's intentions to not hire outside applicants.

I refuse to believe that a company is required, by law, to waste it's time and money posting ads and interviewing people when they have no intention of hiring outside the company. Job posting/Help wanted ads are very expensive and the time interviewing and setting up interviews is also very costly.

Not to mention, it is also a waste of time for job seekers, who could use their time more productively than applying for "openings" that actually don't exist and going to interviews for positions that he/she is pre-determined not to obtain.

Not required.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

That "I. Heard" guy is a pathological liar.

 

[winorlose1]

Not required.

Thanks for your replies

 

[cbg]

Is it true that every private sector employer (whether privately held or publicly traded on the stock market) MUST post all open employment positions publicly (and even conduct interviews) even if the employer does not intend to hire for a certain position outside the company?

Not even remotely.

 

[winorlose1]

Well it looks like I have only been partially right in this argument. While there are no laws against it, per se, many companies have a policy to post all jobs anyway, even if they are already filled, in fear that not doing so may make them look "discriminatory" in the eyes of the EEOC (as well as to keep updated databases of the current labor pool in a given market)...

From a WSJ article...

Even though federal labor rules don't require employers to post openings, human-resources departments at many companies require them to be listed on a job board or career site for some period, says Debra Feldman, an executive career consultant based in Greenwich, Conn. Such postings are meant to make hiring fair and transparent, and may help to protect employers from discrimination lawsuits or audits by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323706704578229661268628432

 

[cbg]

Policy is not law. There is no legal penalty if an employer violates their own policy.

There is NO law anywhere in the US requiring a private employer, regardless of whether they are publicly traded or not, to post any job opening, let alone all of them. If an employer chooses to do so, they may. The law does not and will not require that they do so. IMO there is very little validity to the claim that doing so protects them from EEOC violations.

 

[winorlose1]

Policy is not law. There is no legal penalty if an employer violates their own policy.

There is NO law anywhere in the US requiring a private employer, regardless of whether they are publicly traded or not, to post any job opening, let alone all of them. If an employer chooses to do so, they may. The law does not and will not require that they do so. IMO there is very little validity to the claim that doing so protects them from EEOC violations.

Didn't say there was a law nor did the article quote. If there is any ounce of truth to that article, apparently many companies believe it is mandatory, at least for CYA purposes, which means, in a way, my counterparts were more correct than I thought they were even though there is actually no written law.

 

[cbg]

No, it means that your counterparts believe something that is incorrect and that a lot of employers are wasting a great deal of time on something that will not protect them in the least if someone really wants to file a suit against them.

But if you want to look at an unsupported statement from an uncredentialed author quoted in a conservative publication and decide that means that you're wrong, even though you're right, that's your decision to make. One of the great things about this country is that you're free to be stupid if you want to be.

 

[winorlose1]

One of the great things about this country is that you're free to be stupid if you want to be.

Isn't the anonymity of the internet great?!

 

[cbg]

If you say so. My identity is no secret. If you'd been around here longer you'd know that.

 

[winorlose1]

okeedokeedoggydaddy whatever you say.

 

[cbg]

One of you oldtimers want to tell this skeptic why I am not anonymous on the FA site? Quincy? Tranq?

 

[winorlose1]

OK, OK, OK. Just drop it already. I believe you...you are important and you are transparent. Probably the owner of the site, probably President Obama, probably Jesus Christ, WHATEVER.

No need to attack or feel the need to prove yourself. I'm over it already, dude. If you would be more polite to people, you would not get yourself into these little insignificant spats. Been reading through some of the threads you partook in lately...seems to be an ongoing instigation festival with you. Sheees!

'Nuf 'aredee!

 

[cbg]

None of the above. And you completely missed the point I was trying to make, which had nothing to do with my so-called importance and everything to do with how untrue it is that you're anonymous on these forums.

Not to mention that I was trying to point out that YOU WERE RIGHT AND YOUR FRIENDS WERE WRONG.

But yeah, we'll drop it, and you can go back to your stupid friends and grovel instead of showing them that you were right, all because someone whose credentials are not established said something with questionable accuracy and got it quoted in the WSJ. Go for it, that'll show them.