Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says H-1B Workers Among Those Losing Jobs
CWmike notes that after a US Senator urged Microsoft to lay off H-1B workers first, Microsoft says it is cutting a 'significant number' of foreign workers as part of the layoff it announced last week. But experts say there is nothing in the law requiring a company to cut the jobs of H-1B workers before US workers. David Kussin, an immigration attorney, said, 'In fact, the law is very well designed to say that you have to treat H-1Bs the same as US citizens in all regards.' Another H-1B critic, UC Davis professor Norman Matloff, said the Senator's letter would help their fight. 'If Microsoft doesn't state that they will lay off the H-1Bs first — and they won't state this — then it would be awfully tough for Bill Gates to come back to the Hill and urge an H-1B increase, wouldn't it?'"
It's an easy thing to fix - require that H1B visa holders receive the same pay and benefits for their work as the rest of the workforce. If companies really have problems finding citizens to fill jobs, and aren't just trolling for lower paid wage slaves, then it ought not to be a problem, right?
Man, I'd love to see the tech industry try to talk its way out of that.
If you are so eager to say no regulation and let the market define for everything else, why aren't you when it affect you position as well? Market regulation only useful when it's for someone else?
First post?
The United States wants to be the leader in technology, but it won't encourage kids to go into science and engineering, and won't let many talented and better educated foreigners come and work at their companies.
And then they bitch and complain when companies like Microsoft move jobs to other countries that either do have the people they want, or will let those people come and work there.
I agree and disagree with this. You have to be in an H1B shoes to appreciate this. I have seen folks laid off as H1B with unsold houses and cars. They had to just get a ticket, and leave the country. Barring the Native Indians, I think it is a hypocrisy on most Americans. Would you be here commenting, if the same was done to your forefathers. Being an Asian with H1B is taking jobs, but being from Europe, it is heritage.
Personally, I think the US should take advantage of being able to import skilled workforce. Most H1B holders are the types of people we want living and innovating in our country. In the long run as citizens, they would likely create more jobs than they "steal". I'm all for granting the opportunity to become a citizen to anyone that graduates from an accredited US university graduate program (maybe limited to science and math, but ok with all). Leverage our leadership in university education to create a larger pool of domestic talent.
So Michael Dell OWES it to us. His hard work, his identifying a need and filling it, somehow makes him indebted to society as a whole because that is what is morally right? So guilt the producers of wealth by claiming that the non producers are the only reason why they were able to produce in the first place.
Have your read Atlas Shrugged? Perhaps you should. The most selfish people in this world are those who demand others to give of themselves.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Heh, H-1B workers don't vote. Now of course, if the senator had asked them to fire gay people first...
The gut reaction of many slashdotters to migrant workers is simply disgusting. It combines basic misguided tribalism ("Yeah we're in the same group of 300M people") with a rent seeking behavior ("I want a higher wage at the expense of the consumers")
I won't even get started on the total immorality of the concept that the govt grants you or not a "right" to work for a willing employer, grants you or not a "right" to rent a house from a willing landlord, etc.
\u262D = \u5350
I mean if you do not see why a company should pay more for my services when someone is willing to do it for less, then I would like to see the following:
Microsoft should outsource management or hire H-1B visa personnel for management positions as well. It will be cheaper for the company too. How about that?
Some companies have filled top management positions with non-Americans, when they have proved that they are capable and affordable. Parent is not talking about just programmers or managers. Basically, every company has freedom to adopt means to improve profitability and if that includes outsourcing OR getting more H1B holders, it is their decision. In a 'free trade' world the natural choice would always be "cheaper and better".
hilarious
That's corporate speak for "none of your business" I believe.
TFA said:
Actually, no. If the H1-Bs are specialists in something Microsoft have desperate need for [1], and the people being laid off are in some area Microsoft don't need any more [2] then it's not difficult at all.
Perhaps someone subscribes to the fallacy of fungibility?
[1] HCI jockeys, security specialists... I could go on
[2] Sucks to be on the Zune team. From what I've heard the games division might be taking an early bath too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You are absolutely right, in any sane world, it should be "cheaper" and "better". It never is though. It's that addage, faster, cheaper, better, pick any two? In my experience, it's not cheaper, and it's not better, and it all comes down to management using H1Bs or outsourcing as ways of lining their pockets at the expense of the company.
Then again, some of the smartest people I have *EVER* worked with have been H1B holders.
I think you got that backwards. A chief executive does not pick the board - the board picks, and evaluates the performance of the CEO. In turn, the board is elected by shareholders to represent their interests.
I'm sure some CEOs are worthless turds, but I'm sure there are others that *are* worth their exorbitant salaries. I mean, businesses fail all the time. In a competitive market, it's not like companies have a whole lot of cash to throw around for things that don't return the investment. The argument that CEO salaries are typically so huge that just one could pay for an n-dollar raise for all the other employees actually highlights my point - Unless *every* single company is engaging in some sort of "CEO Salary collusion," the ones who pay big money for turd-CEOs instead of more, or better paid workers, or else a CEO that performs, will fail.
Personal incredulity that, "one person can't possibly make such a big difference to justify those salaries," isn't really a valid argument. I mean, really? *You* could run GE, or Microsoft, or Lockheed-Martin, or whatever just as well as anyone? That's what everyone who's never led, or been close to the top-level leadership of an organization thinks...
There are no work visas to apply for if you want to move to India.
None, zero, zip.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Really? Folks openly talked about how much they were being paid? Hmmm. Interesting.
No, my co-workers didn't tell me their salary or bonus. But my manager showed me tables showing the expected salary ranges for each "job level", as preparation for my yearly performance review. Those ranges weren't really that wide, I obviously knew where my salary fit in the range, and I had a good idea of which "job levels" my co-workers were in. Besides, when some of my American co-workers who became my friends told me how much they spent on their new house, car, etc, I had a good idea that I wasn't being significantly underpaid relative to them.
The candidate was asked, "How many diapers are sold in the US?" (Saying I'll Google it is the 'wrong' answer, BTW.)
The successful candidate said something like, "Well, there are 300 million people in the US and 1% are having kids. Therefore, there are 3 million babies. Now, babies need to be changed 3 times a day. So that's 9 million diapers a day. Which is 63 million diapers per week."
She got the job. BTW, all of those numbers were pulled out of her ass, but she got the job because of her "logical" thinking.
Yes, that is a good example of one type of question that is given at MS interviews. The point isn't to say "this person is great at estimating diaper usage - hire them!" Rather, the point is to weed out those who freeze up or give up when asked a question about something that is large and outside their experience or knowledge, whether it is the total number of diapers sold in the US, or the number of gas stations or manhole covers or drops of water in a rainstorm. Thinking logically and trying to make justifiable assumptions in a situation where you have incomplete knowledge is not an insignificant skill.
If your friend was hired for a technical role, she would have also been asked several more technically relevant questions, but that also required her to think on her feet and make reasonable assumptions, during her 5 hour-long interviews. "Write a procedure in a programming language of your choice (on paper) to do X, just trying to write it quickly so that it works". "Now how could you make it more efficient?" "Now modify it to do Y." "Now tell me how you would test it." "What would be reasonable behaviour if the you gave unexpected input like Z to your procedure? Why?"
I can create hiring standards that no one can satisfy. Are those standards pertinent to the job? Nope. But it sure makes my standards look exclusive.
If you consider how un-innovative MS is, I think their standards are completely bogus.
Maybe you're right, that Microsoft's hiring standards and interviewing techniques are not pertinent or are just an attempt to look exclusive. That's an interesting discussion, but not relevant to my point, which is that MS does have high hiring standards that are not easily satisfied, pertinent or not. Their standards certainly aren't just a scam to say that not enough American workers are qualified so they can bring in foreign workers - foreign applicants for technical positions go through the same interview process.
Another thing, how may people coached you about the interviewing process?
I wasn't coached, and certainly didn't have a network of interview cheats. A friend who got hired a few months before me told me basically the same information that I've just told you. He gave me an example of a question (estimate how many gas stations in the US, I think) and told me to make sure I remembered my sorting algorithms. So I studied my algorithms text book on the trip to Redmond for the interview, and I never was asked the gas stations question.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
First, let me note that I have read the book, and I take exception to some of the things in the book. I'll throw my exceptions at the end, for those who don't want to bother with them.
You seem to be comparing Michael Dell to John Galt, or the two or three other main characters (president of the railroad, president of the copper company... I don't remember.)
You forget that there were more character sketches in the book than those three.
There were those who ran companies, but were all the time on the dole of one kind or another, or who did not pay their workers justly, or who did not pay attention to how they were doing a job. Those people were taken for fraud by the president of the copper company (who was simply doing his best to destroy their wealth), and were in turn defrauding their governments.
Now, I would contend that in the current environment of the last 50 years in the US, that almost all successful corporations (and definitely their CEOs) fall into the latter category, not the first. Michael Dell claims that he earned what he has. I would disagree. If you start looking at his employees, and start seeing the value that they put into the company, and the value that they got out, I think you will quickly discover that Dell did not earn what he has. He simply justifies having what he has.
There is a big difference, because Value Recieved = Value Produced + Value Taken from Others. Most interactions involve trading, and most trading outrageously benefits the more powerful party.
Now, you can throw into the equation the amount of money "earned" from government contracts -- all of that money is stolen money, according to Atlas Shrugged. Now, some would claim that "tax zeroing" would not be stolen money (taking contracts that equal the loss on taxes paid out). However, that ignores the value recieved from the government in terms of protection recieved. Most of the costs of government go to protection in one form or another, and the value of that goes not to producers (income earners), but to owners. So almost all taxes, if paid in contract fee-for-service, would actually be paid by owners. Michael Dell is an owner, much more than a producer.
And so on.
- - - - - -Review of Ayn Rand Below - - - - - -
Now, I read Atlas Shrugged, because someone called me a John Galt. To some extent, they were right. I found it impossible, for a time, to work with society, so I internalized my efforts. After a time, I again found it possible, and returned my efforts to working within society.
Now... my opinion on Ayn Rand, is that she was a Communist Agent Provacateur. That is, she was attempting to get the nobility of America to crush the poor, enough that it would stimulate a Red Oktober type event.
I say this, because her philosophy ignored enough factors, that it was actually aimed in that direction. If you compare her work to that of Friederich Hayak, she willfully ignores everything in terms of JUSTICE (not social justice) to the weak, that she actually is advocating a situation that Hayak deplores.
Then, if you look at her personal relationships, you see that she is not for justice in that sense, either. Her morals, if anything, seem to match those of communists and spies. Her writing matches.
Which is, in turn, another problem that I have with Atlas Shrugged. She is a dirty writer, and I don't feel cleaner after I have read her work. Nor do I feel intellectually stimulated. Her philosophy, as I said before, is full of holes. I prefer Hayak, personally.
So as far as reading Atlas Shrugged, I don't advise it for others.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
That's actually interesting, because whenever you quiz a board of directors about high CEO pay, they always say the same thing: it's to be competitive with what other companies are also doing.
> Unless *every* single company is engaging in some sort of "CEO Salary collusion"
That's actually pretty much what's going on. CEO salaries are determined by CEO salary consultants, who base them on average CEO salaries plus a bit (to attract an above average CEO). The result is a relentless upward spiral of CEO salaries.