This article is really about the layoffs, rather than the removal of the job postings. Obviously that'd be the case: what else is there to talk about other than that there were some job postings, but they aren't there anymore?
It's become pretty common to use job postings as a diagnostic or predictive source. I remember when I first noticed an article inferring that such-and-such a company must be developing such-and-such a type of video game, because they were hiring for people with particular technical skills which implied a certain development path. I thought "oh, that's clever, I never would have thought to monitor job boards to learn about the future, but it makes sense". Now that practice of reporting on hiring is just de rigeur across coverage of many different industries, I think.
I wonder if there will be some kind of response from companies, to try to hide or obfuscate such information—which may sometimes amount to a trade secret, or sometimes (as in this Tesla case) just a present kernel for bad publicity to form around. Maybe leaving up positions with no intention of filling them, or posting fake positions to send confusing signals to people watching you? They probably already do this, come to think of it.
The end result would be increased annoyance and frustration for people applying to those jobs.
That behavior is so distasteful. Heard that story more than once and it sickens me to think how much impact a rescinded job offer could have on someone’s life. What if someone moved, quit a good job, etc all on a broken promise. Even better when the job market feels comparatively weak.
> ...it sickens me to think how much impact a rescinded job offer could have on someone’s life. What if someone moved, quit a good job, etc all on a broken promise.
Though this kind of behavior is common enough that I wonder if companies have found a way to weasel out of it, or they're just getting away with it due to ignorance or a reluctance to sue by those they have wronged.
> I wonder if there will be some kind of response from companies, to try to hide or obfuscate such information-
They already do this in the form of third party job postings which will describe the role/work but not name the company. There are tons of these all over linkedin.
companies in top or even middle tier don't do this. saying you work for a faang+ is an important part of compensation even if benefits and salary are the same (they aren't).
I literally just applied for a role at Callaway that did this - It is more common than you think. I've also seen it done for NBC Universal, Stubhub, and large satellite companies - just off the top of my head and own experience.
Job postings are also a great way to see what companies are focusing on right now, what their needs and priorities are. It’s useful from a sales intelligence and marketing point of view because you can tailor your messaging based on that
It's become pretty common to use job postings as a diagnostic or predictive source. I remember when I first noticed an article inferring that such-and-such a company must be developing such-and-such a type of video game, because they were hiring for people with particular technical skills which implied a certain development path. I thought "oh, that's clever, I never would have thought to monitor job boards to learn about the future, but it makes sense". Now that practice of reporting on hiring is just de rigeur across coverage of many different industries, I think.
I wonder if there will be some kind of response from companies, to try to hide or obfuscate such information—which may sometimes amount to a trade secret, or sometimes (as in this Tesla case) just a present kernel for bad publicity to form around. Maybe leaving up positions with no intention of filling them, or posting fake positions to send confusing signals to people watching you? They probably already do this, come to think of it.
The end result would be increased annoyance and frustration for people applying to those jobs.