Slashdot Mirror
Senator Prods Microsoft On H-1B Visas After Layoff Plans
CWmike writes "US Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) told Microsoft this week that US citizens should get priority over H-1B visa holders as the software vendor moves forward on its plan to cut 5,000 jobs. 'These work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn,' Grassley wrote in a letter sent Thursday to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. The letter asked Microsoft to detail the types of jobs that will be eliminated and how those cuts will affect the company's H-1B workers."
Reader theodp adds, "On Friday, Microsoft coincidentally announced it would postpone construction of a planned $500 million data center in Grassley's home state of Iowa, although work on data centers in Chicago and Dublin will continue."
What's really going to be awesome is when Microsoft, IBM, et al go to Congress for their annual request for increased H1B visas after laying off thousands of American workers.
I can understand that the well-being of american workers is more important than that of visa-holders to an elected politician. However, the impact of losing the job is much higher for H1Bs, as they usually have to leave the country (within 1 week I think). Considering the fact that these are humans, too, maybe it would be acceptable to lessen these restrictions somewhat, i. e. allow these people to stay in the country for a year if they have the financial means.
Fleur de Sel
Yeah if they accept giving them the right to work in the country then why shouldn't they work at the same merits as everyone else? I'd assume Microsoft knows better which people they need and want and which they can get rid of than this guy..
They are all simply hiring elsewhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I guess every politician who one does not agree with is more likable when he's not in power...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "guest worker" program is nothing more than a gift to large corporations to get cheap labor that is almost an "indentured servant."
Seriously, what employer wouldn't want to be in the position to employ reasonably killed labor that *HAS* to work to to say in the country. They are a lot easier to intimidate. They can't raise labor issues for fear of having to leave the country.
H1Bs come to the US. Work for less than the prevailing wage. Are not "citizens" and do not have the same rights. Can be easily intimidated: "Don't want to work on the week-end without pay? Your fired, now go back to your own country."
Then if they lose their jobs, not only do they have to leave, but they have to pay to leave. Lose their last month's security deposit on their apartment because they have to break the lease.
H1Bs reduce the prevailing wage, exploit foreigners, and are generally bad policy for middle class.
As for Microsoft, or any employer, *all* H1Bs should be dispensed with *before* any american gets laid off.
no they shouldn't they should be allowed to hire the best workers for the job.
1) Everyone is more likeable when not in power.
2) Neither party actually practices what it preaches to any reasonable degree. If you want to vote for a balanced budget, exactly who do you vote for? Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans? (feel free to translate to non-depression times to make the question fair)
Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but balance is always in the middle, so we see parties break with their stereotypical views on issues from time to time. If anything I'd be more worried if we didn't.
Also not every single member of a party is in complete alignment with the party. I lean left, but I'm still in favor of guns, free markets (to the degree that this is possible while keeping them competitive), and against racism by any name. I fail to see why politicians should be any different, except perhaps more tacit on their views.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Actually, I would have to go back and read the way the law is written, but the Senator has a valid point in regards to this situation. You can't really sit there and lay off a large number of technical people and then say that you can find people those same technical skills to do the job and ask to bring in guest workers from out of the country.
Microsoft might be allowed to layoff who ever they want to, but on the same token the government is able to deny H1B applications from Microsoft as well.
Exactly how do you enforce that? The best person for the job might be the guy that makes 20K less for that reason alone. I am not gonna single out MS because many companies make hiring decisions this way and it is not good for America or Americans.
...keeping those people that are the most competent?
Makes more sense than keeping incompetent lazy Americans or incompetent lazy foreigners.
Oh well... why do I expect business decisions of a big company to make sense?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Many Republicans and other economic conservatives profess to believe in free markets and deregulation. Hypocritically, they staunchly support (and often demand) labor market regulation.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
I always twitch when I read these stories, because I always see it as hypocrisy and double-standards.
You constantly hear about free market economics, capitalism, the global economy, etc... from America, but what it really boils down to as always is supporting the above ideals when it's good for America, and then moving them to the side when things get tough. It's the age old "America does what is best for America" mantra.
Microsoft is going to hire and fire the best worker for the job, according to their qualifications; nationality and citizenship should be entirely irrelevant. Not only does this make sense ethically, it makes sense economically (from a corporate perspective). Why hire an inferior worker who holds citizenship when I can hire 'x' H-1B worker who is superior (and, make more money as a result)? Making money is what drives companies.
When you're willing to advocate preferential treatment for an American citizen not because they are better equipped to do the job but purely because they are an American, you're throwing away your ideals of free-markets and global economics. Coming from a republican I find this especially amusing, as it tends to be the republicans that are the strongest advocates of pure-free market economics.
This is potentially a great move from a PR perspective. Most Americans aren't going to call someone out for taking a position that strengthens their ability to gain employment, but from an ideological perspective, it's flimsy at best.
Disclaimer: America isn't the only country that does this kind of stuff, but as arguably the most vocal advocate of the above economic philosophies, it's probably the most hypocritical for doing so.
Wasn't it Microsoft that went before a senate committee asking for more H-1B visas because they could not find enough qualified workers?
At that instant, Microsoft's H-1B visa workers became an issue with the senate.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
No. it is time companies look at what is best for society not just their bottom line. You and I are not allowed to do just what is best for ourselves, we cannot steal even when needed, we cannot race down the road in an effort to save a job. Companies must somehow become a functioning member of society, their existence cannot be governed solely by the drive to make more profit. Companies cannot just benefit from the idea they are entities in our society they also must learn to live with us. Just because it is more profitable for Microsoft to keep cheap labor does not make it right.
Why do you think every single H1-B holder is some loser without anyone to care for and has no obligations except to themselves? How do you know if they have family back home they're sending money to? Seriously that's a stupid argument and you're assuming some foreigner is working for less money than a native. From my experience the foreigner will make the same as a native at a company like MS.
a republican doesnt like foreigners. sounds normal to me.
Or more surprisingly, a Republican who likes American workers? Wall Street must really be broke if they are slumming like this.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
>>>Think that what kind of labor a company must keep should be left to markets (who works for cheapest) compared to their skills) instead of government regulation.
That's true, but since it was the *government* who brought the foreign workers to the U.S., it's no longer a free market. It's entirely reasonable to say to Microsoft, "If you layoff American workers, we the government will take a hands-off policy and no longer help you with your future labor shortages. Figure it out on your own." The Republican policy can best be described as non-interference (sounds like Star Trek).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Oh Bullshit! I own a small engineering firm and have interviewed over 40 people in the past 12 months. Made offers to about five, and hired three. Still have about five unfilled positions.
We contemplated hiring a few H1Bs, because those were the only people that responded to us through Monster (well, other than recruiters wanting 30% first year salary). Some were actually citizens or Canadians, but all of the same ilk-- will work for anything, but difficult to divine what skills they really had.
As for the 87% of remaining candidates, they were awful. Send a freaking thank-you letter! Research the company in advance! Understand what they do and how you think you might fit in.
As for the Entitlement Generation-- you better get over it quick. Hoping to make 10% more starting than last year's graduates isn't a very logical strategy. Figure out what you need to make starting to survive, and work up from there. If you are as good as you think you are then you will get rewarded in time... and you will gain valuable experience.
As for firing H1Bs first, that is just the dumbest, most protectionist idea ever. You need to keep the people with the best value when you are cutting back, independent of national origin. Since many H1Bs are underpaid, they do have an advantage on the denominator but not necessarily on the numerator.
Granting new H1Bs now is pretty stupid politically, but doesn't make much of a difference in the real world. Deny them to companies that are laying people off or to the independent contractor job shops, but keep the only viable immigration option for talented people that actually want to move here open!
Having friends (and relatives) in both sides of the issue, I really sympathize with you and by no way deny this is actually happening. This H-1B fever never should be started at all, and actually damaged a lot of american works (blame the government of course.) My point is that now you/companies can't treat non-americans like disposable resources as a lot of people is advocating here... you know, that kind of treatment is what originally started this whole issue against locals.
The free market doesn't work without consumers.
The reason it's profitable to use cheaper labor is because you're selling to higher earners. If you make sneakers at $1 a pair, you make a profit by selling them for $60.
If you outsource a large number of your workforce and don't have other jobs they can do at the same pay, they won't be buying lots of $60 sneakers.
Outsourcing was BIG under the Clinton administration.
You are right about Clinton. The jury is still out on Obama.
Let's remember that Clinton was THE poster boy for the Democratic Leadership Council, the corporate propaganda outlet of the Democratic Party. This group is largely responsible for there being no real difference between parties when it comes corporate influence on policy and legislation. They wanted to get a piece of the corporate gravy train and they sold their souls to get it.
The future? Well, did you discern any difference between the number of private corporate parties given at the Democratic versus Republican conventions? I didn't. Do we think that $175 million of largely corporate money for the inauguration will be free? Regardless of much integrity Obama may have, it is hard to ignore that kind of pressure. Telecom immunity, anyone?
If you want to vote for a balanced budget, exactly who do you vote for? Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans?
Obviously, if you want a balanced budget, you have to vote for those willing to raise taxes along with increased spending. Though as an outsider looking in, it appears to me that both parties wants to borrow and spend, neither party really seems willing to raise taxes to pay for increased spending, or for existing spending for that matter.
Congress: "Too bad. We won't help you import non-americans; find a different solution to your labor shortage."
Bill: Moves all of Microsoft to India.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>>>The government did not bring anybody to the US. The companies did.
Only because the government ALLOWED it to happen, therefore it is NOT a free market. It is a briber's market, where Microsoft paps politicians' pockets so they can get approval to bring-in foreigners.
In a truly free market, government and Microsoft would not talk to each other at all. Microsoft would have to deal with its labor shortages in a different manner (perhaps hire some U.S. engineers w/o jobs, instead of willfully ignoring them).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
How is barring foreigners from working in the US assuming a role of non-interference? Non-interference would mean that anyone could come work here, and wouldn't need a visa in the first place.