Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft & Intel Get a Pass On Higher H-1B Fees
theodp writes "Criticizing companies that outsource high-paying American jobs, Senator Charles Schumer described Indian IT company Infosys as a 'chop shop'. (Nine Indian companies accounted for 20,000 H-1B visas as of 2007. In 2008, Infosys held 4,500 of the visas; the number was down by a factor of 10 in 2009.) The comments came as the Senate scrambled to fund the $600M Mexican Border Security Bill by hiking application fees for H-1B and L-1 visas. The Senate measure increases H-1B visa fees by $2,000 per application on firms that have 50% or more of their employees on this visa. Schumer pointed out that the bill would not affect high-tech companies such as Intel or Microsoft 'that play by the rules and recruit workers in America,' although they are among the biggest beneficiaries of the H-1B program."
why do the words Intel and Microsoft just not sound right sitting next to "Play by the rules"?
FTFS: ``The Senate measure increases H-1B visa fees by $2,000 per application on firms that have 50% or more of their employees on this visa.''
And Microsoft and Intel evidently are below this 50% limit. As far as I can tell, this isn't Microsoft and Intel "getting a pass", as the title states. No company is being singled out here. It doesn't matter who you are, what matters if you have 50% or more of your employees on H-1B visa.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
And why does it make sense to tax legal immigration to fight illegal immigration? As if legal immigration causes illegal...
I can already see smaller companies going to court to claim that they are being unfairly burdened by the higher cost.
Right or wrong this is going to cause some fur to fly.
If 50%+ of your employees are H1-B's, I would suggest that your business model is not viable in the United States.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This is just spin to try and make MS look like the bad guys getting special treatment. The reality of the situation is that if companies hire a majority of American (meaning either citizen or resident alien) employees then they don't pay the extra fee. MS and Intel were noted in the article as tow companies that "play by the rules" and hire a majority of American workers, but they were not given special dispensation.
My guess is the logic is twofold:
1) It is to help protect American jobs and encourage companies to hire local. After all if it costs more to hire H-1B employees, then it is not as attractive a proposition.
2) To derive the funding for the measure from a relevant source. The measure deals with immigration, so companies that bring in the most immigrants get to shoulder the burden. While it isn't a direct thing (since the bill is about southern border security) it is still related.
As I've been the beneficiary of an H-1B with Microsoft, I know very well that MS also does a good job at sending H1-B permit holders back home after 1-2 years, before they get a green card. They actually paid for my 1-way ticket back to Europe. I'd be interested to see what is the proportion of H-1B visa holders who end up staying permanently in the US and which company hired them.
No, you don't. You, like all non-third-world economies, lack skilled labour willing to work at subsistence wage. This is the corporate definition of "reasonable price level", and is what offshoring and immigration labour is meant to fix. After all, the top 1% holds only a third of all wealth, so there's plenty of room for improvement.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
They can; but just because a company hired someone does not entitle that person to be allowed to live in (or even visit) the US.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
My (now former) company simply opened multiple large IT ffices in places like Gurgaon, Mumbai and Noida, so they don't have to get H1B workers. (They were first opened as BPO offices.) American workers are slowly laid off (always in small numbers every few months) or lost by attrition, new workers are hired in those Indian offices and work for the Indian subsidiary of that company. Those offices have grown by leaps and bounds since they were first opened in 2002-3ish. So that company doesn't "outsource" anything or get any H1Bs. Whether or not that's a dirty trick is another discussion. Everyone will have their opinions.
I would say that any H1B in this economy is pretty frustrating if just based on perception (and perception tends to be reality...); I guess I just don't believe there aren't enough American workers to do those jobs.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
So if you went to school to become a nurse, but now the employers are importing them the Philippines, you should go back to school to become what, a programmer? After figuring out employers are just importing programmers, what do you, go back to school to become an accountant? But that won't be safe either. Maybe the only good thing to train for is college professor.
In the medieval system you advocate, the middle class disappears because there is no hope for having a middle class job. Some few people become super-rich, and most Americans become poorer and poorer until we look any third world country. In essence, you say we should give up 70 or 80% of our income so we can become a poor unstable country with all chaos that goes with that. I think it is a bad deal for us. Yeah, selfish, but when did it become our duty to impoverish ourselves?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good