What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.
On top of this, you also cannot verify if the position was filled through another job board. The company/HR might say "we filled it through a different portal" and in most portals, expired listings don't show up and there is no way to verify if they actually did hire someone from there.
Put some money on the line. I'm not an economist but you could structure a market where you cannot just take up mental space in the job market for practically nil. That's the current malincentive, that companies put up job listings they have no intention of filling, even when candidates who are qualified by their own criteria apply. The current job market maladies are a perverse incentive of the price of posting a job and applying for a job are effectively nil, the spread is too big for anyone to make the trade.
Yeah something like that. A breakup fee between the job board company and the hiring company: “if you don’t hire someone within 90 days we keep half of the salary.” But there’s not much incentive for the hiring side to do this!
> confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active.
If a position is only listed due to a requirement, and is already basically guaranteed to someone making an internal transfer, knowing the recruiter's identity and having a manager pinky-swear the job offer is real does nothing.
Unless you recruit mainly via this new job board I can hardly see why employers would go for it, it would just show a very small percentage because you fill most openings via LinkedIn or whatever, damaging the company branding.
If I knew that a company had paid a refundable fee (e.g $1000), that was only paid back if the job was filled by someone outside the company within 6 months; then I would take it much more seriously.
I like it. Now, what are you going to do to employees? How do they verify (to the board and/or the employer) that they're who they say they are, and are serious about looking?
I like this for employers. Money talks and baloney walks; if you're serious, prove it. But that could come down badly on desperate employees - Either take a job that you decide you don't like, or lose a significant amount of money. And yet, the "not seriously looking" issue is on both sides.
And even for employers, you have to gate this. Something like, they get the $1000 back if, after six months, the board has not supplied them with N qualified candidates. (Which gets back to the employee issue: How do you prove they're qualified?)
I like the idea in general. Really, I do. But I'm not sure it solves the whole problem. (And maybe it doesn't need to in order to be a good step forward.)
For amusement value, consider the following wrinkle: If a company forfeits the $1000, the board keeps $200. The other $800 gets split among the candidates whose time the company wasted.
