I have been required to create fake job postings because of US immigration policy.
From the line manager perspective, how it looks is you have a colleague who has been working with you for several years who is on a H1B visa. They want to get a green card and become a permanent resident. To support this, we are required to post a fake job ad for their position, and invent a reason to reject any US citizens who apply for the position. (Non-US applications are ignored.)
Our legal advice was that the job posting had to be contain only legitimate requirements for the role, so it could not be highly tailored to only match the resume of the employee seeking PERM status. The result was phone screen interviews were required to reject 8-10 on-paper-potentially-qualified US applicants for the fake position.
This is for a highly specialized area within finance, where in real hiring there is an immense effort to find the strongest candidates regardless of nationality.
In hindsight I am confident that earlier in my career I had applied to at least one such fake role. One not-well-known advantage of working with a recruiter as a job seeker in such a field is the recruiter will have back-channel information to know to ignore such fake job postings.
You were "forced" to create fake job postings because your company engaged in immigration visa fraud, not because of immigration policy. Immigration policy does NOT state "you must put out a job posting and make up reasons you can't hire Americans." It states that you must look for Americans, and if you can't find them, then you may look at immigration visas. What your company decided to do, as many do, is they've already decided on getting cheaper immigrant workers, and then go through the fraudulent process to get them.
This is why people like me come out so vociferously against H1B caps being raised or removed. Fraud is rampant and I personally know people, US citizens, who have lost jobs to H1B people who get paid half as much.
If my company has decided to replace me with someone cheaper, and they can't get an H1B, then they'll go for someone overseas, right? At least for tech jobs, it seems likely. With the H1Bs, income taxes are paid in the US, and the consumer base grows too. I'd hate to lose my job but why shouldn't I still prefer removing the H1B cap?
When they replace you with an H1B, then wages in America go down. I don't want that for my fellow Americans. When they outsource and the worker stays overseas, there's a lot of issues that crop up, and the company can learn to live with the time lag, potential quality or security issues, etc., or they can hire a local worker. As a citizen, my goal is to maximize my standard of living and the SOL for my fellow Americans. If that means a company has to spend more, I'm fine with that. Living is for human beings, not companies. Corporations exist to enrich people, not the other way around. Corporations have no rights we don't give them, and we can take them away at any time.
Is this maybe short-sighted? Wages for one particular role go down when the labor pool is larger, for sure. But how many new companies could exist given cheaper skilled labor, working on new products? I feel like growing the economy like this would, in the long run, be better for all workers' standard of living. This is an observation I've heard about free trade in general, not just for labor, that free trade benefits everyone but nobody in particular, and so is doomed to be unpopular.
international companies sometimes relocate their overseas staff to work in the US because a job may require very specialised knowledge difficult to get elsewhere. the worker may not agree to take the L1 visa for various reasons and would ask for H1B.
while such worker is indeed somewhat cheaper, the cost of not filling the position while they go through the legal process of obtaining the visa makes it on par.
Any time you go through motions to fulfill regulatory requirements that you have no intention of ACTUALLY abiding by is fraud. "difficult to get elsewhere" is not a sufficient reason to commit fraud. In fact, the regulations are explicitly there to make sure you can't just bring cheap people all around the world and lower wages elsewhere. If it's difficult to drag workers around, that's the entire point.
Well, it wasn't if they'd (the company) create the posting. It was whether or not GP would say yes, or say no and get fired so someone else can do it. Can't blame the messanger too much.
>they've already decided on getting cheaper immigrant workers, and then go through the fraudulent process to get them.
If it's truly banking talent, it lilely still isn't cheap. It's just talent that can't easily job hop in 1-2 years to a competing bank. It's a soft form of the anti-poaching agreements certain companies had over a decade ago.
Easiest way to mess that up for companies is to simply make a Visa applicable as long as that worker stays in the US sector of that industry. So the company does the work but gets no handcuffs. The idea of H1B's is to attract top talent, not hold them hostage at a single company.
The US Labor requirements for PERM merely require the employer to make the posting and evaluate the candidates. If they do find a US based candidate, the law isn't saying the company has to hire them - just that the PERM application for the current foreign employee will get rejected. He still gets to keep his job as long as his visa is valid.
Yes, companies will play games to ensure he passes the labor certification. And yes, it doesn't always work. In a team I was in, we had a bunch of Indians who got rejected multiple times over the years before they finally got approval. The folks on the government side didn't just take the company's word - they "randomly" picked a person and would audit all the people who had applied and would argue (successfully) with the company that some of the US based applicants were actually eligible for the role.
An explanation where companies intentionally didn't follow through would be less clearly fake job listings. The jobs are 100% fake even if they may be from companies more likely to have real listings than average and it is an extravagant astroturfing deception coordinated by a government to collect market information. If this were done by a University, an ethics board would halt it.
>it is an extravagant astroturfing deception coordinated by a government to collect market information.
Does a government need to go through these hoops to get market information? I thought that past part of the point of the Bureau of labor and several other organizations.
Since nobody ever writes "hey John/Mary create a fake job ad so that we can do the fraud to help <name>". So the company/hiring manager can later say that "Bandinobaddies didn't have the X skill, HenryBemis didn't have the Y skill but <name> had both skills so we kept him around and offered to him as he already knew the company/role/tech/etc."
And good luck proving that on the call (that was never recorded I proved/or not about the Y skill).
I imagine a couple interviews with HSI agents would get someone to cough up a statement that they did not intend to fill the role. If I were a line manager, I would not rely on the company’s lawyers to protect me from prosecution.
Should be illegal but I'm sure tech companies want this loophole to remain.
Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their own long term job security. Anyone who argues the opposite baffles me (sometimes for the sake of it).
But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well.
Why would we want to restrict any high-skilled already wanted candidates from any country in the world? Why we forbid them working and paying taxes here? Bums on the streets don't pay taxes (for many reasons), but we give them permission to work. While we at the same time forbid foreign highly paid professionals to pay taxes here?
I think you know the answer but I can spell it out, if the supply of high-skilled workers goes up, then salaries go down. Most people would prefer a higher salary. Taxes remain the same, whether local or foreign people are doing the work.
No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done.
Short-term -- yes, but same as with luddites -- everyone benefits from the increased productivity of your company/city/state/country. New businesses grow, more productive companies take over business from others. So salaries raise as a whole. I would really want my city to have an influx of high-skilled workers. Even if they are higher-skilled than me -- my business would serve them and make more money.
If the world worked logically, I'd agree that the argument has a realistic premise.
However, it can be argued that it is not logical, and there is evidence to demonstrate that. For example, the H1B program is rife with abuse and is often used to import cheaper labor by corporations to undercut domestic labor costs. There is a relatively famous case of this happening at Disney for example[0]. This is one example of distorting labor market dynamics, there are many others. These act as obvious wage suppressors even when it results in obvious loss of productivity, the suppression of wage growth is more important than productivity, and you can only get away with that in a flawed system to begin with. By this rationale, this should have been an obvious mistake to Disney, yet they did it anyway.
Now in terms of even broader business market dynamics things like regulatory capture, the tech sectors inclination toward harmful monopolization etc. all contribute to distortions where more productive companies don't actually take over business from others. Microsoft's famed "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is an example of this. Big tech buying out competitors is another. These become market distorting dynamics as well. Its not a level playing field, nor is it a rational market.
To that end, businesses using laws and regulation to prop up their own self worth isn't talked about enough, yet its happening constantly. However when workers want to do the same, its a 'thinking flaw'?
If its such a flaw, why are businesses doing it for themselves?
No recession was ever caused by influx of foreign workers. But there are examples of the opposite, like USSR -- the most economically active people tried to move out, causing "brain drain" and exacerbating recession.
If anything, an influx of skilled workers is a symptom of growth, not recession.
We all saw through the Great Recession that immigration rises and falls with the economy.
I don't care about the economy as much as I care about my employment. I've directly witnessed the negative effects on American tech employees as a direct result of the rise in off-shoring and H1-B visas.
As an example, virtually everyone on this site should be able to walk into a Java shop and be employed there within a few hours. After all, this is a high-demand technology used by huge corporations. Yet we see people commenting even here about being unable to even get an interview after months of mass-applying.
Also, the US is nothing like the USSR. The US is where you make the most money. There won't be any brain drain from the US.
My point is that if not for extra-competitive market, there would be no companies for you to be employed at, because they would fail international competition. California especially hates any non-compete clauses, which is bad for a particular company, but good for the whole market.
I used to live in a country with high tariffs on imports and bad immigration policies. While sounding good as you describe on paper, the quality keeps dropping, productivity stagnates, and in pretty much every area anything imported means "better". So no one wants to buy local anymore. And it doesn't make sense to export anymore, as outsiders don't have tariffs.
There would be no java shops to walk into. Why create them in low-performance high-wages country if there is now a good amount of highly-educated Java professionals in, say, Lagos, Nigeria?
Rent (and the big real estate problems) are because separate awful restrictions on building more properties. That's a local problem, created by NIMBY-ism of locals, not immigrants.
We mix that with immigration, but there's no reason to. Typically workers _love_ new businesses around -- more work, more business.
Rent is mixed with immigration because housing (extending that, physical space) is a limited resource.
If housing is static and never increases, no matter how much the Average Joe's pay is increased due to an influx of highly paid immigrants, they're still going to lose when competing against a highly skilled immigrant for limited resources.
In reality housing is not static, but as you mentioned is highly regulated. The established wealth have incentive to not increase housing supply, especially if they have a number of properties in an area with a lot of immigrants (one such source of NIMBYism).
You are arguing that the nation as a whole will benefit, not the specific workers who loose a job, can’t get one, etc in the short run
This approach of optimizing for long term GDP growth (most of which goes to the investor class) over the interests of workers today is why you see right wing populism on the rise in the US.
No, I'm arguing that the specific workers won't lose a job, but will keep it AND have a higher salary. That's what happened historically every time.
Sorry but you seem to got the right-wing populism backwards -- right-wing populism wants to restrict and stifle any immigration and build a huge wall with neighbors. Xenophobia is typical for right-wing in any country, not just US.
I’ll add: I have worked with many amazing engineers on visas (in the US) from all over the world (and written letters supporting them). This was at a large company that aimed to pay at top of market, and could never quite get enough people. These engineers were not disadvantaging anyone IMO. In fact, I agree they probably created even more jobs by opening up new areas for the company that it then needed to hire for.
I have also seen much lower skill IT workers on visas (often via the big contractors) that were clearly pushing down wages and causing unemployment for US citizens.
>right-wing populism wants to restrict and stifle any immigration and build a huge wall with neighbors
That's the bailey. The Motte is that right wing wants to empower businesses and love immigrants to sneak in and work below minimum wage to increase profit margins. They want to boast high GPD and slide the homeless Americans they make under the rug.
>No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done.
There isn't. But there are a finite amount of companies wanting a finite amount of jobs per company based on budget. Not everyone has the funding, leadership, nor creativity to successfully launch their own business.
>New businesses grow, more productive companies take over business from others.
yup. how's that going for small businesses in most industries? Looks like regulatory capture instead of booming businesses.
Assuming there is an infinite amount of work to be done, there are still limited resources in the real world that people compete for. Theoretically, we can utilize more land, build more dense housing, and so on to offset the increase in population density so housing remains affordable, but not without changing the physical landscape in a way that many would view as negative (i.e. a concrete jungle).
90%+ of occupations today is in services sector. Only a small proportion of workers are in mining or agriculture sectors. And the more developed an economy -- the higher proportion is services. We serve each other and create work for each other.
well yes, that's the flaw and why so much "blue collar" sectors have lagged behind in the US. We have the best software in the world, but we are vulnerable to china because everyone decided to let our silicon chips factories erode away.
Turns out relying on a country the US defines as hostile for such vital hardware to power up software was a horrible idea, even if the number did go up.
Well because they fought so hard for their independence but now want to join their colonial forefathers in their homeland because home is not providing the independence they fought for. It's pretty clear.
One would say this is reverse colonialism under the cover of globalization. Still don't understand why well-off of nations are supposed to provide jobs for other nations which have growing economies and where the high skilled workers already make a very comfortable wage for their societies. Can someone explain why the US has to generate jobs for foreigners when their own societies can't generate them themselves?
>But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well.
We have a whole host of work restrictions that we have decided are very beneficial for society as a whole. Things like minimum wage, maximum working hours, overtime, etc.
Maintaining domestic industries and talent by not selling out to foreign mercenary labor is generally quite beneficial for the national interest.
While it might be better for your job security to keep your own field hiring locally, it could be better for your life if all other fields hire the best regardless of nationality.
> Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their own long term job security. Anyone who argues the opposite baffles me
It's the lesser of two evils. Given a choice 1) to let H1B's flood the market and produce lower wages, or 2) Have the company setup shop in a foreign land, and hire those people there locally, which do you think is better?
At least with option 1, the money is still being made in the USA, taxes are paid here, and the money is spent here for housing, food, cars, etc.. which benefits everyone around.
Except outsourcing has been a thing for almost two decades now and it invariably almost never works. Between security/privacy concerns, sometimes timezone issues (depends on where the team is located), and credential fraud (among many other issues) many companies end up reversing their decision.
Still, I think many would certainly advocate for tariffs for any kind of overseas contracting work in addition to reducing the H1B cap.
That both parties are against this sort of thing tells you quite a bit about their donors and motivations.
I don't think tarrifs will fix this, though. it didn't in 2018. It just lead to a trade war, costing billions in dollars in millions in jobs lost. We lost a lot of domestic production over the last 15 years, so a trade war arguably hurts the U.S. worse than China or Mexico.
1) If Companies could just outsource this work they would already. An H1B Visa sponsorship is more costly than outsourcing.
2) H1B visa recipients very famously send money back to their home countries. Taking money out of our economy makes your "lesser of two evils" much muddier.
3) Federal taxes are not sufficient to raise the living standards of everyone in the US. Why do you think the concept of Welfare States exists?
> and the money is spent here for housing, food, cars, etc.. w
see point 2
The issue is actually much more complicated than you phrased it and that could be why many people are not willing to fall on the sword in the hope that our government will save them.
When the government starts giving out paychecks based on the federal tax revenue then I will assume the government will pay my rent. Till then you're basically saying "well the homeless shelters will be nicer for y'all"
Edit: Also your thinking leaves no room for the lost man-hours Americans spend applying to jobs that don't exist.
2). we already do it with other sectors where the US lagged behind as a country. But at least those companies aren't sucking up the US's resources directly then not paying for them (taxes).
The US has plenty of funding to bolster and talent to nurture. the next Google if tomorrow Google somehow got bought out by Bytedance.
>At least with option 1, the money is still being made in the USA
Not to the actual workers. Which is the primary problem.
>taxes are paid here
No, no they aren't.
> and the money is spent here for housing, food, cars
Taxes are not paid, therefore we have underdeveloped housing in urban areas, surging food prices (that would have gotten worse with a certain merger), and the "economy" car is now $30, 000 instead of 10 (and EV's are more expensive because government doesn't/can't make subsidies for EV's).
Will they?
Trump has said he's in favor of the H1-B program and has given no indications that he plans to lessen or stop it.
Tariffs will likely be used as bargaining tools - you won't see tariffs directed at a country because a US corporation has outsourced labor there.
There's a lot of noise about changes to immigration right now, but I'd be very unsurprised if little or nothing changed.
H1-Bs ARE keeping the JOBS local. They are merely filling them to some extent with immigrant EMPLOYEES (working side by side with true, red-blooded Americans).
The alternative, in many cases, would not be companies hiring an all-American staff. It would be hiring in their foreign offices instead, with Americans only considered if they emigrate. Or an American skeleton crew being sidelined from where the bulk of development happens.
If you take yourself out of the equation, hiring the best labor for local jobs, irrespective of location, is more effective use of resources and a net benefit over restricting employment to a smaller, less qualified field.
It may hurt the individual, but helps the country.
>I t may hurt the individual, but helps the country.
No, it helps the Capitalists. Companies already do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. They'll move the business out of the country as soon as it is financially advisable.
They are able to source labor locally though. They're just not willing to pay market rate.
The fact that companies can import more exploitable workers who they can also pay less than market rate does not equate to them not being unable to find skilled local laborers.
There is an abundance of qualified local laborers.
They are having their cake. They want non-American labor to lower wages, and American resources, locations, and customers to utilize. Do you see the issue here?
I will reply here because I think this is a good question, even if it may have been intended as merely rhetorical.
(1) The process was distasteful. I want there to be broader knowledge of the disfunctional way this system works in practice.
(2) I don't think anything I did was illegal under the letter of the law. I describe it a bit provocatively with words like "invent" and "fake" but if I was in a court of law I could defend as having solid reasons every candidate we rejected for the fake job search. The corporation had legal council engaged guiding the whole process in ways they advised to meet the corporation's aim of retaining the employee and helping them move from H1B to PERM status.
(3) This account is pseudonymous and while I am sure it is possible to get from it back to a real name I don't expect its worth that effort to any legal authorities, based on my description of practices they are well aware of.
(4) To me the most distasteful parts of this are the governmemt policy. In cases I've been involved in the employee already in the seat has been a stronger candidate for the role than anyone turned up in the fake search. This matches the corporation's goal of hiring the best candidates to begin with. The awful bit is that immigration policy doesn't allow any other path for a company to support a H1B visa holder moving to PERM status.
in terms of (4) the thing is that the government policy isn't solely concerned with "hiring the best candidate", or at least not necessarily considering cheap labor to be one of the criteria factoring into "best"
the government policy is concerned with protecting the jobs of citizens as well. it's a balance. it is meant to be a relief valve for employers when they legitimately can't find employees, it's not meant to be a mechanism for creating a wage ceiling or indenturing your employees so they can't move
You have it backwards. The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles such as I mention and endentures employees so they can't easily move.
For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen. Between each step of the progression are barriers with the effect that employees at a lower level have less negotiation power and must accept lower wages and cannot easily move to another job.
The barrier between (1) and (2) is a masters or PhD in a STEM subject area from a US university. From (2) to (3) there is a visa lottery. From (3) to (4) is the PERM process involving the fake job search as I described.
While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status.
To decrease the effect of lowered wages and indentured status requires a reduced number of people in visa states (2) and (3), which would be achieved by raising barriers between (1) and (2) or lowering barriers between (3) and (4). The distasteful PERM process is the barrier between (3) and (4).
If the policy goal was to raise wages, it would be designed differently. E.g. if the top 20% by taxable income of H1B holders were offered PERM status each year, it would be a different dynamic.
> The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles
Sure, not because of the law, but because of loopholes around the spirit of the law.
>For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen.
well yes, that's the point. They don't want international workers to be as easily hired as domestic ones. That's just common policy. Your workaround is just that, a way for the company to get what they want while "complying with law". AKA a loophole that breaks the spirit of the law.
Remember, the US isn't necessarily concerned with the best talent in the world. It ultimately wants to make sure the economy circulates from within.
>While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status.
Yes, and I think we can lightly rework this as well. Basically let the H1b "own" the Visa. They find other work in the industry they have a visa in, they are still valid. Breaks all the chains while gaining from their talent.
>I have been required to create fake job postings because of US immigration policy.
Your post is useful information and I believe you're telling things from your perspective.
But I gotten say required can't be the right word. A more correct to put things is "US immigration policy strongly encentivizes broadly dishonest behavior and we go along 'cause all other companies do".
If we're talking broad policy, the companies that are doing this sell immigration policies as being intended only for uniquely skilled individual but support policies that tie H1-b holders to a given company so their salaries are held down. And naturally, the point is that immigration policies broadly are aimed for both getting uniquely skilled individuals and to create an environment roughly lowering wages, some companies leaning on one part, some companies leaning on the other. And yeah, managers on the front lines indeed maybe only see the seemingly irrational results.
"Required" is not accurate. You are implying that US immigration policy mandates the creation of fake job postings. Rather, you chose to create those fake job postings in service of some arbitrary reason. However justified you think that reason is, it is still arbitrary, and that was still a choice.
Where in there is there something stating "if you don't really want a domestic worker, then simply create the job advert but then make up reasons not to hire applicants and tell us you couldn't find anyone."
It seems as though you read that person's comment as "advertising jobs is not required" when what they said was "don't pretend your company's effort to skirt regulations was actually what's legitimately required to abide by them." Regulations DO NOT state you have to go through the motions even if your intent is to hire a foreign worker anyway. The regulations state that you CAN'T hire a foreign worker if you haven't legitimately tried to hire a local worker. By going into the process with the INTENT of hiring a foreign worker regardless of your local worker search is fraud. Regs do not say "You must commit fraud."
The claim is that the company did this for their own random reasons. It is a required market test with penalties if you file a petition and had a qualified worker you couldn't reject, not filing a petition because you do puts you out of their responsibility so whether you are hiring after their fraud is your own business.
Right kind of similar to how the IRS is above fault, immigration can make a complex scam where they only take the results when there was no harm done.
I have no idea what part of that text you read that made you sure you had to hire a qualified candidate or that a consequence could exist if you don't let alone that their department would look at it. It's my understanding that they are not even allowed to consider past behavior of an employer.
So show me on their website. I see a ton about going on with a petition incorrectly, what about when there is a candidate and you would need to hire them to make this process not their market information scam, where is that? I don't think you (or burnte) are even referring to the process I linked to which I presume is the one in the top post.
You clearly haven't read the actual documents. Your responsibility is to not do the PERM process if you can find a qualified candidate because that would be negatively affecting the market, immigration spends no time on what happens if you can find a candidate because deceiving people that you have a job is perhaps a standard market behavior (1 in 5 jobs is such a deception) and they are not your lawyer.
If you wanted to imply a process was was a serious obligation to hire the most qualified candidate you would call it a good faith effort to test the labor market?
Yes, I'll be sure to review the implied acts of Congress instead of believing an incident report from someone at an organization that did the PERM process matches the government website's summary and detailed documentation of it might be based on correct legal advice.
"I fucked a lot of people out of jobs and wasted their time but I don't want to name and shame because I don't want to have to look for a job myself"
Edit: I appreciate your honesty. I just want to call out the irony. I don't think you're a bad person, I wish you would whistleblow but I understand why you cant.
These are not fake. "On paper potentially qualified" has meant nothing for a long time. And if truly acceptable candidates do show up, that scuttles the immigration application. The ads are written so that etc, but they still correspond to an actual job that is actually, actively hiring and actually, actively paying.
You do learn to recognize them, and then you only need apply if you carefully meet all the requirements because THESE job postings WERE carefully written. But they are real by definition: there is a job and it is carefully spec-ed, as opposed to the rest of the garbage. And much effort went into the process, as opposed to the rest of the garbage. And someone was writing on HN recently about their immigration process being scuttled by this.
>"On paper potentially qualified" has meant nothing for a long time.
yeah, almost like we have a much too long process after the paper to determine if that paper lives up to its name.
Even then, what does that say about our society if our automatic assumption is that a job application and the resume submitted are all fake?
>And if truly acceptable candidates do show up, that scuttles the immigration application.
yes, that's the point. We can fine tune some things (someone already in the country and working hard shouldn't need to worry about losing their visa becuse a company found an American), but the overall point of this is to prioritize hiring domestic labor.
>You do learn to recognize them
I'd love to have some tips, I am as dense as a log.
> > And if truly acceptable candidates do show up, that scuttles the immigration application.
> yes, that's the point.
The discussion is about whether job postings are real or fake. I use "scuttles" as evidence that that one is very real.
> >You do learn to recognize them
> I'd love to have some tips, I am as dense as a log.
For example, such a job posting is likely oddly specific as to experience and what it's applied to. A nonsense job posting might enumerate a bunch of irrelevant software applications or languages. We all (?) know to ignore that list. A visa requirement posting is not likely to do that. It's supposed to actually limit itself to required stuff. The software mentioned might be very specific and exactly the one that is actually used on the job. Not some HR or managerial delirium. For another example, some quirks of the current person's experience are likely to be mentioned when they are actually in use on the job (or at least plausibly in use). They may again seem oddly specific and quirky. These get mentioned because why not: they strongly restrict the number of people that might fit that position, and they are not even a lie.
It used to be also that it needed to be published in a publication "of record", like, not just on a web site. Some papers were full of these strange job postings. I have no idea what is the current requirement as to publication medium.
> I use "scuttles" as evidence that that one is very real.
Fair enough. I interpretd it as "scares away" or "puts in danger". I personally don't see a posting as "real" if your performance in such a process is already set as failing. But a fake app shouldn't be used as a way to prevent Visa holders from staying in the country. They're already here.
>The software mentioned might be very specific and exactly the one that is actually used on the job. Not some HR or managerial delirium.
Outside of being too specific, I do find some irony that a red flag to look out for is "it looks like a proper app with reasonae requirements and not like it was made by someone who never worked in programming languages"
But thanks. I'll keep a lookout for it. It doesn't happen that often, but once in a blue moon I'll come across some requirement of a framework of a framework. Or recruiter overinsisance of this very specific pipeline (yes, I have made use of WINE professionally. And I've studied Vulkan as a hobby. I have not done professional work with Vulkan through WINE.
From the line manager perspective, how it looks is you have a colleague who has been working with you for several years who is on a H1B visa. They want to get a green card and become a permanent resident. To support this, we are required to post a fake job ad for their position, and invent a reason to reject any US citizens who apply for the position. (Non-US applications are ignored.)
Our legal advice was that the job posting had to be contain only legitimate requirements for the role, so it could not be highly tailored to only match the resume of the employee seeking PERM status. The result was phone screen interviews were required to reject 8-10 on-paper-potentially-qualified US applicants for the fake position.
This is for a highly specialized area within finance, where in real hiring there is an immense effort to find the strongest candidates regardless of nationality.
In hindsight I am confident that earlier in my career I had applied to at least one such fake role. One not-well-known advantage of working with a recruiter as a job seeker in such a field is the recruiter will have back-channel information to know to ignore such fake job postings.