NJBIA is voicing strong opposition to a new bill that imposes stringent requirements on New Jersey employers regarding publicly advertised job postings. The legislation, Bill A-4625 (Danielsen, D-17), was advanced in the Assembly Labor Committee on Thursday.
The proposed mandates require employers to remove a job posting within two weeks of filling a position, provide an anticipated timeframe for when the position will be filled in the job posting, and inform applicants during the interview process about the status of their application and whether the employer is still considering them.
"Compliance with this legislation is impractical for most businesses in the State," NJBIA Vice President of Government Affairs Elissa Frank stated in written testimony to the committee. "Our members have shared that it would be extraordinarily difficult to comply with this legislation given its sheer impracticality, vagueness, and costs."
Frank highlighted that removing a job posting within two weeks of filling a position does not account for larger employers who are continuously hiring for high-turnover positions such as cashiers and cleaning staff. "To hire for these positions, many of which are open indefinitely, our members may have over 1,000 job postings on any given day," she said. "Thus, it would not be practical for businesses – or helpful to applicants – to mandate that employers remove each job posting only to replace it with an identical job posting."
Regarding providing timelines for when a position is expected to be filled, Frank noted that these intervals are often unpredictable due to various factors such as the number of qualified applicants and the length of time required to complete the hiring process.
Frank also mentioned that some businesses have a high volume of continuously open positions, making it challenging and costly to ensure compliance by notifying each applicant about the status of their application.
"New Jersey does not need to become an outlier on yet another labor mandate when we are already making it as challenging and costly as possible to run a business in the state," Frank concluded.
For more details on Frank's full written testimony, click here.
