Ohio lawmakers want to create a digital scarlet letter for job seekers who ghost interviews. House Bill 395 proposes an online registry tracking anyone who fails to show up for scheduled job interviews without notice, marking a new frontier in unemployment benefit enforcement that could reshape how states monitor job-seeking behavior.
The bill’s seven Republican co-sponsors frame this as protecting taxpayers and employers from time-wasters. “If you’re collecting unemployment, you should be actively looking for work. Period,” Rep. Brian Lorenz posted on X, calling the measure “common sense” rather than controversial. But critics see a surveillance system that could punish workers for circumstances beyond their control.
Here’s the reality: thousands of Ohioans file for unemployment benefits weekly, navigating a system that already requires proof of active job searching. Current Ohio law cuts off benefits for those who refuse employment offers or quit without cause. The proposed registry adds another layer—public documentation of missed interviews that employers could potentially access before making hiring decisions.
The mechanics remain murky. The Department of Job and Family Services would need to build infrastructure for employers to report no-shows, verify claims, and maintain a database that raises immediate questions about accuracy, appeals, and long-term consequences. How long would someone remain on this list? Could a car breakdown or family emergency brand you as unreliable indefinitely?
Senate Democrat Bill DeMora calls it “an answer looking for a question,” pointing out that accountability measures already exist. He’s right that the current system includes reporting mechanisms—employers can already notify the state about interview no-shows online. But Lorenz insists a “more streamlined process” would foster “a culture of respect and accountability.”
The deeper issue here isn’t just about missed interviews. It’s about how we police poverty and what happens when job-seeking becomes a supervised activity. Studies show that aggressive monitoring of unemployment recipients often costs more than it saves while creating barriers for people genuinely seeking work. A 2019 Yale study found that cutting unemployment benefits doesn’t significantly increase job-finding rates but does increase financial hardship.
Consider the practical implications. A single parent whose childcare falls through, someone whose unreliable car breaks down, or a person managing a sudden health crisis could end up on a registry that follows them through their job search. Unlike criminal records, which at least involve due process, this system could mark people based on employer reports alone.
The timing feels particularly tone-deaf. Ohio’s unemployment rate sits at 4.5%, with many industries struggling to fill positions. The problem isn’t lazy workers gaming the system—it’s often a mismatch between available jobs and living wages. Creating a registry won’t address why someone making $7.25 minimum wage might hesitate to leave unemployment benefits for a job that doesn’t cover basic expenses.
Rep. Lorenz insists they’re “not looking to blacklist anybody,” but that’s exactly what registries do. They create categories of “good” and “bad” job seekers, ignoring the complex realities of modern employment. What about the person who no-shows because they accepted another offer that morning? Or someone interviewing for multiple positions who can’t make every appointment?
The bill also ignores power dynamics in hiring. Employers regularly ghost applicants, cancel interviews last-minute, or string along candidates through multiple rounds before rejecting them. Where’s the registry for companies that waste job seekers’ time?
This proposal reflects a broader trend of states tightening unemployment requirements through technology-enabled monitoring. Kentucky recently implemented similar measures, while Florida requires biweekly reporting of job contacts. The assumption underlying these policies—that unemployment recipients need constant surveillance to stay honest—reveals more about political attitudes toward poverty than actual fraud rates.
If Ohio genuinely wants to connect workers with jobs, there are better approaches. Improve public transportation so people can reliably reach interviews. Fund childcare assistance for job seekers. Create skills training programs that match available positions. Address why 60% of Americans can’t cover a $1,000 emergency expense without borrowing.
The registry proposal treats symptoms while ignoring disease. It assumes bad faith from workers while demanding none from employers. Most importantly, it creates a permanent record of temporary struggles, potentially haunting job seekers long after their circumstances improve. Ohio doesn’t need another database—it needs policies that recognize looking for work in 2024 means navigating precarious schedules, unreliable transportation, and often, choosing between multiple low-wage opportunities that barely sustain life.
