Slashdot Mirror


US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

dcblogs (1096431) writes On the floor of U.S. Senate Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions delivered a scalding and sarcastic attack on the use of highly skilled foreign workers by U.S. corporations that was heavily aimed at Microsoft, a chief supporter of the practice. Sessions' speech began as a rebuttal to a recent New York Times op-ed column by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson ... But the senator's attack on "three of our greatest masters of the universe," and "super billionaires," was clearly primed by Microsoft's announcement, also on Thursday, that it was laying off 18,000 employees. "What did we see in the newspaper today?" said Sessions, "News from Microsoft. Was it that they are having to raise wages to try to get enough good, quality engineers to do the work? Are they expanding or are they hiring? No, that is not what the news was, unfortunately. Not at all."

82 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. Free market economy by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, as tough as it is, and as right as this senator may sound, this is the result of global free market economy. Companies get their resources where they are cheapest, regardless if this is parts or people.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Free market economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you believe in a global free market economy, I've got a bridge for sale on prime Florida real estate guaranteed to give a 3000% return. Act now! The prince of Nigeria is also interested now that he has transferred all his money to the US.

    2. Re:Free market economy by Skarjak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except you don't have to raise your hands and claim there's nothing you can do about it. The government can easily regulate this.

    3. Re:Free market economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He can't. Jeff Sessions is a Republican in the Senate. Harry Reid is single handedly deciding on what gets to the Senate floor for a vote and what does not. Until Reid chooses to do somehting about it, nothing can be done in the Senate. Sessions is attempting to shame everyone who is preventing something from being done.

      With Reid as Senate Majority leader there will be no free market. A free market might allow people to not be dependent on government hand outs and he can't allow that to happen.

    4. Re:Free market economy by itsenrique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Global free market economy" is just a bunch of BS. How has this being a global economy made it easier for Americans to go to Western Europe for example to work? Not a damn bit. It isn't a "global free market" thats just some politispeak BS. These trade agreements are really just designed to inflate company profits. They don't open up borders in any meaningful ways that help us.

    5. Re:Free market economy by BonThomme · · Score: 2

      "we don't need regulation, we need fundamental change!"

      coming to a political campaign near you...

    6. Re:Free market economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >we had enough regulation already, look where it got us.

      To the most economically, technologically and military powerful nation the planet?

      America only started falling off once Reagan and Clinton started busting unions, signing free trade treaties, giving amnesties to illegal aliens and deregulating wall street.

    7. Re:Free market economy by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      How has this being a global economy made it easier for Americans to go to Western Europe for example to work?

      EU legislation for hiring foreign workers is easily comparable to the US H1-B system. So, Indian workers can come to the US when an American company asserts a skill shortage, and Americans can go to Europe when a EU company asserts a skills shortage.

    8. Re:Free market economy by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What did regulation get us? You mean after the new deal was put in place but before Ragean and company went about getting rid of it? Hmm let's see? End of the great depression? But wait Rush Limbah says that WW2 ended the great depression? Well the great depression was starting to end before WW2 but if you are saying that the massive government spending and massive government growth during WW2 ended the great depression then I have to thank you for proving my point exactly,

      What else did it get us? ~50 years of strong growth without any real recessions? Strongest middle class in the history of mankind? Turning the US economy into the biggest in the world with the largest manufactoring base? Remember back in the day all the best consumer electronics were all made in the USA. Our manufactoring base was protected because from the founding of the country until about the 1980's we actually charged tariffs to people importing goods we could make here. In fact until WW1 tarrifs completely funded the federal government.

      Execpt for all of that then I guess I would have to say yeah, regulations gave us nothing. Guess we need a fundamental change? And by fundemental change I guess you mean do the same thing we have been doing for the last ~30 years? I.E continue to deregulate and destroy whatever is left of the new deal? Yes we should not got back to the way things were back in the 50's and 60's. Back then the government actually regulated business. Back then a CEO could not be paid in stock (so he -- and yes back then it was always he, couldn't pump and dump like everyone loves to do today.) If a company became a monopoly then the government would split it up. The government wouldn't allow banks to lend money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back. And since the ultra rich had a +50% top tax bracket (with a lot fewer shelters so they actually mostly paid it) more rich people invested more money in their companies (to avoid paying taxes) and so there was less money around to have tons of bubbles in the stock market, energy market, housing market, etc. Back then companies actually had R&D departments because the CEOs all weren't slaves to the stock price -- they actually cared about the long term future of the company (imagine that!)

      No you are right we should certainly not go back to the way things were back then. We need a fundemental change and that means doing the same thing we have been doing since Ragean.

    9. Re:Free market economy by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, we paid for all that with $17 trillion of debt, and a behavior/thought process that it was ok, starting with Reagan and continuing to this day.

      Other countries are just waiting for it all to collapse and pick our bones.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Free market economy by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, the Senate controls the markets?

      Really?

      Or is it just Reid?

      Not decades and decades of bad & manipulated & paid-for laws/regulations/state monopolies?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Free market economy by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You as Americans have a choice and a vote, each 2-4 years. You can either do something or you don't want to. The spiral and time is working against you.

      Every so often we get to vote, but we are limited to two choices, both of which have been given large sums of money by various PACs, which are essentially just fronts for various corporate officers. Often, the same PAC will back both candidates in any given race, just so that they get the benefit of backing the winner every time. There is no democratically elected leadership in this country anymore, there is only a selection between two candidates presented to the masses by the 1%. In all the ways that really matter (fiscal policy, economic policy, regulation, law enforcement, etc...), the candidates are identical. They will debate and argue over the issues that the public has been trained to believe really matter, but in reality the issues that are hotly contested don't really matter, and the ones that do, are quietly agreed upon behind closed doors. How many politicians that truly have power have done anything to end Guantanamo, or the rights abuses happening there? How many have done anything to end the systematic dissolution of our constitutional rights? How many have actually taken steps to fix the systemic problems that led to the recession? How many have taken any action to help eliminate the vastly disproportional power the 1% wield in our political system? How many have taken steps to address the extraordinary and growing wealth and earnings inequalities in our society?

      The answer to these questions is now, and has been: none that matter. The only way we will be able to undo the damage the 1% have done to our country will be through an extraordinary action outside the accepted political system, because everything inside the political system has been thoroughly corrupted by those with the real power: the 1%.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    12. Re:Free market economy by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You must be stupid if you believe that" is a logical fallacy.

      Man, you are stupid if you believe that.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    13. Re:Free market economy by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      regardless of where one feels it "went wrong", people do tend to forget just how incredibly good we have it in the US and confuse decreases in relative luxury with hardship.

    14. Re:Free market economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There has never been deregulation of anything. Only changed regulation, and usually more of it. The problem we have today is not too much or too little, but regulatory capture by the big boys which serve as a barrier to entry for little guys.

      We need fewer, simpler regulations. Regulations that you can understand without being a lawyer or expert on "regulatory compliance". The mess of overlapping regulations today were largely written by the regulated and the ones who really understand them use them to do whatever they want.

    15. Re:Free market economy by jythie · · Score: 2

      American companies frequently outsource work to Western Europe. As you point out, they have a lot of skilled people there, but not skilled enough to bring over to the US itself. However since the cost of living there is so much less, companies can pay workers in Western Europe a lower wage while still selling products to American workers with their higher cost of living. So it is not just about taking advantage of unskilled call center type workers, but also utilizing highly skilled people in poorer regions... though it only works as long as only a few companies are doing it on any significant scale since it depends on the high cost of living in the US with all those well paid workers from other companies that are not outsourcing....

    16. Re:Free market economy by Noble713 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a *LOT* of other factors contributing to the US's superpower status pre-Reagan or Clinton. Things like:
      1. massive natural resource endowment (particularly land area, educated population, and cheap energy reserves)
      2. being the only large industrialized nation not bombed into oblivion post-1945.

      to name just a few. Now we are witnessing a regression to the mean as some of these key points (education, cheap domestic energy, and unique industrialization) are challenged by the same globalization principles that we put in place. The fact that our government bureaucracy at all levels is a bloated and inefficient mess only serves to retard any attempts to correct our deficiencies and maintain our position.

    17. Re:Free market economy by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Nope, never have met anyone who cares for Windows 8, even amongst the unwashed masses. General consensus is that the UI worked and didn't need changing.

    18. Re:Free market economy by geoskd · · Score: 2

      I think you've taken a valid point and stretched it a little far here. If we'd had eight years of Gore starting in 2000, do you think Iraq would have played out exactly the same? If we were on our way to eight years of McCain starting in 2008, do you think the trends in health insurance would be what they are?

      I heard the same basic sentiment in 2008 about another politician. That doesnt seem to have turned out how anyone expected.

      Funny thing about politicians: They will say absolutely anything to get elected...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    19. Re:Free market economy by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I appreciate your comments, very well said.

      But, the American prosperity after World War II was due to the fact that the rest of the world had basically been converted to rubble and it takes a couple of decades to rebuild after such destruction. America lost a lot of young men, but our infrastructure was intact after the war.

      I agree with everything you are saying, just pointing out why we had 50 years of growth and prosperity. We built industry, everyone else had to rebuild.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    20. Re:Free market economy by David_Hart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You as Americans have a choice and a vote, each 2-4 years. You can either do something or you don't want to. The spiral and time is working against you.

      Every so often we get to vote, but we are limited to two choices, both of which have been given large sums of money by various PACs, which are essentially just fronts for various corporate officers. Often, the same PAC will back both candidates in any given race, just so that they get the benefit of backing the winner every time. There is no democratically elected leadership in this country anymore, there is only a selection between two candidates presented to the masses by the 1%. In all the ways that really matter (fiscal policy, economic policy, regulation, law enforcement, etc...), the candidates are identical. They will debate and argue over the issues that the public has been trained to believe really matter, but in reality the issues that are hotly contested don't really matter, and the ones that do, are quietly agreed upon behind closed doors. How many politicians that truly have power have done anything to end Guantanamo, or the rights abuses happening there? How many have done anything to end the systematic dissolution of our constitutional rights? How many have actually taken steps to fix the systemic problems that led to the recession? How many have taken any action to help eliminate the vastly disproportional power the 1% wield in our political system? How many have taken steps to address the extraordinary and growing wealth and earnings inequalities in our society?

      The answer to these questions is now, and has been: none that matter. The only way we will be able to undo the damage the 1% have done to our country will be through an extraordinary action outside the accepted political system, because everything inside the political system has been thoroughly corrupted by those with the real power: the 1%.

      Plus, the striking down of the law limiting corporate contributions by the Supreme Court has made things even worse. Now they can give as much as they want.

      How a corporation came to have the right of free speech is beyond me...

    21. Re:Free market economy by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

      "You must be stupid if you believe that" is not a logical fallacy. "You are stupid, therefore what you believe is false" is a logical fallacy (ad hominem). "People who believe things that are obviously false are stupid. That is obviously false and you believe it, therefore you must be stupid" is valid, assuming you accept the premises.

    22. Re:Free market economy by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, we paid for all that with $17 trillion of debt, and a behavior/thought process that it was ok, starting with Reagan and continuing to this day.

      Other countries are just waiting for it all to collapse and pick our bones.

      When Reagan took office federal debt was a little over 2T and went up to a little over 4T when he left office. Clinton took it from a around 6 to around 7. The current administration has seen it go from around 9 to around 17. Maybe you haven't kept up on current events but there hasn't been much union busting, new free trade treaties, or deregulation of wall street in the last 6 years.

    23. Re:Free market economy by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, we paid for all that with $17 trillion of debt, and a behavior/thought process that it was ok, starting with Reagan and continuing to this day.

      Other countries are just waiting for it all to collapse and pick our bones.

      When Reagan took office federal debt was a little over 2T and went up to a little over 4T when he left office. Clinton took it from a around 6 to around 7. The current administration has seen it go from around 9 to around 17. Maybe you haven't kept up on current events but there hasn't been much union busting, new free trade treaties, or deregulation of wall street in the last 6 years.

      You skipped a prez, hoss......GWB, the president who ran up that 8 trillion to bail out his Wall Street Buddies.....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    24. Re:Free market economy by XopherMV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We didn't just build industry. We built the freeway system. We built the space program. We rebuilt our military to defend the world against the Russians. That was all government spending. And yes, our top tax rate was 91%. Millionaires still made buckets of money. But, they paid their taxes and shit got done.

      Then, Reagan came into office and lowered that top rate. All of a sudden, the government deficits started going up and work didn't get done. Millionaires started using their new buckets of money for speculation. Now, we're in a recession as a result of Wall Street speculation and we can't fix a fucking pothole let alone pave a single new freeway.

    25. Re:Free market economy by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll let you know when he actually starts changing something. So far, it's been pretty "Hopey" and not a lot of "changey".

      It annoys me when conservatives get up in arms about Obama, who is basically just keeping Bush policies steady. Yes, even the recent migrant kids thing is a Bush policy. sigh.

      At least Liberals hate him for REAL reasons... Basically that he hasn't been very "Changey".

    26. Re:Free market economy by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh... There's been plenty of Union busting, plenty of new free trade treaties, and plenty of wall street deregulation. Certainly there's been no love for Unions. Free Trade Treaties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.... Since we already deregulated the banking industry to stupidity, we TRIED to re-regulate, and now even Dodd and Frank acknowledge that the Dodd-Frank act is toothless.

      Where have YOU been?

      Also, yeah, you missed a President there chuckles.... How Convenient.

    27. Re:Free market economy by Skarjak · · Score: 2

      These people go to your country, make money, and then take that money back with them. They're not really adding much to your wealth. If these companies moved overseas, they could pay people even less. Why do you think they don't? It's not out of kindness. They stay because all kinds of subsidies entice them to stay. These subsidies are given to them with the understanding that they will create employment. One could argue that if they are just going to hire temporary workers, them moving overseas would actually be a net gain for the US.

    28. Re:Free market economy by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reagan went from $1T to $3T
      Bush Sr went from $3T to $6T
      Clinton went from $6T to $5T
      Bush Jr went from $5T to $11T
      Obama went from $11T to $17T

      Which one was worse?

      It doesn't fucking matter.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    29. Re:Free market economy by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      This argument always comes from a corporate true-believer.

    30. Re:Free market economy by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're forgetting the HUGE back-door corporate subsidy they get by putting workers on poverty wages and forcing them onto welfare.

    31. Re:Free market economy by LSDelirious · · Score: 4, Informative

      The bulk of GWB's massive contribution to the debt was more Iraq and Afghanistan than Wall Street. All Obama did was officially recognize it as part of the debt instead of continuing whatever fuzzy accounting allowed Bush to keep it seperate

      --
      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
    32. Re:Free market economy by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny how much some people respect President Reagan. Actually, it's not funny. It is sad.

      And you didn't even mention the War on Drugs, the sole reason the prison population bloomed during and since his presidency.

      And what recession? The DOW is at an all time high?

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    33. Re:Free market economy by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Begging the question:

      Please please please question, don't hit me!

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    34. Re:Free market economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a little unclear on how this shapeless formless nameless "government bureaucracy" does all that. I'm extremely crystal clear on how the US has entered into a race to the bottom, deliberately encouraged by our trade practices, our effective elimination of tariffs, and all with the willing cooperation of just about every president since and including Jimmy Carter, who was a lot more friendly to free trade than anybody gives him credit for (or, if you're like me, blames him for)

      After WWII when we were rebuilding nations, we gave them strong labor protections, decent work policies, strong provisions for health care for all. Written into their constitutions or whatever they call their founding documents. We did NOT give them "free trade". Absolutely nothing is perfect, and some societies are messed up in other ways besides economics, but from an economic perspective that worked out very well for them at the same time it was working out very poorly for us once they got themselves rebuilt.

      BTW, everybody who's been watching our utter (intentional, I might add) failings overseas the last decade or so--the way you rebuild a country is to help stabilize the government and then help local employers employ local people to put things right. You don't go giving sweetheart contracts to American multinationals who do nothing but screw things up. Franklin Roosevelt had a person in charge of making sure that there were no war profiteers in WWII. The last few presidents we've done exactly the opposite.

      Neocon policies don't work, have never worked, and will never work unless you define "work" as "transfer wealth from regular people to the well off". That's been going very well indeed lately. We need to change that. All the fuss about "terrorism" and the increasing authoritarianism in the US and allied countries is all about them fearing that we will.

    35. Re:Free market economy by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was the savings and loan meltdown in the early '80's when they were deregulated. That was the first sign about the dangers of de-regulation with the big difference that people went to jail then.
      Now they get huge bonuses as rewards for screwing the worlds finances.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    36. Re:Free market economy by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Companies get their resources where they are cheapest, regardless if this is parts or people.

      But, but, but... Every company I've ever worked for has touted how their employees are their most valuable asset. Were they fibbing to me? Sigh. Now I'm sad.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    37. Re:Free market economy by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He can't. Jeff Sessions is a Republican in the Senate. Harry Reid is single handedly deciding on what gets to the Senate floor for a vote and what does not. Until Reid chooses to do something about it, nothing can be done in the Senate. Sessions is attempting to shame everyone who is preventing something from being done.

      With Reid as Senate Majority leader there will be no free market. A free market might allow people to not be dependent on government hand outs and he can't allow that to happen.

      Similar arguments (about this and other things) can be made about Speaker of the House John Boehner and the House Republicans. Obstinate, obstructive, short-sighted, selfish, petty people can be found many places in Congress.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    38. Re:Free market economy by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://www.westegg.com/inflati...
      What cost $100 in 1980 would cost $278.44 in 2013.

      So Reagan's increase was about the same as Obama's.
      And a lot of Reagan's increase ALSO came from unrealistically high defense spending and tax cuts on the wealthy.

      What cost $100 in 1988 would cost $193.96 in 2013.
      Bush's deficit increase was also about the same as Obama's increase.

      Clinton used funny accounting tricks and gutted social security to balance the books. Actually he increased the deficit about 2T when you remove the accounting tricks.
      What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $163.61 in 2013.
      So his increase was about 3T about half of Obama's.

      What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $122.42 in 2000.
      Bush Jr increased the deficit by 7T. Currently still a record.

      And bush's tax cuts account for 30% of the deficit. Obama is responsible for not allowing them to lapse. Defense spending the size of the next 25 nations combined accounts for another 40% of the deficit and *modest* cuts would have reduced the deficit by 1T. And we'd have still been spending more than china, russia, and all of europe combined. All of the rest of government accounts for the other 30%. Notably, the ACA is only a miniscule part of the deficit. The vast majority of it is bills from prior administrations that are difficult to stop- and impossible to stop with the republican dominated congress passing bills which only increase costs.

      But Obama could have allowed the tax cuts to lapse and he'd be at about $4T. A *REAL* failure of spine there. And that's been the biggest gap. Let's rate them by spine.

      Bush Jr., Spine of Titanium.
      Bush Sr., Spine of Steel (and it cost him the election)
      Clinton, Spine of Iron
      Reagan, Spine of Wood (really- he basically went "Guns AND Butter)
      Obama, Spine of Silly Putty

      Hate him or love him- Bush got what he wanted. But he had the largest deficit adjusted for inflation and his policies are responsible for 1T to 2T of Obama's deficits (before Obama had a chance to allow them to lapse).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    39. Re:Free market economy by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      this is the result of global free market economy

      Even if technically true, H1B visas are legally only supposed to be used when there is a real shortage of domestic talent, not body-shopping for the best deal.

    40. Re:Free market economy by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, it's hard to change much while you need 60 votes in the senate to get anything to pass.

      I'm glad he spent his political capital on the ACA. I'm disappointed and curious about why he didn't shut down Guantanamo . He's made a lot of "small" liberal progress on over a hundred issues but his hands are tied by the party of "no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO no no no!"

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    41. Re:Free market economy by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Copying?

      We're newby pikers next to England at the deficit spending thing. IIRC England stole the idea from the French. Who were inspired by middle age bankers who loved to loan money to both sides of wars, on condition that the winner pay all the debt (tale the deal or be guaranteed to lose).

      Don't worry about the dollar until the pound has taken an even bigger crap. They are the canary in the coal mine regarding confidence in make nothing/print money western economies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Silly argument by neilo_1701D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a false comparison being made here... who says the Nokia engineer or the Xbox content maker being laid off has the same skills as the programmer they are wanting to hire?

    1. Re:Silly argument by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a false comparison being made here... who says the Nokia engineer or the Xbox content maker being laid off has the same skills as the programmer they are wanting to hire?

      Facts don't matter when THEY'RE TAKING OUR JOBS!!!

    2. Re:Silly argument by tandavanadesan · · Score: 5, Informative

      true but a few decades ago they would have retrained the competent engineers in areas where they needed skills instead of firing them and getting an h1b visa worker.

    3. Re:Silly argument by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not clear yet how the the layoffs will be distributed, but they certainly won't be all in Finland. Microsoft's already given notice of 1351 layoffs in Redmond, and that's likely only the first round of Redmond layoffs.

    4. Re:Silly argument by MeNeXT · · Score: 5, Informative

      I say that in the 18,000 is more than one.

      It's amazing how people are born with skill sets and training has absolutely nothing to do with it. /sarcasm If you are a programer by trade you should easily adapt.

      The programer that they want to hire costs less. That's it. That's all.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    5. Re:Silly argument by jsepeta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only skill Microsoft is seeking is a low daily wage.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    6. Re:Silly argument by geoskd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a false comparison being made here... who says the Nokia engineer or the Xbox content maker being laid off has the same skills as the programmer they are wanting to hire?

      That right there is the problem. The two groups of people have the same basic skills that are necessary to do the jobs, and the only thing either party was lacking is some limited training related to the specifics of the job. Until the late '70s, it was well understood that a company had to plan for and pay for training to bring every new employee up to speed. colleges and trade schools gave them the basic skill set, but the company had to pay for the rest. Since then, companies are trying to cut costs, and one of the easiest cost buckets is the training budget. Simply wipe it and only hire people who already have the exact skill set you need. The problem is that when every company does this, no one gets trained, and there slowly develops a perception of a labor shortage... The reality is that companies expectations from new employees and employment candidates has become unreasonable and untenable The labor pool hasn't really changed, but the corporate attitude towards hiring has changed. This is truly compounded by the trend towards globalization, where you get tens of thousands of applicants for every position, so instead of having an engineering manager go through the few tens of applications and picking the closest fit, you now have an unqualified HR hack going through 150k applications and reporting back that there is nobody who exactly fits the requirements given by the engineering manager. Never mind that at least 10% of those applicants could learn the skills they need in a very short time, and be productive to meet the needs of the position. Congress needs to shut off the supply of H1B, and tell these companies to fix their hiring practices if they want to fix the "labor shortage".

      When it comes to engineering, the difference between an XBox application programmer and Nokia OS programmer is many orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between an HR manager and an engineering manager... The guy being laid off could pick up and do any number of jobs currently being occupied by H1B holders without much fuss at all. Its about time, that these companies had their feet held to the fire.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    7. Re:Silly argument by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      There's a false comparison being made here... who says the Nokia engineer or the Xbox content maker being laid off has the same skills as the programmer they are wanting to hire?

      Right... The majority of the layoffs appear to be on the factory floor of Nokia. A shame... but those jobs have nothing to do with H1B workers. On slashdot, we like facts... we like them so much that if they agree with our opinion we don't even care if they're true. :-)

    8. Re:Silly argument by stikves · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They are different skills, and in fact most of the people laid off are foreigners (i.e.: Nokia).

      Even though I am not a huge Microsoft fan, I do have a friend there, who was actually laid off with this wave. He was a US citizen, but he will not be replaced with an H1B worker, since the entire project was cancelled.In fact this seems to be his only regret, because not only they gave him a good severance package, he is skillful, and I believe he'll have no difficulty finding another job (even at Microsoft is he wanted to).

  3. Not fungible by jamesl · · Score: 2

    Tech workers (and workers in general) are not fungible.

    1. Re:Not fungible by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If tech companies weren't shit at training they would be somewhat more fungible, though not perfectly so. Engineering companies are somewhat better at this: if a company is looking for chemical engineers and can't find someone with experience in exactly the process they're hiring for, they'll hire a chemical engineer with experience in a different process and get them up to speed. Tech companies seem incapable of doing that, and instead they have a big list of really specific background they want, "must have 7 years of experience in J2EE and 3 years experience using Joe Bob's Serialization Framework", then complain they can't find anyone so it must be a "programmer shortage".

    2. Re:Not fungible by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Informative

      If tech companies weren't shit at training they would be somewhat more fungible, though not perfectly so. Engineering companies are somewhat better at this: if a company is looking for chemical engineers and can't find someone with experience in exactly the process they're hiring for, they'll hire a chemical engineer with experience in a different process and get them up to speed. Tech companies seem incapable of doing that, and instead they have a big list of really specific background they want, "must have 7 years of experience in J2EE and 3 years experience using Joe Bob's Serialization Framework", then complain they can't find anyone so it must be a "programmer shortage".

      At which point they bring a foreign worker over and train them in J2EE and Joe Bob's Serialization Framework.

      I've written about this at length in the past. My own wife came over on an H1A as a nurse. The reason that they got her had nothing to do with a "shortage of nurses". Instead, it had to do with a "shortage of nurses that would work for the shit wages that the nursing homes wanted to pay". Big difference - and frankly that's the same thing I see in the tech industry.

      If the Department of Labor simply forced these companies to follow the law and compensate the foreign workers on par with American workers it would somewhat alleviate the problem. But they don't, and the law's a joke.

      The other issue is that these workers are essentially indentured servants until they get a green card and the power disparity also plays heavily into this. Looking at my wife's situation again I know of nurses who pissed off the wrong people in their job and ended up on a plane back home. If you hate your job you don't have the ability to simply get another. I'd like to say that everybody acts like an adult and that doesn't matter but the reality is that it matters a lot. When you don't really have the option to quit there's little pressure on management to make sure you like your job.

      In the nursing industry it's even worse because of regulation. I don't mean the regulation makes it worse - hiring foreigners is a great way to get around regulation and not worry about your employees turning you in. After all, if your understaffed shit hole gets shut down by the state you get a plane ride back home.

      In my wife's generation this was even worse because they had to come up with US$5000 to pay the staffing agency to bring them over. That's about a year and a half of wages for your typical middle class Filipino - it would be analogous to an American coming up with $75,000. Not easy. And if you lose your job in America you'll spend 10 years working in the Philippines to pay that off.

      Ugh.

    3. Re:Not fungible by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I wonder if just putting a wage floor would help out with some of those abuses. Say, you can use H1B, but only for salary offers above $100k. That way H1B can be used to fill high-skill jobs with shortages, but not lower- and middle-end jobs.

  4. Work Shortage where is the Wage Increases?, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Basic economics says if you are having a skills shortage in a certain sector then you should see wages increasing as employers attempt to attract the required labor. If wages are not going up then you do not have a skills shortage. This is something economist Dean Baker points out all the time.

  5. Silly argument (part 2) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should we pass laws to enable a company to do what it wants?

    Laws should be passed because they are morally right and protect the American people, not to make business more profitable. Train the workers you have.

  6. Majority outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With 12000 being from the Nokia side of the business, and the majority of that outside the US, the Senator is just knee jerk reacting. The biggest hit is a factory in Finland (a few thousand at 1 location). The reason they are probably needing H1-B is to bring some of the staff from closed locations into the US. They aren't "taking jobs", their jobs are just moving local, to people who will pay taxes locally in America, rather than in another country.

    1. Re:Majority outside the US by Entrope · · Score: 2

      I'll cut you a deal, AC: Microsoft gets a new allotment of H-1B visa sponsorships if they promise to only use them to bring workers who have jobs with Microsoft subsidiaries (as of some fixed day in the past) to the US, and consent to meaningful oversight to ensure they keep that promise. If they don't want to make that promise, I will infer they mostly want to fire people with decent-paying jobs (which I hear is the usual case in Finland, especially for tech workers) in favor of low-paid, almost captive labor.

    2. Re:Majority outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That visa already exists. It's called an L-1.

      From Wikipedia: "The visa allows such foreign workers to relocate to the corporation's US office after having worked abroad for the company for at least one continuous year within the previous three prior to admission in the US. The US and non-US employers must be related in one of four ways: parent and subsidiary; branch and headquarters; sister companies owned by a mutual parent; or 'affiliates' owned by the same or people in approximately the same percentages."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-1_visa

  7. consider the source by buddyglass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jeff Sessions, Tea Party Guy. Of course he's going to take the nativist view. He probably thinks Microsoft could just take the 18,000 people it's laying off and repurpose them to fill whatever positions it's trying to use H1B visas for. Because tech skills are interchangeable, right? And all those 18,000 are totally okay relocating across the country (or globe) right?

  8. Require H1-B visa recipients be paid more by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is so easy to fix.

    Establish what the standard rate is for whatever position and say "you can have all the H1-B visa applicants you want so long as you pay 20 percent more then what you're paying for domestic labor.

    If its not a matter of pay and is a matter of limited labor supply, they'll import the labor and pay them more.

    If it is about wanting cheap labor then they'll go with the domestic labor which will by law be cheaper.

    End of discussion.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Require H1-B visa recipients be paid more by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      You're apparently an abysmal reader.

      Sorry if that comes off as insulting but hold your unrightous indignation for a moment and I'll back that up.

      I said you pay the H1-B visa applicant MORE then the US worker.

      So if they load up the requirements sheet they'll be increasing what they ultimately have to pay the H1-B visa holder.

      They'll have a very strong incentive to NOT do what you just said because it will cost them more money.

      I made that very clear. It was the centerpiece of my post.

      You conclude that they'll pay 40 percent less for the H1-B visa applicants... again, your reading comprehension here was terrible... not an insult... a fact. As part of the H1-B visa requirement you require the company to pay them MORE then what the current going rate is for that worker in the US. I threw out 20 percent as a reasonable figure but that's negotiable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Require H1-B visa recipients be paid more by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      That's too radical to work. It would start a global trade war. There are more subtle ways to go about it.

      Furthermore, you're going to have to find bipartisan solutions.

      Both democrats AND republicans want this problem solved but they're both beholden to large corporate interests. Unless the voters from BOTH parties stand united on this issue you're not going to get anywhere because the corps will just sit in the shadows bribing both sides.

      Consider what you lose by going with an ultra partisan solution. You can't afford that option. Your political check will bounce.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. "As it lays 18,000 off workers" by xigxag · · Score: 2

    Seriously this is what it's come to, editors? "As it lays 18,000 off workers"? You can't even proofread the title?

    Anyway, it's mostly non-American Nokia employees who are being laid off, and it has nothing to do with the H1-B situation. So bottom line Sessions is an idiot.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Uhhh... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Technically he works for the people of Alabama, and engages in the magical cooperition of federal government that is intended to give us all the feeling he works for the rest of us. Regardless, if he does something good we should all praise him.

    Personally I think libertarians are people who worship some strange pagan deity, in the sense that they believe in and worship magical forces of nature which sensible people shield themselves from, so what he's doing is good. Unfortunately I think by the time his position matters, his party will have shut him up.

  13. Any company which lays off 10% of their workforce by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any company which lays off 10% of their workforce should be banned from the H1B program for at least 5 years.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. What the senator is really saying... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny

    What the senator is really saying is that Ballmer shouldn't have been laid off and replaced by a foreign worker.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:What the senator is really saying... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      I think that indeed, the more generations people are residing on a continent, the more native they become. Furthermore, it is clear from the history of America that its success is based on the non-natives, the immigrants. Therefore it seems only logical that people from, say, fourth generation and beyond are officially declared to be native Americans, and thereby stripped off their possessions, and put into reservations.

  15. also forced OT pay for h1-B's by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    also forced OT pay for h1-B's.

    no more of this you make them work 60-80 hours a week with no OT pay.

    1. Re:also forced OT pay for h1-B's by llamapater · · Score: 2

      Programmers are exempt from overtime, there's specific language in the overtime law to not include them and managers. here's the details on it. http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtim...

  16. Waiting for Congress to realize that they're by broward · · Score: 5, Informative

    also evil.

    The layoff wasn't much of a surprise.
    I've been expecting it for a few years and I expect that Apple and Google will follow suit,
    just not sure of the timeframe. They're all engaged in verticalizing their information
    equivalent of a supply chain, i.e. an indicator of saturating markets.

    http://nodemy-ghost.herokuapp....

    1. Re:Waiting for Congress to realize that they're by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      But but but, teh future is supposed to be full of infinitely growing tech jobs, this is unpossible!!1!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  17. Laughable conclusions ..... by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me preface this by saying I think Limbaugh has become a self-important blowhard, who spends hours saying nothing, just to hear himself talk on the radio. I'm also no fan of the vast majority of idiots signed up as members of the Republican party.

    But let's not try to cherry-pick historical events to make conclusions that just aren't there..... The Great Depression might have shown signs of going away before WWII, but you'd have to be kind of crazy to back the idea that America's prosperous period after WWII had nothing to do with winning the war! Essentially, on this one, Rush actually *is* right. Heck, if nothing else, one could make a strong argument that the war put America in an advantageous place in the world market simply because other major competitors were knocked out for a while. (It's easy to look good when the other players are still rebuilding decimated manufacturing capabilities and so on.)

    And no... "massive govt. spending and growth" from WWII wasn't the magic ticket to prosperity.... Fools like GWB seemed to believe this, and America found out the hard way that you can't just dump a ton of money into having a war and expect automatic prosperity to result.

    In reality, if America had some way to win WWII without all of the military expenditures, we would have been that much MORE well-off, post war, than we were.

    Now, arguing about banking regulations, specifically? Yes, I think it's pretty widely understood that the deregulation in the Reagan era (and let's be honest here ... much of that had more to do with Reagan's economic advisers than Reagan himself) turned out pretty bad. If you had to put a face and a name to those ideas, you'd probably pin most of it on Alan Greenspan, who eventually admitted himself that he was wrong. (Essentially, he felt he did the right thing, philosophically speaking -- but didn't think the people put in charge of banking would be so short-sighted and irresponsible to do some of the things they were ABLE to do with the regulations lifted. Basically, he was guilty of believing too much in some of the people who supposedly could make wise business decisions.)

    If you want to talk fundamental change that would actually help America's situation today? We've GOT to get rid of the Corporatism. Big businesses can NOT be allowed to infiltrate government and effectively become another arm of it! Too many people, today, have this simplistic notion that big businesses are evil/bad/wrong, and need to be forcibly dismantled -- or forced to give up a portion of their wealth to "everyone else". Big business, itself, is not the problem. A big business is just one of those small businesses people like to cheer for that did well enough, it got bigger and hired a lot more people. The PROBLEM comes in when government accepts financial gifts from said businesses for favors, or allows people with direct ties to the businesses to take key positions inside government itself and proceeds to get new legislation made/approved that only benefits those businesses.

    IMO, Obama is just as guilty of perpetuating this as any of our last few presidents -- and the results are like a snowball rolling downhill. For example:

    http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...

  18. Jobs for immigrants .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    I agree with you about the tech companies and the lack of flexibility with training. Even if you're not a programmer, but simply want a job related to the I.T. infrastructure (network engineer, systems administrator, etc.) -- you run across the same mentality. There's typically a belief, internally, that nobody has time to train a person to get them up to speed on what they're doing. Better to be REALLY specific about what you need, and let the H.R. drones find you a good match.

    Then whenever that comes up short, the larger companies especially will go to the H1B VISA idea, because "Hey... if you can't find a great match, at least find someone who says they'll work here for less money, so we can cost justify the extra time it will probably take us to get that guy up to speed."

    About nursing specifically, though? My mom was a registered nurse and taught nursing for most of her life. As long as I can remember, she *always* advised people that jobs in the nursing homes or "long term care facilities" were the bottom of the barrel. Those are the jobs nursing professionals accept as "first jobs" when trying to get a career started, or quite frankly, for those who never did very well in nursing school and lack the motivation to do what it takes to go further in the field.

    The elderly care situation in this country is in really bad shape, all the way around, though. Complaining that nursing homes are looking at foreign labor to save money amounts to complaining about only one symptom of the problem.... Nursing care facilities are chock-full of corruption; often charging very large fees to residents but basically leaving the people to lie in bed and die after that. I'm pretty sure if you followed the money, you'd find a massive amount of it that's not going back into the business at all.

  19. Re:Did he just notice that? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your employer's duty is to give you money, not hold your hand and guide you through life.

    Microsoft had a very generous severance package for engineers. They're on the payroll for 2 months after "being layed off", they get 2 weeks pay per 6 months tenure up to some high cap, from what I've heard.

    When I got layed off in the dot-bust, my employer gave me a check and a shove out the door, but not having to work for 6 months gave me plenty of time brush up my skill set and to place myself with another company.

    A free man doesn't expect his employer to be his mommy too - that's how a serf thinks. A company who wants to hire professionals ever again, after laying some of them off, will make sure to have a decent severance package - and MS did that. Most big companies that aren't in a death spiral do.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  20. Re: Did he just notice that? by lgw · · Score: 2

    I know plenty of people at MS. Several months ago, they announced the end of SDT (QA) as a thing. About half the SDT guys found internal transfers to the development teams. The other half were clearly looking for seats before the music stopped. Well, the music stopped.

    That's the thing about software - whatever your technical skills, they have a half-life. You have to keep on top of that, or you'll find that what you know how to do simply isn't valuable any more. SDT was supposed to be a "developer, but writing test code" job all along. Now that MS is following the herd in making all test automation part of dev's job, those who had the talent and inclination to become normal devs had plenty of time to make that transfer. And about half of them did.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  21. Salary and indentured servant accusations not true by skidisk · · Score: 2

    I can't speak for Microsoft, but I can speak for my company -- we're about 100 people, 40 engineers, of which 5 are H1-Bs. I make sure our H1-B employees are paid exactly what they would be paid if they were US citizens, I can promise you that if a printout of our salaries was accidentally left on the printer and all engineers could see everyone's salary, they would find that we are paying everyone relative to their value contributed to the company and not their visa status.

    I'll also point out that there are laws that specifically state that we must adhere to that practice of fair pay, though I'd do it anyway because it's the right thing to do. We hire H1-B employees because we can't find US citizen programmers that are good enough and wiling to come here -- there is intense competition here in the Valley.

    Oh, and another thing: H1-Bs are not indentured servants. We hire H1-B engineers from other companies, and unfortunately, H1-B engineers sometimes leave us for other opportunities. It takes me just 2-3 weeks and about $4000 to switch an H1-B sponsorship from the current employer to us.

  22. Re:Did he just notice that? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd argue that an employer's duty is both to compensate you monetarily AND to provide a safe and comfortable working environment. Beyond that one nitpick, I completely agree with you.

    Even as a temporary contract programmer, when my project with Microsoft was cancelled, I was treated very well. They kept me on for another month as an unofficial "severance" even though there was no work to be done, and arranged for a few other internal interviews for me. My project lead also bought me an Xbox (the first one, which had recently come out) and some games out of his own pocket.

    Obviously, that was a while ago, but from what I've heard, MS still generally treats its people pretty well, and that experience was borne out several times while working for them in contract positions. Note that this isn't completely altruistic - part of it is to avoid wrongful termination lawsuits (I've been given severance pay by another employer in exchange for promising not to sue, which was fine with me), and part of it is simple competition with others who might treat their employees better. And of course, part of it is that most people aren't complete jerkwads, and understand that helping out someone with a severance package is simply the right thing to do, as being laid off is already a mildly traumatic experience.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  23. Re:Did he just notice that? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A free man doesn't expect his employer to be his mommy too - that's how a serf thinks.

    Look around you. Do you see people who *want* to be free men, or *want* to be serfs?