When Good Intentions Meet Recruiting Reality: The Risks of Ontario’s “Working for Workers” Regime
Ontario’s latest worker protection legislation, much of it under Bill 190 and the proposed Bill 30, is sold as correcting power imbalances in hiring and job security. And yes: greater transparency, fewer exploitative practices, and codified protections are worthy goals. But in the messy world of recruiting, where human judgment, tight timelines, and nuance rule, this framework risks doing more harm than good.
The promise is real. For too long, many job-seekers have been in the dark: ghosted after interviews, stuck in black box application systems, and unsure whether the “opportunity” was ever for real. The requirement to reveal whether a posting is a true vacancy, to disclose compensation ranges, and to respond (with prescribed info) after interviews can level that playing field. The ban on medical notes for short sick leave rights privacy and reduces friction.
But the devil is in the hiring details — and here’s where good intentions collide with recruitment realities:
Interviews will become rigid checklists. To limit liability, Talent teams will likely have to shift to formulaic interview scripts and standard questions. That squeezes out spontaneity, gut instincts, and relational assessment, features that often differentiate great hires.
Employers will lean into silence. If any comment can be second-guessed legally, many will respond to candidates with as little as possible — “thanks, we’ll be in touch.” The conversational cues that help candidates learn, grow, or gauge fit may vanish.
Flexibility and negotiation may die. If the law weaponizes standardization, employers may shun nuance or ad hoc accommodations, fearing inconsistency claims.
Applicant tracking systems (ATS) become shackles. Migrating systems or tweaking workflows becomes riskier when you must maintain 3+ years of interview records, comply with retrospective audits, and avoid data loss.
More litigation risk, but not evenly. The biggest victims will be smaller companies without in-house legal support. The largest employers will simply build compliance layers. Meanwhile, candidates may file suits that force HR to be ultra-conservative and defensive.
The result? Many of the gains intended for applicants may backfire: reduced clarity, more opaque processes, and fewer human touches. Irony: legislation meant to protect workers may wind up treating them like litigants, not people.
So how do we balance this?
Invest heavily in interviewing training. Not just on bias or legal traps, but on nuance, conversation, and candidate dignity.
Craft “safe zone” candidate experiences. Provide transparency where possible (i.e. timelines, decision criteria) even if not legally mandated.
Use standardized rubrics — but leave room for judgment. A hybrid approach: structure + flexibility.
Advocate for clearer regulation and safe harbours. Especially for small and mid-sized employers who simply don’t have massive legal capacity.
Pilot and monitor. Track whether candidate satisfaction, dropoffs, or legal claims rise post implementation — and adjust early.
The Working for Workers regime might help shape a fairer labour market. But it will not self-manage. The real battleground will be how companies interpret and deploy these rules. My ask to TA leaders, HR executives, and policy wonks: dig into recruiting workflows now, run scenario planning, and push for legislative guardrails that protect both fairness and hiring agility. Because if we don’t, we’ll replace one opacity with another — and the job-seekers will suffer most.