Meta laid off around 2,000 employees this year and in April they announced a further 10% planned cut in their workforce [0].
Employees were told to work from home and were sent emails at 4AM informing them they've been let go.
Those that weren't impacted have software on their computer that tracks their every move.
Remaining employees can now opt out of being tracked at work for half an hour [1].
Meanwhile, @Meta is raking in record profits.
ClickUp reduced headcount by 22% - and the CEO tweeted that the "business is the strongest it's ever been". In the same tweet, the CEO motivated this cut by their intention to build the "100X organization" ...[2]
A week before the layoffs, they posted this video [3].
Webflow fired most of its staff, with some finding out about it after more than 24 hours [4] (while being on a locked visa, which means they'll have to leave the country!).
Cloudflare laid off 1,100 employees (~20% of its workforce) [5] and hired over 1,000 interns (one could say replaced).
My question for anyone still working at these companies:
I save all the jobs I apply to, so it's fairly easy to check/compare and I found plenty of cases where job ads get reposted after some time.
In one instance, I applied for a role in December '25, got a (boilerplate) rejection email a couple of days later (although my profile directly matched the job requirements and I had previous experience working in that specific field), job ad goes offline and re-appeared 3 months later - exact same time and job description.
That's not a ghost job. That sounds like they picked some resumes and rejected the rest and hired someone, and then three months later they either needed another person to also do the same job, or it didn't work out with the original hire so they opened the hiring back up.
Some companies don't know what they want and there's internal confusion. I've observed this first-hand. They'll release recs and shut them down a few weeks later, confusing HR (or HR confuses everyone), maybe re-open. It's annoying but more disorganized behavior than fake jobs.
Sorry, but why is that a problem? If they didn't find someone, they closed the posting, then reopened it later, what is the issue?
Or, as in some cases, perhaps they did find someone? I've been at companies where we hired many engineers sequentially over time using the same job description. Should we just have arbitrarily changed the JD?
No, but unique IDs for postings could help in that situation. If you want to hire, say, 10 engineers, you have 10 separate job postings with their own unique ID, they get taken down as each position gets filled.
Gives candidates visibility into how many positions the company is hiring (am I competing against 1,000 for 1 position or for 10 positions?), and clear visibility that hiring is happening and how many roles are left to fill.
> If they didn't find someone, they closed the posting, then reopened it later, what is the issue?
Closing & reopening is the problem, I suspect. Forces a re-application in some cases. I'm not sure how much any kind of legislation can help here though, just sounds like government overreach.
I don't think there's really any good solution. Easy enough to say "you can't post a job to "just collect resumes" you must actually be hiring, and intend to hire someone" but that doesn't account for situations where maybe the company did actually intend to hire, but later on mangement changed their mind...would that be considered a ghost job?
In trading (of securities) posting an order without intent to execute is considered market manipulation, which is illegal and harshly prosecuted. There is a consideration that change of mind is possible, but you'll have a hell of a lot to prove in such case before authorities let you off.
I agree with many, pointing that companies will (try) find ways to fleece any regulation imposed. And I am not a fan of regulations myself, at all. But I think it is fair to hold businesses to some standard in many aspects, including hiring. It is already being done in regards to some, like discrimination and equality. Un- and under-employment is a matter, dealt with by society through institutions and funded by taxpayers. The "clearance rate" of job applications (from both "buy" and "sell" sides) is, therefore, a state concern. I do not think extending requirements of "business license" to demonstrate "genuine intent" would place insurmountable burden on HRs or CEOs. But of course, such extension must have some teeth.
To be clear, the current situation with excessive ghosting is not helped by decades-old push to "commoditize" jobs, particularly IT jobs. And the regulations we discuss will be a not very well-veiled recognition of its de-facto success. Which I am also not a fan of. But flip side seems worse, when companies are allowed to pretend they'd only settle for unicorn while not demonstrating a "unicorn-shaped sieve" at all.
I'll write a full article in a year or two, but here's the short version: some weeks ago, as I was looking for job offers, I found one that was interesting. As I didn't knew the company, I wanted to do my due diligence and check them out.
I open the website and find a ClickFix (the "prove you're not a bot" type) attack on their main page.
I spent over 2 hours and a small (but bigger than 0) amount of my own money to report the issue by emailing and even trying to call them (they didn't have any dedicated responsible disclosure page or contact).
After some time, they finally answered my emails, took down the website and "fixed" the issue.
When I finally applied for the role, got ghosted for a week and only after I wrote them again, asking for an update, I got rejected as they allegedly were looking for someone more junior - though the job title was explicitly "Senior XXX Lead".
Some years ago, I went to interview (in person) at a big European financial institution.
As I got there around lunchtime, I happened to get to the front door at the same time as some employees were returning from lunch who, very kindly, held the door open for me.
I was in their office around their computers, unsupervised and unaccompanied, for 10-15 minutes, enough time to plant some O.MG USB-C cables.
During the interview, I had a chance to talk to the CTO and told them what happened and how I was allowed access in the office, and immediately saw his face change and quickly change topic, and end the interview.
Unsurprisingly, I didn't get the job - I should have probably kept my mouth shut.
I almost fell for a very sophisticated phishing attack last December and most of the "verifiable" information was from my LinkedIn account.
For each role I had described some of the tasks and accomplishments and this was used in the phishing message.
Since then, I removed my photo, changed my name only to initials and removed all the role-specific information.
It's a bit of a bummer as I'm currently in the process of looking for a new job and unfortunately having a LinkedIn profile is still required in some places, but once I find it, I'll delete my profile.
I'm routinely shocked how biased people I work with are against individuals without a linkedin page. So many hiring managers across 15 years in my industry won't consider people without pages. One guy goes on rants how people are "sketchy" if they don't have a verified page and a lot of skill endorsements and testimonials! He'll pull up our vendors pages and check them out during meetings, complain if it isn't available or complete. I used to keep mine very minimal and locked down but I felt pressure from peers to flesh is out and keep it public which I hate.
For remote jobs with remote interviews, not having a LinkedIn page or having a LinkedIn page full of generic information that can be disproven by a quick background check are common traits of scam applicants.
A friend’s employer started requiring more verification after they hired a group of remote workers who would some times connect from North Korean IPs when they made a mistake with their VPN.
somewhat off-topic: I had an interview for an Engineering Manager position with the Head of Engineering.
They had some leet code problem prepared and I tried solving it and failed.
During the challenge, I used some python string operand (:-1) (and maybe some other stuff) that they didn't knew.
In the end, I failed the challenge as I didn't do it in the O(n) way...
These kind of stupid challenges exemplify what's wrong with hiring these days: one interviewer, usually some "vp"/"head of" decides what is the "correct" way to write some code, when they (sometimes) themselves couldn't write a line of code (since they've been "managers" for a millennia)
ps. they actually did not know what `:-1` means ...I rest my case
Were they a python engineer? I interview folks all the time in languages I don’t understand, and I ask dumb questions throughout the interview. I’ve been a professional (non-python) programmer for over a decade now and I don’t really know what :-1 means, I can guess it’s something like slicing until the last character but idk for sure.
yes, they were (theoretically) a python developer, should have mentioned this was an ML role (your guess is right, slice just before the last char)
Just to be clear: the main problem is not that they did not know what `:-1` was - there are many weird syntax additions with every version - understandable.
IMHO the problem is that there's usually a single interviewer that decides go/no go.
We all have biases, so leaving such an important decision (like hiring an EM) to one person is, (again IMHO) ...stupid .
Taking something as simple as this as an upfront, genuine experience sharing, and that their data is true.
If this test makes 50% of people fail, it's an amazing test! A nearly free way to cull half the applicants seems great. Honestly not useful for any big company, but feels great for SMEs.
reply