Unemployment is not a process in which the jobseeker is protected. When a rights violation occurs, there is no competent authority to appeal to. Your application may go unanswered, you may be called for interviews only to hear nothing afterwards, or you may later discover that the position you applied for never existed—yet you have no concrete recourse.
In our previous article ("No, We'll Get Back to You"), we explained how this imbalance works: the jobseeker prepares a tailored CV, solves unpaid tests, attends multiple interviews, and pays for transportation; the employer benefits from all this labor and makes the best choice for themselves. Though both sides appear to "participate" in the process, the investment is unequal. And this imbalance is felt more acutely by jobseekers with each passing day.
So what can be done to rebalance this dynamic? In other parts of the world, this question is being answered through concrete legal steps.
Two Examples from Canada and the United States
In Ontario, Canada, significant amendments to the Employment Standards Act took effect on January 1, 2026. These changes were shaped by three consecutive laws (the Working for Workers Four, Five, and Seven Acts) and apply to employers with 25 or more employees.
On the U.S. side, New York State has taken a similar path. Bill S8877, passed by the state senate on June 2, 2026, applies to employers with 100 or more employees and job-posting platforms; the bill is currently awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's signature.
These two are not alone. In Pennsylvania, a bill titled the "Ghost Job Postings Prevention Act" has been introduced; New Jersey has S2136, California has AB1251, and Kentucky has HB324—all addressing similar regulations. This is not an isolated experiment; it is a trend of independent states tackling the same problem simultaneously.
Ontario's law is already in effect, and we will begin seeing the first implementation results in the coming months. New York's bill is still awaiting signature.
What Do These Laws Require?
Looking at the common points in these regulations, several complementary provisions stand out.
Salary ranges must be disclosed. Under Ontario law, employers must specify the expected wage or a wage range in the job posting; however, this range cannot exceed $50,000. So a range like "$80,000–$120,000" is acceptable, while a broader range like "$60,000–$120,000" violates the law.
Is this job posting for an actual open position? This is perhaps the most critical provision. The law requires employers to disclose whether the posting is to fill an existing position or whether the employer is simply looking to build a talent pool. If there is no position to fill, the law requires this to be stated explicitly in the posting. New York's bill goes a step further by requiring employers to specify the expected timeline for filling the position. According to this additional provision, if the position will be filled within 90 days, will take longer, or will not be filled at all, this must be written in capital letters in the posting.
Data protection. If the position does not genuinely exist, there is a heightened risk that applicants' information will be data-mined or sold. Regulations therefore limit how long application data may be retained and prohibit its use for other purposes.
Disclosure of artificial intelligence use. If artificial intelligence is used at any stage of the hiring process (screening, evaluation, selection), this must be explicitly stated in the job posting.
Notification obligation. Perhaps the most concrete right: candidates who are interviewed (not just those who apply, but those who actually interview) must be notified of a hiring decision within 45 days of their final interview. In other words, "we will get back to you" is no longer a courtesy phrase—it is a legal obligation.
All of these obligations apply to companies with 25 or more employees (in New York, this threshold rises to 100) and are enforced through financial penalties.
The Actual Problem Being Addressed: Ghost Job Postings
Most of these provisions point to a single problem: nonexistent job postings, or "ghost jobs."
According to an article published in Forbes, experts estimate that more than one-third of all job postings are fake.
In a 2024 survey conducted by MyPerfectResume with 753 U.S. recruiters, 8 out of 10 recruiters admitted that their companies post jobs for positions that are already filled or do not exist. In a 2024 survey by Resume Builder covering 649 companies, 4 out of 10 hiring managers reported posting ghost job listings.
Even more striking: most recruiters do not view this as an ethical problem. In the same survey, 7 out of 10 managers believe that posting fake job listings is an acceptable practice. So the problem is not merely jobseekers wasting time; the system itself operates on the basis of nonexistent demand.
As we have written before, when the jobseeker lacks institutional power, the only tool remaining is complaint—but complaint has a cost, and it is usually the already-victimized party, the jobseeker, who bears it. When they speak up, they fear the consequences for their next interview, so they share their experience of injustice only with close friends and family. It is precisely at this point that law fills the void left by complaint: rather than leaving the jobseeker trapped in a dilemma over whether or not to voice concerns, the law provides them with a concrete avenue for grievance and an enforcement mechanism. The issue is not merely forcing employers to be transparent; it is empowering the jobseeker and freeing them from being condemned to resort to complaint, a tool whose cost is too high.
One Law Does Not Solve Everything, But...
Of course, a single law cannot eliminate this problem entirely. How effectively inspection mechanisms will function, whether penalties will be deterrent, and how companies will interpret these provisions remain to be seen.But what is needed is something that can at least begin to rebalance power in favor of jobseekers—something that can knock employers off their pedestal, even if only slightly. The Ontario and New York examples show that this can be transformed from a paper demand into a concrete legal framework.
Such regulation is not currently on the agenda in Turkey. But that does not prevent us from monitoring these international experiences, observing which provisions work and which do not. İşsizler.org will continue to follow this process.