The Rise of Ghost Jobs
The modern job market is already complex. Remote work, AI-driven screening, and global competition have altered the recruitment landscape beyond recognition. Yet alongside these structural shifts, another practice has emerged that is quietly eroding trust: the proliferation of “ghost jobs”.
Key Points
- “Ghost jobs” are vacancies advertised without genuine or immediate hiring intent, undermining transparency in recruitment.
- A significant proportion of online listings may not reflect active hiring, distorting labour market data and eroding candidate trust.
- Misleading job adverts carry reputational risk and may attract regulatory scrutiny as transparency standards evolve.
- Separately, over one in five UK workers fail to take their full statutory annual leave due to workload pressure and workplace culture.
- Skipping holiday entitlement is linked to increased stress, reduced wellbeing and long-term productivity risks.
- Employers must facilitate annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and avoid creating barriers to rest.
Ghost jobs are vacancies advertised publicly despite there being no genuine intention to fill it. To candidates, the listing appears legitimate. In reality, the role may not exist, may already be filled, or may never be actively recruited.
Ghost Jobs: From Anomaly to Strategy
What was once anecdotal is now measurable. A recent survey by LiveCareer found that 45% of HR professionals admit to regularly posting ghost vacancies. These are not administrative oversights or isolated errors. In many cases, they form part of deliberate recruitment strategies.
The reasons vary:
- Testing the market to assess salary expectations or talent availability
- Building a pipeline for future hiring
- Projecting an image of growth or stability
- Collecting candidate data for later use
Some postings remain live for months. According to the same survey, almost 40% stay active for one to three months, creating sustained uncertainty for applicants who receive no response or feedback.
From a legal and reputational standpoint, the practice raises serious questions about transparency and good faith in recruitment.
For jobseekers, ghost jobs are not an abstract phenomenon. They represent time, emotional investment and, increasingly, disillusionment.
Candidates routinely spend hours tailoring CVs, drafting cover letters and preparing supporting materials. When the vacancy was never truly available, that effort becomes wasted labour. Nearly half of HR leaders report receiving complaints from applicants about misleading advertisements.
The cumulative effect of ghost jobs is significant:
- Erosion of trust in employers
- Reduced engagement with advertised roles
- Damage to confidence and morale
- Heightened stress in an already competitive market
While some employers view posting ghost jobs as commercially pragmatic, the longer-term risks are substantial:-
- Reputational damage: Candidates increasingly share experiences online. Perceived dishonesty can undermine employer brand credibility.
- Reduced applicant quality: As scepticism grows, highly qualified candidates may disengage from organisations perceived as disingenuous.
- Regulatory scrutiny: Jurisdictions are beginning to respond. In Ontario, new transparency requirements require employers to clarify whether a vacancy is actively being filled. Similar measures may follow elsewhere.
- Distorted labour market data: Inflated vacancy numbers skew labour statistics, misleading policymakers and economists about the true state of the market.
From an employment law perspective, while UK law does not yet directly prohibit “ghost jobs”, misleading advertising may raise issues under consumer protection principles and, in some contexts, misrepresentation. The direction of travel is clear: transparency expectations are increasing.
The frustration of ghost jobs is compounded by automation. Even where a vacancy is genuine, candidates increasingly encounter algorithmic screening tools that filter applications by keyword rather than capability.
Some organisations deploy AI-driven video interview tools or automated assessments with minimal human interaction. The result is a recruitment process that can feel opaque and impersonal.
Where ghost jobs and automated gatekeeping intersect, candidates may reasonably feel that they are engaging with a system rather than a decision-maker.
Restoring Trust Through Transparency
The solution to ghost jobs is not complex, but it does require cultural change.
If a role is intended as a talent-pooling exercise, the advertisement should say so. If hiring is paused, listings should be removed promptly. Clear expiration dates and accurate status updates are straightforward mechanisms for restoring credibility.
Transparency in relation to ghost jobs is not merely an ethical preference. It is a reputational safeguard and, increasingly, a regulatory expectation.
In a labour market already strained by technological change, trust is a competitive advantage. Undermining it for short-term strategic signalling is unlikely to prove sustainable.
The Hidden Cost of Skipped Holidays
While recruitment practices dominate headlines, a quieter issue is affecting workplaces across the UK: employees are not taking their full statutory holiday entitlement.
Under the Working Time Regulations 1998, most workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid annual leave. Yet surveys consistently show that a significant proportion leave days untaken each year.
This is not a matter of indifference. It is a symptom of workload pressure and workplace culture.
New research conducted by Timetastic indicates that more than one in five employees (21%) fail to take their full holiday allowance. The primary reasons are familiar:
- Excessive workload
- Fear of burdening colleagues
- Concerns about falling behind
- Implicit expectations of constant availability
Mid-level managers appear particularly affected. Positioned between operational demands and senior leadership expectations, many report feeling unable to step away.
The persistence of “always-on” (i.e. presenteeism) workplace norms continues to shape behaviour, even where formal policies encourage rest.
The data is consistent: prolonged periods without meaningful rest increase stress, reduce productivity and negatively impact mental health.
The report found that nearly half of employees (45%) stated that their mental health deteriorates when leave is postponed or cancelled. Extended periods without breaks correlate with burnout, reduced engagement and higher absenteeism in the longer term.
Paradoxically, the same research shows overwhelming agreement (89%) that holidays improve wellbeing and performance. The problem is not a lack of awareness. It is structural and cultural pressure.
Beyond compliance, there is a business case for encouraging time off. Untaken holiday can lead to:
- Accrued financial liabilities
- Increased burnout-related absence
- Reduced productivity
- Higher staff turnover
Healthy leave practices contribute to sustainable performance. Organisations that fail to model and normalise rest may find themselves managing avoidable attrition and wellbeing crises.
Practical measures include:
- Clear leadership messaging that leave is expected, not discouraged
- Monitoring unused entitlement and prompting employees to book time off
- Ensuring adequate resourcing so staff can step away without penalty
- Discouraging routine contact with employees during annual leave
Cultural change is often more influential than policy revision. When senior leaders visibly take leave and respect boundaries, employees are more likely to follow suit.
Employers: What This Means
- Ensure job adverts reflect genuine recruitment intent and remove inactive listings promptly to protect your employer brand.
- If building a talent pipeline rather than filling an immediate vacancy, state this clearly to avoid misleading applicants.
- Monitor annual leave uptake and actively encourage staff to take their statutory entitlement.
- Review workload allocation and management culture to ensure employees can take holiday without detriment or implicit pressure.
