Hire Calling

Breaking Job News: Private Labor Data Weakens & Trump Shutdown Firings Could Cross Legal Lines

• Pete Newsome

Share episode

The headlines don’t add up: hiring is cooling, layoffs aren’t spiking, and AI is both the future and a mess.

So what should smart leaders actually do right now? Host Pete Newsome investigates the real labor signals behind the frozen official numbers. Drawing on insights from banks, payroll platforms, and staffing leaders, we identify where momentum is slowing, where resilience persists, and why time-to-hire continues to lengthen across industries.

Pete also unpacks the shutdown’s legal curveball, rumors of permanent federal layoffs. No president has ever used a funding gap for reductions in force, and legal experts are split on what’s even allowed under the Anti-Deficiency Act. You’ll hear what that means for public workers, contractors, and businesses tied to federal timelines, plus how it could play out in court.

Then we turn to AI’s uneasy middle. New Upwork data shows companies are racing to hire for AI skills, but still don’t trust the outputs. Pete breaks down where human oversight still matters, how digital marketing and editorial work are rebounding, and what “human-in-the-loop” really looks like as models evolve.

Finally, we tackle the overqualified hiring trap:
1. How managers can probe motives and convert surplus experience into team velocity
2. How candidates can address salary, scope, and “flight risk” fears with confidence

News Articles: 
1. The Unofficial Jobs Numbers Are In and It’s Rough Out There: https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/the-unofficial-jobs-numbers-are-in-and-its-rough-out-there-3518e239?mod=jobs_news_article_pos1
2. Uncharted legal territory if Trump starts shutdown firings, experts say: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-would-wade-into-uncharted-legal-waters-with-mass-shutdown-firings-experts-2025-10-07/
3. 70% of Employers Say They'll Hire Overqualified Candidates -- But There's a Catch: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/70-of-employers-say-theyll-hire-overqualified-candidates--but-theres-a-catch-302577383.html
4. Upwork Monthly Hiring Report: https://investors.upwork.com/news-releases/news-release-details/upwork-monthly-hiring-report-demand-quality-assurance-project

💬 What’s your take: What do you think this means for the future of work in America?

Don’t miss out! Subscribe for weekly updates on the latest job news. 

🧠 WANT TO LEARN MORE? Be sure to subscribe and check out 4 Corner Resources at https://www.4cornerresources.com/

👋 FOLLOW PETE NEWSOME ONLINE:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petenewsome/
Blog Articles: https://www.4cornerresources.com/blog

Pete Newsome:

Today's job market headlines are full of contradictions. There's more AI being used in the workplace, but more humans are needed to clean up after it. President Trump may or may not have legal authority to implement mass layoffs during the shutdown, and employers see the value in hiring overqualified candidates, although they're extremely hesitant to do so. But first, while the government's employment reports are frozen, private data is painting a rough picture of where things stand. With the Bureau of Labor Statistics currently shut down along with the rest of the federal government, the Wall Street Journal has published what it's calling the unofficial jobs report. And no surprise, it's telling a story that isn't good. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Carlisle Group, and ADP are all reporting that the labor market has lost momentum. Carlisle estimates that we added fewer jobs in September than August. Bank of America found a 10% increase in unemployment benefit payments. And Goldman said its measure of labor tightness has fallen to its weakest point since 2015. So none of that's good. It may not necessarily be catastrophic, but we know that it's not positive. Employers are taking longer to hire. Job seekers are having a difficult time finding jobs, and even when they do, they're taking longer to come to fruition. And so pretty much every trend line is pointing in the wrong direction, except for one, the layoffs aren't yet spiking yet, right? Challenger Gray and Christmas reports that job cuts actually fell 37% in September. And from a firsthand perspective, I spent yesterday at Staffing World, which is the largest conference in the $200 billion staffing industry. And it was a surprisingly mostly positive vibe. No one's overconfident. I didn't feel that at all, but I didn't sense any panic either. And I've been in situations over the years where there has been panic and for good reason. And it's almost more of a wait and see situation right now. Not that that's good for job seekers, but it's not disastrous either. Now, as this shutdown drags on, it will start to increasingly feel like it may be the start of something bigger. So we definitely need to see that in soon. But for now, I do feel better after what I saw yesterday. We need to start seeing it in the numbers sooner than later. I don't care if they're private numbers or from the government, but we need to see that trend turnaround soon. And you know what? Maybe it just will. Speaking of, Reuters reports that the Trump administration is considering using the shutdown as grounds for permanent federal layoffs. Now that's a rumor that's been swirling for a couple of weeks now, but it's looking like it may become a reality sooner than later. As the time I'm recording this, another vote just happened in Congress. The continuing resolution didn't pass yet again, so for the foreseeable future, this shutdown is going to persist. And if these layoffs happen, it's a move that would push the country into uncharted legal territory. What we know from a historical perspective is that of the 15 shutdowns that have taken place since 1981, in none of them has a president used it to justify firing federal employees. And legal experts say if it does happen, it could violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which is a law that requires the government to stop spending when Congress hasn't passed a budget. Two major unions have already filed lawsuits, and from everything that I've read and heard and seen, there's just no consensus whatsoever with this. So no one's really sure what's allowed. Interestingly, Reuters quotes a University of Minnesota law professor who said the federal agencies have broad discretion to invoke mass layoffs in response to budget shortfalls, which may include shutdowns. But at the same time, a law professor at Emory University warned that officials who approve mass firings could potentially face felony liability and not just lawsuits, but potential prosecution. So it seems safe to say at this point that if those reductions in force do happen, then the courts are going to be the one who decide whether it's allowed. It's not going to happen with Congress, not going to happen with Republicans and Democrats. And so, with no insight to this shutdown, it looks like things may get a whole lot uglier before they start to get better. Now let's shift from government dysfunction to AI dysfunction. Upwork's latest hiring report offers really good insight into how AI is being implemented and how it's reshaping work, but also why human skills are still relevant. Upwork analyzed over a million freelance job postings and found 58% of businesses plan to prioritize AI proficiency when hiring freelancers over the next three months. But at the same time, 39% of businesses say a lack of trust in AI's accuracy is a barrier to implementing it. Now, how I interpret that is companies are saying, we know we need AI, we know we need people with AI skills, but we don't trust it yet either. And supporting that, they also reported that digital marketing contracts saw an increase of 9% month over month. And I find that particularly interesting because when ChatGPT and the other LLMs first came out, digital marketing roles were hit really hard. Copywriting, in particular, graphics designers, because people just assumed that they could use AI to replace what humans were doing. And rightfully so. I mean, it seemed phenomenal until it all started to sound alike and we started to see that AI content was not only inaccurate at times, but really easy to identify. So for now, we absolutely still need human insight and or oversight rather. And that's what this report is is really showing to me by seeing an increase in the number of digital marketing openings on Upwork. So I think that's data we actually can trust. So really positive to see for the marketing community right now. But I don't think it's gonna last either. I mean, Upwork said in this report that the future of work is human AI collaboration, not substitution. I think that's the current situation of work. I don't think it's the future of work at all. So not to sound too contradictory, but just because it hasn't taken these jobs entirely yet, I absolutely think it will in the relatively near future. I heard a quote yesterday that really resonated with me, which is AI, 60 days in AI is equivalent to a year out in the rest of the world. And when you think of the rapidity of AI's evolution, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not going to improve significantly in a very short time frame. So I don't think it's gonna take as long as many others think. That is my message that I say over and over. So just don't let it catch you off guard. And finally, for today, a new survey from Express Employment shows 70% of employers say they're open to hiring overqualified candidates. They list a lot of reasons why, and of course they're all valid, but in my experience, a willingness to consider someone who's overqualified and actually hiring them are two very different things. And that does come out in the survey too, where three-quarters of hiring managers worry overqualified candidates will leave as soon as something better comes along. I've heard the word overqualified used more times than I can count. And over my staffing career, I've seen it get in the way of what could otherwise be a really successful outcome for both sides. And I've learned to overcome it. I've learned to anticipate it and address it. So here's some advice that I was prompted to share after seeing the survey. If you're on the hiring side, don't immediately look past what you consider to be an overqualified candidate. Take it as a potential gift because it may very well be one. During your interview process, you can and you absolutely should screen for a candidate's true motives, find out their goals, find out their objectives, have a real conversation. And you can learn all of this by asking probing questions and just digging a little bit. You will find out what the candidate's really in it for if you're willing to spend the time. And you should, if you see that resume come across your desk and think, wow, this person surpasses all of my expectations for the role. That makes me nervous. Fine, be nervous, but address it anyway and see if that candidate really is someone you should consider hiring. And then for job seekers, it's on you to acknowledge that this concern exists. That's step one. And then you can anticipate it being a limiter. You can address it up front, tackle it head on, however you want to look at it. Tell your story, explain when you have the opportunity why the hiring manager doesn't need to worry. And that won't work 100% of the time, nothing does. But over the years, as I've presented candidates who are overqualified on paper, by addressing it up front, I've found that it works way more often than not. So hopefully you can benefit by taking that approach. Good luck to you out there if you're on the market or hiring someone who's potentially overqualified. Don't be afraid to do it. And so those are the headlines for today. But before we go, here's the fun fact: the president of the United States earns an annual salary of $400,000. Oh, President Trump earns $400K a year. Now he says, I think he said this in his first term as well as this one, that he gives the money back. He doesn't take it, good for him. Hopefully that's the case. He doesn't need the money. Multi-billionaire, why would you? But it's not chump change either. So I'll take him at his word until someone says otherwise. And I'm sure they would if he wasn't actually uh giving the money back. But there we go. 400k a year to be president of the United States. Not too bad. Thanks for listening today. Please like, subscribe, share with anyone who might be interested. And I look forward to talking to you tomorrow.