Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IEEE: New H-1B Bill Will "Help Destroy" US Tech Workforce

Posted by samzenpus on from the maybe-something-good-maybe-something-bad dept.

dcblogs writes New legislation being pushed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to hike the H-1B visa cap is drawing criticism and warnings that it will lead to an increase in offshoring of tech jobs. IEEE-USA said the legislation, introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Tuesday, will "help destroy" the U.S. tech workforce with guest workers. Other critics, including Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at Howard University and a leading researcher on the issue, said the bill gives the tech industry "a huge increase in the supply of lower-cost foreign guest workers so they can undercut and replace American workers." Hira said this bill "will result in an exponential rise of American jobs being shipped overseas." Technically, the bill is a reintroduction of the earlier "I-Square" bill, but it includes enough revisions to be considered new. It increases the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 (instead of an earlier 300,000 cap), and eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanced degree in a STEM (science, technology, education and math) field. Hatch, who is the No. 2 ranking senator in the GOP-controlled chamber, was joined by co-sponsors Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in backing the legislation."

3 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. You need to think like a PHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Bring H1-B over to be trained and work.

    2. Send back.

    3. Open up foreign branch.

    4. Reduce costs -> increased profit.

    Model 2:

    1. American company gets H1-Bs.

    2. Sells services as "American" company (really important to government and politicians.)

    3. Charge "American" fees.

    3. Reduction in costs -> Increased profit.

    I'd also like to point out that Hatch was the one who forced to FDA to reduce regulations on the supplement industry so that instead of having to prove their products work, the FDA has to prove they don't. And with state laws of Utah, there is a reason why the supplement industry is based in Utah. (see Bigger Stronger Faster

    Meaning, I'm not saying he's corrupt, unethical, or anything like that. Or that he is a disgrace to the Senate and epitomizes everything wrong with our Congress and legislative system in the US and how they are all in the pockets of big business.

    Nope. Not me.

  2. Re:They do it for us! by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that as a tech worker I'm making more net income than most master electricians and master plumbers. For those who aren't running their own business it isn't even close. And I'm never hip-deep in actual shit, only metaphorical shit.

  3. Re:Bribocracy by tburkhol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much effort does it take to do some research and verify whether a 10 second political ad is truthful?

    In politics, "truth" is very flexible. For example, it is true that the Obama administration has reduced the number of annual drone strikes by 80% (over the past five years, in Yemen). It is also true that the Obama administration has increased the number of annual drone strikes by tenfold (over GWB). Likewise, Obama has both increased deficit spending by $1.3T, and reduced deficit spending by $1.2T (although even these numbers are suspect, depending whether you consider 2008 spending to be "Bush's budget" or "Obama's budget." This is one of the reasons you'll hear a lot of percentages and deltas in political ads - they can avoid telling you the denominator or reference point. They can choose a reference that makes their point, regardless of whether that reference is reasonable or relevant, and technically be truthful.

    This is the reason no one believes a politician, unless he's saying something they already thought was true.