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.
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.
...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?
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.
>>>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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion