Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill aimed at removing "ghost" job postings; business groups warn of compliance burden
Summary
A4625, requiring employers and third'party job boards to remove filled or non'existent job postings and to label whether a posting is for an existing vacancy, was released with committee amendments after heated debate; business associations and school boards raised concerns about penalties and operational feasibility.
The Assembly Labor Committee on Tuesday released A4625, a bill intended to curb so-called "ghost listings" by requiring employers to remove job postings when positions are filled and to indicate in postings whether listings reflect an actual vacancy or are for ongoing/indefinite recruitment.
Sponsor testimony described instances in which postings remained live months after positions were filled and argued that removing misleading advertisements would protect job seekers from wasted time and privacy risk. "Job seekers do deserve accurate information about job opportunities," the sponsor said, describing the practice as harmful and offering anecdotal examples.
Opponents included the New Jersey Business & Industry Association and the New Jersey School Boards Association, which said the bill as drafted would be impractical for large employers and burdensome for public entities. "This legislation would be impractical for a large retailer," Alyssa Frank, vice president of government affairs for NJBIA, told the committee, citing examples where employers proactively hire for high-turnover roles and keep listings open. John Burns of the School Boards Association objected to penalties written in the bill and to obligations involving third'party posting aggregators.
Witnesses and members discussed technical fixes: exempting indefinitely open listings, clarifying when a posting is "filled" (offer made vs. start date), and imposing a warning period before fines. Committee amendments added definitions, a warning process administered by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and adjusted the employer-size threshold; members also debated whether penalties should be assessed weekly or monthly.
After extended debate and several procedural objections, the committee voted to release A4625 with committee amendments. The chair directed that technical concerns be addressed as the bill moves forward.
