Slashdot Mirror
Displaced IT Workers Being Silenced
dcblogs writes A major problem with the H-1B debate is the absence of displaced IT workers in news media accounts. Much of the reporting is one-sided — and there's a reason for this. An IT worker who is fired because he or she has been replaced by a foreign, visa-holding employee of an offshore outsourcing firm will sign a severance agreement. This severance agreement will likely include a non-disparagement clause that will make the fired worker extremely cautious about what they say on Facebook, let alone to the media. On-the-record interviews with displaced workers are difficult to get. While a restrictive severance package may be one handcuff, some are simply fearful of jeopardizing future job prospects by talking to reporters. Now silenced, displaced IT workers become invisible and easy to ignore. This situation has a major impact on how the news media covers the H-1B issue and offshore outsourcing issues generally.
Corporations and billionaires want to drive down the wages of white collar tech workers by importing cheaper H1-B employees. H1-B employees are also much easier to control as well since they can simply get deported if they stir up too much trouble for their employer. This is all done under the supposed auspices of saying there aren't enough "qualified" workers in the US. "Qualified" usually meaning "won't work peanuts like we want". At the same time, these CEOs have net worths that are 100s to 10000s of times the yearly wages of even these "greedy" and "overpaid" US workers.
Not exactly; it is MEANT to be a means by which an employer can find someone from outside the country if they can't find the person inside; say... if you need a java developer who can speak both japanese, chinese, and english. A niche case that's hard to fill. Instead, however, big names like HP and MS will drop thousands of developers, then run begging to the government to increase H1bs so they can bring in folk at half the price or less ... who, themselves, are in a position of insecurity and disposability, ensuring they won't stand up for better wages and rights. H1bs were not designed to undermine american skilled laborers... it's just that unscrupulous major brands are exploiting it.
If the requirement were that the person brought it had to be paid at least as well as everyone else in that market (moreso, probably, considering the point is to find someone with a hard-to-find combination of talents) or otherwise way in taxes the entire difference in wages... I'm sure these guys would find there's plenty of people with the skills already here who'd be happy to do the work.
Come one...
Seriously, we're such ideologues on this issue that we're going to believe that there's some massive, industry wide conspiracy to cover this up?
Anyone making more than $50k a year or so usually gets a severance package. And that's not a benefit to the business, it's a nice thing that comes with the job. Normal people get walked out the door by a security guard and told the stuff on their desk will be mailed to them postage due. The fact that we get a severance package is great... that the company expects us not to defame them after giving us 3months+ pay that they don't have to? That should be expected. That's not going to stop you from saying "I worked for a tech company that I'll not name, and was laid off when they hired foreign workers."
Most Americans don't want temp work. The industry wants temp workers for short projects. H1B's prefer temp work because it generally pays a tad more and they have no particular ties to the area the work isin. There's no mystery here. Hiring 3rd party companies to do short projects always turns out horrible and costs a fortune. Maybe we should address the need for temp work and stop turning this into some evil plot?
I'd get rid of the proof and just use a tax. Require a tax of 50% of the prevailing USA citizen wage for similar technology workers on top of what gets paid to the H1B. Then allow unlimited H1Bs. That makes sure the incentive isn't economic.
The author of TFA is exaggerating and assuming that the clause in the agreement is purposely for those who are replaced by H1B people. Either he or his friends/family members were affected by this. To me, the clause to not disclose any information about being let go is very common. If you are being "fired," there are many reasons. Also, the company will NEVER want you to say anything regardless how you are being replaced. These people will find something to blame on others regardless (and in this case is the H1B people who replaced them). I am not saying that all are legitimated laid off/fired, but I doubt that the "signing" the document is REALLY for the case only.
Then the author pulls in politic which, of couse, a more effective on those who do not like H1B already. TFA has some of the fact and reasons, but over all TFA contains bias against H1B people by using the word "being fired or replaced" to make TFA more dramatic.
We all want to have a monopoly on what we do for a living. We want limited competitor and supply s and be able to charge high prices. As consumers we want unlimited choices, lots of supply, and low prices. A free market will provide the latter and a command economy is required for the former. What we have now is the worst of both. Those with political power use it to restrict start up and small competitors while trying to have unlimited supply of cheap labor.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Thats not the way corporations use it though. Here in the Bay, an Indian corporation was illegally importing Indian workers to do his IT work, Microsoft lays off employees here in the Bay and Seattle and them goes before congress asking for more HB-1 Visas, etc. It's a scam to get cheap foreign labor. And if the labor isn't up to par, they have one US employee training them all knowing he is going to get laid off once he is done.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Most (not all) of the H1-B's I ran across as an independent s/w contractor for 20 year in Silicon Valley did not work as employees for what would appear to most people as their "employer" (Facebook, HP, Adobe, Oracle, etc.) Instead, they were actual employees of job shops who were renting them out to the corporations at a mark up. So if the corporation terminated any of them, they were still legally employed by their job shop and, likely, soon sitting in another cheap seat in another corporation in a few weeks. As long as they work for dirt cheap, they get a seat. Meanwhile, those of us who have families to support and live here full time have to charge enough to pay the bills, unlike 20 somethings who dorm themselves up with 3-5 other H1-B's (all arranged by their job shop, I might add), sharing rent, a single car, etc. The whole thing is an insideous insult, IMHO, to American citizens. Those screaming loudest for "moar" H1-B's are corporate overseers who just want cheap labor so they can stuff their pockets with the results. Just my 2 cents. You try doing what I did for 20 years and see what you think. This shit is not theoretical...
Let's take this to its logical conclusion. Should "American" companies be required to purchase only American goods? Can't buy Lenovo; gotta buy Dell. Can't buy Toyota delivery vehicles; gotta buy GM. Etc. Should we allow foreign investors to buy stock in "American" companies? A corporation is "owned" by its shareholders, after all, and we want these to be truly "American" companies.
What other market restrictions would you impose?
how often do you hear of companies shit-canning your resume if you are found out (public record) that you sued an employer OVER ANYTHING, even valid complaints?
right, you don't hear of it.
the real shit in this world is never reported. but its been like that forever; its how mankind works (or, fails to work, in this regard).
the one law of the jungle: if you can get away with it, you can get away with it; especially if you are big and can lay down a serious smackdown to challengers.
there is no other justice than this, in the world. those with power, get away with shit and you and I have essentially no say. we take whatever crumbs come our way.
sad, but if you think about it honestly, its what we have in this world.
reporters? since when does the news report real news? since when does the news challenge those in authority? not since the past 20 yrs, since 'news' is now part of the entertainment and profit-centers of tv (newspapers are nearly dead, btw).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is why technical people should unionize, but I'm glad it's happening, all this everyone fend for your self thing that permeates the IT world is just playing itself out, you want a voice and bitch about it, but don't do anything about it, its a wound inflicted upon you but you are the ones pouring the salt on it
> This is all done under the supposed auspices of saying there aren't enough "qualified" workers in the US. "Qualified" usually meaning "won't work peanuts like we want".
Yes. If you've worked in a company that gradually fired locals to replace them with H1-B employees, you'll see how capable the replacements actually are -- no communication skills, no diagnostic skills, just a frightened willingness to work long hours. And oddly enough, when bad things happen, the company will just accept it if it can be shown that the employee was following a process.
Ostensibly, one of the qualifications that US workers supposedly don't have is following process. The expectation is raised that the job be fully documented -- that everything that happens in the job have a procedure to carry the employee through, and then the employees need only follow the procedure for a given issue. If you've worked in IT, you know how little of the job falls in that category. And so, much of the process becomes "raise a ticket with the vendor", and then when they find out that the vendor is only responsible for what the vendor sells, not how it's used, things get really interesting.
It's the worst of false economics. The company can show an immediate reduction in direct labor costs, but start to lose agility, robustness and reliability almost immediately.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.