Labor panel releases amended job‑posting bill after pushback from schools, counties and business groups

The New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee on Thursday released Assembly bill A‑1161 with amendments after hours of testimony from business groups, school boards and local governments that warned the proposal could create new administrative burdens. Chair Anthony Varelli opened the session and said the committee would center working people as it considers the measure.

The bill, as read into the record by the clerk, would require employers to disclose when a posting is for an anticipated (non‑vacant) position, provide notices for seasonal positions, make reasonable efforts to notify third‑party job‑posting services that a role has been filled, and sets civil penalties not to exceed $300 for a first offense and $600 for subsequent offenses. The amendments clarified definitions (including an interview definition) and adjusted earlier, higher penalty levels.

Business groups told the committee they appreciated recent changes but remained concerned. "We appreciate the amendments, but our members have reached out and still express this bill needs more work," said Chris Trummyholtz of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, who characterized the association’s position as seeking to move from opposition toward a neutral posture while negotiating fixes. He told the committee that what members have seen most often are recruiting firms that post roles to drum up business rather than employers posting fraudulent vacancies.

John Burns of the New Jersey School Boards Association urged caution. He said schools already operate in a highly regulated hiring environment and suffer from a teacher shortage, and that the bill would increase administrative time and costs for HR staff. "This bill represents yet another hoop that districts will have to go through in order to hire individuals," Burns said, adding that school districts should be considered for a carve‑out.

Chris Nelson of the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association gave practical examples: smaller districts often rely on a single staff member for postings and substitute pools, and the new monitoring, notifications or potential penalties could force districts to buy tracking services or reassign duties. "In a smaller district where this is likely one person wearing many hats, this is a significant administrative cost," Nelson said.

County and municipal representatives made similar points. John Donadio of the New Jersey Association of Counties said county governments employ tens of thousands statewide and that compliance could require new tracking services. Erin Niedler of the League of Municipalities said municipalities often face lengthy hiring processes because of background checks, collective bargaining and civil‑service rules and said the League was willing to negotiate on time frames and penalty language.

Committee members pressed witnesses on examples of employers posting "phantom" jobs; Trummyholtz told the panel he had not been given examples of employers doing this and described third‑party recruiting firms as the more common source of the practice. One member called the bill "a solution in search of a problem," while others said protections for jobseekers justified moving the measure forward.

After debate, the committee voted to release A‑1161 with amendments. The clerk announced the bill was released and will move forward consistent with committee procedure.

The committee record lists the specific amendments read into the hearing and the revised penalty amounts; sponsors and staff said they will continue discussions with stakeholders about carve‑outs and timing provisions.

What's next: The bill was released with amendments and will proceed to the next legislative step as determined by committee procedure.