American IT Workers Increasingly Alleging Discrimination

An anonymous reader writes: Some U.S. IT workers who have been replaced with H-1B contractors are alleging discrimination and are going to court. They are doing so in increasing numbers. There are at least seven IT workers at Disney who are pursuing, or plan to pursue, federal and state discrimination administrative complaints over their layoffs. Separately, there are ongoing court cases alleging discrimination against two of the largest India-based IT services firms, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services. There may also be federal interest in examining the issue.

Comments

Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting this battle piecemeal is a losing proposition.

Re:Unionize

[TWX]

I don't know, I think it makes more sense to attack the Work Visa Program (or whatever it's actually called) since so many states are so anti-union right now.

There needs to be sane rules on the conditions that must be satisfied before skilled foreign workers are sought. There needs to be a demonstration of prevailing wage. There needs to be demonstrates increases in base salary after posted positions remain unfilled. There needs to be a rule requiring equal pay and benefits for Guest Workers based on prevailing wage and the treatment of others in the company, such that there is no cost benefit to using Guest Workers.

Re:Unionize

[silas_moeckel]

Because union are sure to draw in the best and the brightest?

Unions have to figure out how to reward the top people you want working for you. So far the best they have come up with is those with the most time make the most etc. Till then it's just a way to force you to keep the underperformers.

Re:Unionize

[Lendrick]

The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.

Re:Unionize

[silas_moeckel]

Na the H1B's are worse

Re:Unionize

[Old97]

A lot of the rules you're asking for exist, but they aren't enforced. Lawyers put together some plausible but incorrect statements and file them with authorities who aren't eager to check them out. There are videos on the internet showing various lawyers and clients conspiring to do this. To top it off, most in Congress are more loyal to the executives in the IT industry demanding higher quotas then they are to common people. Even when it's been demonstrated that these executives, Bill Gates included, are lying through their teeth about the salaries they pay the H1B's. Your last suggestions hint at a better solution and that is to remove employer sponsorship and control from the H1B process and the visa award completely. H1B holders should be able to change jobs at will and compete for whatever salaries they can get. Currently H1B holders are cheap and compliant due to the fact that they can't change jobs and it is that which makes them so appealing to employers. Free the H1B's and then they will only be valued based on their skills and productivity.

Re:Unionize

[tommeke100]

They will get right to it after fixing the Patent System. Will keep you posted on further development!

Re:Unionize

[tripleevenfall]

All there needs to be is, as many other states do, laws in place demonstrating that there is no one qualified domestically for the job before you can get an H1B.

For whatever reason, the US doesn't have or enforce these laws in most circumstances. We need to protect our work force in sane ways that still preserve the incentive to work hard, perform, innovate, and compete for advancement based on merit.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny ... unions seems to work pretty well when it comes to police and prisons ... no one every complains about those unions. But when it comes to things that really shape our future for the better like teachers and IT ... oh no ... it is communism. People seem to forget the role unions played in places like Poland ending communism. Everyone in the U.S. protects the abuses of the bosses because that is where they see themselves given the passage of time. What they fail to understand is unless we start acting to protect each other those opportunities will not be there for us or our children. This generation is the first generation to have it worse than their parents so something is not right. Reganomics - trickle down economics - shrinking the welfare state - we have done a lot of things that haven't helped up - and maybe unions aren't the solution - I just feel with all the bright people in this country we need to get on this.

Re:Unionize

[tripleevenfall]

Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.

We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.

We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screwdriver for a living they are all well and good, but in IT where people work with their minds, it needs to be a creative, innovative, free environment.

Re:Unionize

[mlw4428]

It depends on the union contract.Unionization doesn't automagically mean lazy employees abound. Most unions do have limits on what they can protect and many times they may not feel the political expense is worth fighting for a lazy employee. I've worked at a well organized union shop. You had to meet performanc metrics. If you couldn't over 2-3 rounds of metrics and it was determined you were actually putting effort into the job, they tried to get you in to a different department that maybe matched your skillset better. If you weren't trying, you got terminated the same as everyone else.

Where they helped was when management came up with some idea on paper that didn't actually translate into real life. They helped out on negotiating salary raises that were some % points ABOVE inflation (most companies fail to meet inflation these days) and ensured that if you had a good reason then "mandatory" employment didn't apply to you. It was great and I did get terminated because I am not a great salesman and the only other openings were for sales.

Re:Unionize

[Hognoxious]

We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B.

Also that the qualification is relevant, and that the visa applicant does have it. None of this 15 years on Java 9 with a black belt in origami crap.

Re:Unionize

[drinkypoo]

The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.

The only thing worse would be never having had them. But now they're holding back progress because they are a specially protected class and their wages tend to be whole-number multiples of the minimum wage. Yes, that promotes campaigning for the minimum wage, but it also prevents campaigning for it to be a living wage, because they're not going to get their wages raised that high, thus they're not going to get the minimum wage raised that high. In education in particular it has led to executive salaries which rob money needed for education, and I personally have witnessed both educators (though only a couple) and support personnel (more of those) who desperately needed to be replaced for the good of the institution but who could not be removed because of their union status.

Unions were a wholly necessary step in securing rights for workers, but now they are interested primarily in padding their own pockets and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. Their answer is "why haven't you unionized yet" but not only is that not realistic for many disciplines but creating more bureaucracy only creates more waste and corruption. We shouldn't need more unions, we need rights for all workers. It's time to move beyond them, not backwards, but forwards.

Re:Unionize

[Archangel Michael]

What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them. Make the Corporations prove they actually need the workers before issuing a single H1B visa. Right now, they just say it, and it is so.

The problem isn't H1B visas, the problem is that we have record unemployment and are still importing workers from outside to take the jobs of those workers still trying to earn a living.

Re:Unionize

[FictionPimp]

I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.

Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....

Thanks for calling recruiter from India...

Re:Unionize

[DigiShaman]

Say that to the auto industry that drove almost everything overseas. Right now, the IT industry is having it bad. Unionizing under the current paradigm would be WORSE!. It would be like "fuck it, ALL IT goes overseas, and the US as a nation is but a client purchasing all IT services overseas. There's nothing than can stop that happening now, but unionizing would definitely hasten that to occur.

I'm all about getting organized and having proper representation as a single unified voice to be heard, but unionizing as it's currently known as isn't the answer.

Re:Unionize

[minstrelmike]

What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them.

The problem is that one of the "qualifications" for being an employee is called "salary" and businesses don't like to pay high salaries. To employees. They don't seem to have a problem paying CEOs.

Re:Unionize

[INT_QRK]

The issue is neither pro, nor anti, union. The whole H1B situation is a clear instance of raw political corruption. The real Beltway Bandits, in Congress and the Administration, are essentially selling out American workers for quid pro quo of campaign finance. Don't get me wrong. I do not blame the corporations, who are supposed to be motivated by profit, albeit bounded by laws and regulations, like this one, of society in which they operate and are themselves a part. Rather, I lay the blame squarely on a corrupt political class in Washington whose loyalties, even fundamental affinities, are increasingly distant from those whom they were chosen to represent, to a degree that many see themselves less as the citizens' representatives in a Republic, than rulers over distant subjects in Fly-Over Country.

Re:Unionize

[tehcyder]

Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.

We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.

We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screwdriver for a living they are all well and good, but in IT where people work with their minds, it needs to be a creative, innovative, free environment.

You have absolutely no idea how unions for non-manual jobs work, do you?

Here's a hint: the professional associations for lawyers, doctors and so on are actually unions.

Re:Unionize

[AntronArgaiv]

What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them. Make the Corporations prove they actually need the workers before issuing a single H1B visa. Right now, they just say it, and it is so.

The problem isn't H1B visas, the problem is that we have record unemployment and are still importing workers from outside to take the jobs of those workers still trying to earn a living.

The rules are in place. The problem is, they're given lip service by the corporations and Immigration. Basically, because Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and the heavy hitters all want more H1-B workers, the government says, "sure, whatever you want" and rolls over, because...American competitiveness, or some such reason.
The government has no reason to enforce the rules, and politicians have every reason not to encourage enforcement.

No elected official wants to be the one to yell that the Emperor has no clothes, as it were. If they do, then the corps will all outsource work to China or India and, along with no jobs, there'll be no tax collection either.

Re:Unionize

[DigiShaman]

Words mean things. Please re-read what I said and your question will be answered.

There's nothing than can stop that happening now, but unionizing would definitely hasten that to occur"

People's lack of reading comprehension is a major pet peeve of mine!

Re:Unionize

[AntronArgaiv]

All there needs to be is, as many other states do, laws in place demonstrating that there is no one qualified domestically for the job before you can get an H1B.

For whatever reason, the US doesn't have or enforce these laws in most circumstances. We need to protect our work force in sane ways that still preserve the incentive to work hard, perform, innovate, and compete for advancement based on merit.

I've seen this in action. They do the required search for qualified US applicants. If you don't know #### (insert highly specific tool, language and experience requirements here), you're not a qualified US candidate. However, if you *claim* to have graduated from University of East Farkistan with a PhD in #### (highly specific tool, language and experience), then "come on over"! And, by the way, we'll pay you 80% of what we would have had to pay a US candidate.

And you'll be writing crap PHP code or something.

Re:Unionize

[tripleevenfall]

I love those sorts of headhunters.

"So, person working for a major employer in a major city. Would you like to move to outer Mongolia for a 3 month contract?"

I got one from a "health care staffing executive" whose previous employment was at Medieval Times.

Re:Unionize

[bmimatt]

Absolutely. To your point:
https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/programmers-dont-need-a-union-we-need-a-profession/

Re:Unionize

[dave562]

I had never thought of it that way, but this makes perfect sense. They are doing their minimal amount of due diligence in an "attempt" to fill the position.

Re:Unionize

[tompaulco]

I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.

Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....

Thanks for calling recruiter from India...

That's OK, if you had pursued it you would have to fill out their application. One of the questions on the application is "What is your H1b Visa number?" If you do not fill it out, due to being a citizen, then your resume goes in the garbage. These companies openly discriminate against hiring United States citizens in favor of H1b Visa holding nationals of other countries. There are Indian consulting companies who have literally not a single United States citizens employed with them. and yet millions of other companies around the United States are able to find United States citizens to do the job. This should be firing off all kinds of alarm bells to anyone looking at these Indian consulting companies. They are breaking the law and need to be punished.

Re:Unionize

[INT_QRK]

Then consider the corrupting influence of such power. How would such power would play out, given the relatively mild symbiotic Union and (currently, Democratic) Party relationship that is essentially a money laundering scheme of the highest order of corruption? The result would be a cartel that would make current Chicago look like a middle school student government in comparison. “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” -- FRANK HERBERT ("Heretics of Dune")

Re:Unionize

[mrchaotica]

Say that to the auto industry that drove almost everything overseas.

Words mean things.

"Words mean things," says the guy who apparently thinks the American South (where a lot of car factories are now located) is "overseas!"

Re:Unionize

[Skuld-Chan]

I work for a union shop in IT - and while the organization is under constant attack our contract has a section outlining the rules for hiring outside contractors. We actually have really qualified people working here. I think stability attracts those kinds of people even though we pay less than most places in town.

I've found enforcing the contract relies on catching management in the act, but at least there is a process lowly me can take that the upper upper upper executives take seriously - and if the violation is egregious enough lawyers can get involved, but I've never seen that happen.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not unions. They're licensing authorities and qualification review boards. I don't disagree that they're a good idea, but I disagree that they're unions.

IT workers don't need unions. We need either licensing/qualification organizations, or we need guilds.

These things are all slightly different for a reason.

Re:Unionize

[nobuddy]

My take on H1b abuse and how to solve it:
Require the job be independently categorized (prevents high end programmers listed as "janitorial staff") and the pay rate has to be set at 150% of the current median pay for the area for a US worker in that position.
And THEN they must list that job exactly as categorized for US workers to have the opportunity to apply for- reviewed by the H1b oversight to ensure if there are qualified applicants that they are made an offer at the 150% rate.
THEN- if there are really no qualified US applicants- the oversight will review the qualifications of who they bring in and ensure they actually meet those requirements. if they are willing to accept a lesser applicant- they must review US applicants and see if any meet those lowered standards.
If, at that point they cannot find a US candidate, they must hire the H1b at the full 150% rate.

Re:Unionize

[alvinrod]

That's easy to get around. Just make a job description that's impossible to fill and you'll probably get very few or no applicants for the position. Just claim to want 5 years of experience for something that's only existed for 3.

What we should do instead is limit the total pool of available H1B visas with the only way to get new applicants in is to have previous applicants become citizens (if we're going to have immigration, let's get highly qualified immigrants) or leave the country. Have open bidding for any remaining visas to drive the cost up to the point where you really need someone specialized to make it worth while. Also, don't make their visa status dependent on employment, so that a single company can't effectively hold the applicants hostage and then refuse to enlarge the pool so long as there is more than 2% unemployment among current H1B holders.

If companies are willing to pay high wages due to competition among them for visas and are constantly using up all the available visas, then there's reason to grow the pool because they should be paying as much or more than the labor rates for hiring citizens and we clearly do lack the talent businesses need to grow. Otherwise, they can pick from the pool of existing H1B holders or go without.

Re:Unionize

[nobuddy]

Actually, NAFTA drove it overseas. You think they would pass up on $2 a week labor if the unions hadn't existed? I'll have what you've been smoking, please.

Re:Unionize

[Stan92057]

Well as i see it from afar you guys are getting your asses handed to you. With no support from congress you need to organize in so fashion. Who making out now? Lawyers and Congressmen getting that envelope from the ITT industry who ARE organized.

Re:Unionize

[thegarbz]

What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them.

That rule exists in many countries with such programs and it's completely worthless. I had a friend who was transferred to London which has some very strict immigration laws, the company had to prove it couldn't find local work so they advertised the job in some obscure but partially relevant magazine, listed some bullshit requirements the equivalent of "must have 35 years experience as a JAVA programmer and be willing to be paid in pats on the back", and then cried to the government that they couldn't fill the role.

There's ways around every such rule.

Re:Unionize

[Shadow IT Ninja]

The point is that guild style unions are very different from closed shop unions. The higher the skill of workers involved, the more likely the union will be guild style. I think, however, that even manual jobs would benefit from something more like a guild style union. Guilds apply evenly across an industry. A closed shop applies to a specific employer and they create a situation where different employers in a given industry compete against each other to bust unions. Closed shops also tend to create a lot of ill will in cases where they advocate for individual employees who don't really deserve help. In these situations, which have happened in places where I have worked, I think that we would have been much better off if collective bargaining and individual bargaining were handled by different orgainizations.

Re:Unionize

[Lendrick]

The point I was trying to make is that as someone who is in favor of unions myself, we need to admit that unions do cause their share of problems. It's just you tend to get a worse set of problems without them.

Re:Unionize

[drinkypoo]

Your last suggestions hint at a better solution and that is to remove employer sponsorship and control from the H1B process and the visa award completely.

That doesn't make any sense either, because the employers should be the ones deciding who gets to come, because they know what they need. The real solution has been posted here in the past. Figure out what it would cost on average to train workers to do the jobs that they hire H1Bs to do, then set H1B salaries to be the same as "normal" workers plus the cost of training plus fees to pay for the cost of the program. That way, if they legitimately can't find someone they can still get someone legally, but they aren't motivated to hire H1Bs because they are cheaper.

Re:Unionize

[Frobnicator]

It depends on the union contract.Unionization doesn't automagically mean lazy employees abound.

What you describe is my observation as well. Unions can cause problems, but they can also solve problems. Unions can solve very broad problems that individuals cannot.

Some unions are more powerful and effective than others. Some are very good at helping union members, others not so much.

I see two big difficulties in a programmer union.

1. Skills are different and hard to quantify. One person is highly skilled in one tool, another is highly skilled in another tool. Both are very productive, but they are not directly interchangeable. Alice is an expert in MySQL, Bob is an expert in PostgreSQL, Charlie is an expert in Oracle. While any of them can likely write up a solution for generic SQL problems, for other problems one of them is going to be the best choice for your specific workplace. Similarly, Dan knows DirectX and Emma knows OpenGL, both are great graphics programmers, but they are not directly interchangeable.

In other fields, unions have less degree of specialization. You can roughly exchange teachers by domain: elementary school teachers are roughly interchangeable. Secondary education teachers are roughly interchangeable by field, a HS math teacher can be replaced by another HS math teacher. Among plumbers, two journeyman plumbers are roughly interchangeable, two master plumbers are roughly interchangeable. Classes of workers are roughly interchangeable. This is harder to isolate in software development. You can start by dividing people by programming languages and experience levels, but it quickly falls apart. I daily use four different programming languages, routinely use 8 over the course of my job, and have worked with around 20, mostly custom languages and scripting languages on our wider project. So it isn't like "HS math teacher", but "Java/C#/SQL/Python programmer who also knows Lua, ActionScript, HTML, PHP, JavaScript, etc." In general terms programmers bundle together neatly, but specifics really muddle any equivalency test.

2. Too many programmers have giant egos, thinking they are a special snowflake that is irreplaceable. Often they imagine there might be a bell curve or other distribution, but whatever the distribution is, they are skewed at the highest top 1% of them all. A little dose of reality, it is a bell curve and the vast majority of people are average. This is largely fed by the first problem, where they look around the workplace and notice that they are a domain expert. The thought "I am the domain expert on my team", wrongly translates to "I am the domain expert globally". Whatever your specific domain, you are easily replaced by others who are expert in that domain.

It is easy to get caught up in that. I am the only person with my exact skill set, so feel I'm highly valuable and difficult to replace. While it is true that my EXACT skill set is difficult to replace, others with SIMILAR skill sets can more or less overlap my job duties and replace me, with others in the team filling in the gaps.

Other tasks done by unions, such as group negotiation of salaries, become a little more difficult because of the individual variability. As a programmer I can potentially leverage my own specialty for higher pay, but in practice that rarely happens, in most workplaces the programmer is just a cog in the machine paid in the same bucket range as others.

Re:Unionize

[OhPlz]

I can tell you've never been to a town meeting. Everyone complains about the various city employee unions. In my city, the teacher's union stalled on contract negotiations until the students were back in school, then threatened to strike if their demands weren't met. Which was great since teachers aren't allowed to strike because it was obvious to lawmakers that this scenario would happen. Then look at all the cities declaring bankruptcy because they can't afford the pension liabilities because the unions crafted themselves such sweet deals that they're impossible to fund.

Re:Unionize

[Killall -9 Bash]

Some smart people by the accidents of birth were born in a country that was not US; H1B remedies this.

Some people, by accident of birth, are born in countries with no middle class. All these countries have are billionaires and peasants.

So, is the solution to their problems to fight the economic injustice that plagues their society? No, they come to America, so that they can bring the economics of Mexico and India HERE.

Unless you think YOU will be one of the lucky few living on Elysium, you might want to stop thinking "America first" is racist.

Re:Unionize

[Archangel Michael]

Just claim to want 5 years of experience for something that's only existed for 3.

1) Signed under penalty of perjury? Arrest them and toss them in jail.
2) H1B candidate has to meet the exact same requirement? Arrest them when they find one that does.

Re:Unionize

[tnk1]

Organize, perhaps. Unionize as in Teamsters or CWA? No fucking way.

There is some discussion of guild-type or professional groups. That could work.

However, it should be noted that there is a balance to be struck. Although we may be the aggrieved party now, additional power through organization can be misused, rendering everyone less capable of competition, and even the members at the mercy of their "benefactors".

One of the reasons that I'm in this field is because I actually like it, and I like getting shit done. I used to interface with unionized workers all the time. I'm sure some of them were probably okay, but mostly, it was the most painful experience of my life. It's like they start their semi-retirement at age 25.

While I am not against organization, never say "unionize" as your solution. I don't want union organizers even *thinking* that they should get their hooks into any place I work. *shudder* Start off by calling it something else. Please.

Re:Unionize

[tnk1]

I agree. I'd rather train a semi-qualified US national, than bring in a fully qualified H1-B.

Using H1-Bs is a brain drain. We need to reverse that trend.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

But these were employees that had jobs. They were replaced by H1B holders, for no reason other than to reduce the cost of personnel. This action is illegal, however the government has declined to punish Disney, or even investigate the allegations. Civil suite is the only recourse.

Re:Unionize

[Hognoxious]

Have they changed things? That certainly wasn't the case back in the 1990s.

Well, technically you could, with your master's permission. But why would he give it?

Re:Unionize

[Old97]

What employers say they need and what they want are not the same thing. Employers have said they want certain skills but then they bring in H1B's with the same or inferior skills as their American counterparts. What employers really want from H1B's is cheap labor that is compliant and they get that because the H1B's they sponsor have no leverage. They have to accept whatever the employer decides with no recourse except to be sent home. If the employers were really just seeking skills they cannot find here then they'd be happy to allow the H1Bs to be free to leave for other employers or negotiate a better salary. H1B's are a distortion of the labor market because the H1B's are indentured servants. Eliminate that and let's see what the market brings us. Our current regulations and rules don't work. It's too easy for the employers to gave the system or outright lie.

Re:Unionize

[lgw]

They have always been able to change jobs. The L1 program is basically slave labor - no need to pay prevailing wage, no provision to switch jobs. For an H1-B, your new employer just needs to sponsor you, but e.g. any large software house does that routinely. It's not free, and H1-B software devs tend to be paid less by about the amount the legal work costs. Getting a new H1-B for someone not on one is a huge pain - one lottery a year with about a 30% chance - but that's different.

Re:Unionize

[BradMajors]

What should be outlawed is quotas.

I saw an internal memo written by Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric, in which he rebuked his senior management on how few Indian programmers on visas who were being hired. He did not say H-1B workers he actually wrote he wanted Indian programmers. And, because of this failure he was instituting hiring quotas for the minimum number of Indian programmers to be hired.

Re:Unionize

[chilenexus]

Perhaps this sort of discussion is what unions need to start taking into consideration when planning their actions. My own experience with a union was that their only purpose seemed to be being a thorn in the side of the company, and used providing services to the employees as a cover. Granted, the company also treated us like crap - so we all felt like hobbits caught between two fighting storm giants. That may or may not be just a side effect of how any organization needed to behave in order to deal with an extremely large telecommunications monopoly, but what afflicts one large union structure is likely to afflict another. In any case, if unions started moderating their actions with a bit more consideration for the secondary effects on the workers, perhaps that would change the perception by the younger crowds that they are out of control or that they haven't done anything for us lately.

Re:Unionize

[cmdr_klarg]

Here's a hint: the professional associations for lawyers, doctors and so on are actually unions.

Brilliant... it's not a Union, it is a Professional Association. If doctors and lawyers can do it, why can't IT?

(and no, I am not being sarcastic)

Re:Unionize

[s122604]

Vote Trump, the only one taking this problem seriously

Re:Unionize

[cmdr_klarg]

The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.

The only thing worse would be never having had them. But now they're holding back progress because they are a specially protected class and their wages tend to be whole-number multiples of the minimum wage. Yes, that promotes campaigning for the minimum wage, but it also prevents campaigning for it to be a living wage, because they're not going to get their wages raised that high, thus they're not going to get the minimum wage raised that high. In education in particular it has led to executive salaries which rob money needed for education, and I personally have witnessed both educators (though only a couple) and support personnel (more of those) who desperately needed to be replaced for the good of the institution but who could not be removed because of their union status.

Unions were a wholly necessary step in securing rights for workers, but now they are interested primarily in padding their own pockets and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. Their answer is "why haven't you unionized yet" but not only is that not realistic for many disciplines but creating more bureaucracy only creates more waste and corruption. We shouldn't need more unions, we need rights for all workers. It's time to move beyond them, not backwards, but forwards.

As it is with management, it is not that unions are bad, it is when you get some asshole in charge that is only interested in their own gain rather than the welfare of the workers.

Get rid of the sociopathic assholes in charge (both corporations AND unions) and you will see a much better workplace.

Re:Unionize

[dj245]

Say that to the auto industry that drove almost everything overseas. Right now, the IT industry is having it bad. Unionizing under the current paradigm would be WORSE!. It would be like "fuck it, ALL IT goes overseas, and the US as a nation is but a client purchasing all IT services overseas. There's nothing than can stop that happening now, but unionizing would definitely hasten that to occur.

I'm all about getting organized and having proper representation as a single unified voice to be heard, but unionizing as it's currently known as isn't the answer.

The main reason unions have a bad reputation is because most of them create piles of rules, obligations, exceptions, and sometimes oppose a meritocracy. Companies hate dealing with these things. A union with simplified and specific rules and works in the best interest of everyone would be a great thing. Whether or not that is possible to create such a union is left as an exercise to psychology majors.

Re:Unionize

[Stan92057]

"Quote" With no support from congress you need to organize in so fashion."End Quote"
I stand by my comments, they are organized you are not. You are loosing your jobs to foreigners they are not.If your ok with that then i would say you really don't have anything to complain about when its your job that's given to someone else.

Re:Unionize

[Karlt1]

Trump could care less about H1B Visas. He is denigrating illegal Mexican immigrants who are supposedly taking American jobs and raping our women to appeal to the ignorant redneck wing of the Republican party,

Re: Unionize

[s122604]

View his platform, he is also proposing an H1b crackdown.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

I have said it over and over again. Why don't we outsource all these CEO jobs to Indians and Filipinos. They could fuck a company up just as easily as the current USAian CEO elite and cost less in the process. By widening our selection pool as widely as possible, we can increase the productivity of the USA.

I think my ideas need a lot more traction. My ideas are gr8. Vote me for USAian dictator.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you organize. The laws are there but they are not enforced.

You can make a law for anything, but it's meaningless if there aren't people to put some political will behind it.

Tech workers, now that their skills are no longer unique and under an unusual demand, are finding that they are not in fact privileged special supermen that can call the shots forever.

You turned your nose up at labor organization decades ago when we told you you'd need it. Well, fuckers, look at where you are now. The bastards up top have succeeded in convincing you to give up you power, that you're just fine divided and voiceless.

It's not just about us either. The workers they're importing (Outsourcing is a scam for tax-dodged labor importation) are being exploited even worse than us. We don't want to keep them out either. We want the top talent from around the world to come here and to join us, as equals with the same pay and same rights and privileges.

That is the American dream. And unions are part of it, despite what the bastard's propaganda has convinced you.

Re:Unionize

[NoOneInParticular]

Why not unionize? Then you can actually enforce this.

Re:Unionize

[david_thornley]

Except that that's not how all unions work. Some of them figure it's up to the member to get hired and negotiate salary, but are there as an assist.

Re:Unionize

[luis_a_espinal]

Here's a hint: the professional associations for lawyers, doctors and so on are actually unions.

Brilliant... it's not a Union, it is a Professional Association. If doctors and lawyers can do it, why can't IT?

(and no, I am not being sarcastic)

We cannot yet, because we lack the primary requisite for making it happening: licensing. Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and nurses, vets and plumbers need state-sanctioned licenses (where licenses are legal instruments.)

It is this requirement of a legal instrument that allows the creation of a professional association.

This would actually nuke the shit out of H1B visas. Not necessarily a good thing (because, when done right, H1B programs have their place). However, a software/IT professional association or guild would completely obliterate the practice of replacing US professionals with temporary foreign ones.

Another way to destroy this practice would be to require H1B workers to be paid 10% above the median average for that position per metropolitan area, and/or give a H1B worker the freedom to change sponsors after 1 year.

The average H1B worker is bound to a sponsor in very brutal ways. And that pretty much makes them indenture servants, and that is not fucking right now matter how we cut it.

Don't needlessly replace US workers with H1B visas, and don't treat H1B workers as indenture servants. One would think our political classes would get behind that concept.

Re:Unionize

[zeugma-amp]

So, is the solution to their problems to fight the economic injustice that plagues their society? No, they come to America, so that they can bring the economics of Mexico and India HERE.

This.

The powers that be, want mindless, subservient drones.

Re:Unionize

[HornWumpus]

I've got way more than 5 years experience lying on job applications. Which is what they are asking for.

Re:Unionize

[luis_a_espinal]

H1B's can change jobs. Who said they can't?

LOL. In what fantasy universe do you come from? To remain in the US as a H1B you need an active sponsor. You leave your employer, you leave your sponsor. And no one will sponsor you as you want to change gigs. That is just reality, independently of legal fantasies.

Re:Unionize

[Grishnakh]

and/or give a H1B worker the freedom to change sponsors after 1 year.

Screw that. Give them the freedom to change sponsors as soon as they step onto the tarmac. Otherwise, it's nothing more than indentured servitude. If the company needs them sooooo badly, they should be willing to risk them leaving, and they should be paying them so handsomely that they won't want to leave (in addition to the sponsorship fees). If the company isn't willing to fork out this much money, then they don't really need that worker.

Re:Unionize

[Darinbob]

Maybe instead of separate unions for every single subtype of job, there is just one union for all workers. Normally this would be considered the government but it seems most governments have abdicated their roles as protectors of their citizens.

Re: Unionize

[Lije Baley]

IT workers are specifically excluded from being treated as professionals in labor law, so we're in a hole to start with.

Re:Unionize

[ProfBooty]

I'm for that or levying a surcharge of 50% on the H1B's wage, this surcharge must be paid by the company and not the H1B themselves.

Thus you would have to pay a premium to fill a slot that an american or greencard holder can not.

Re:Unionize

[Cyberax]

You leave your employer, you leave your sponsor. And no one will sponsor you as you want to change gigs.

You can search for a new employer without any knowledge or approval from your current employer. The new employer simply files a petition for H1B transfer and that's it. It's also perfectly legal for multiple employers to file concurrent petitions for you.

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

I see the propaganda has worked citizen. Papers please?
I'm not in a union but I'm really astonished by the number of Americans that think they are some sort of baby eating evil arm of communism instead of a group of employees getting together to protect their jobs. As for the screwdriver bit - even medical doctors have unions in some places even if they call them "associations" or similar.

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

I have said it over and over again. Why don't we outsource all these CEO jobs to Indians and Filipinos.

That is steadily happening and has already happened on a large scale where outsourcing to China resulted in Chinese companies being able to outcompete US ones. Dell versus ASUS is a good example, as is Lenovo - their CEOs are eating the lunch that the Dell CEO thought he had to himself.

Re:Unionize

[rtb61]

I gather you are saying that IT workers are inherently corrupt, incompetent, ignorant and stupid and would be incapable of managing their union (a big ole screw you for that insult). Yep, that $100 dollars a year versus salary losses of tens of thousands of dollars a year (saving pennies to lose pounds is the appropriate term). Unionising will solve many problems and only create one real problem, corporations attempting to corrupt those unions (face it the coolaid sucks after decades of main stream media propaganda versus the reality of history during that period, yeah, I know the internet sucks balls because it blocks the main stream media news cycle because old stories live on for ever instead of being forgotten when proven false).

So it is all really about crushing wages and employment costs as well as getting free training paid for by other countries, whilst increasing the profitability of local training. You could imagine the likely outcome where the cost of training will outpace the income to be recovered from that training, you can not beat free imported training paid for out of other countries taxes.

So keep buying the propaganda with reduced salary and worse employment conditions and inflating training costs because of course IT workers are far to fucking stupid to manage their Unions, OHHH YEAH (that idea is just so insulting).

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

Saying you can't get together on an issue because that would be like the Teamsters is like saying you can't have a commercial company because of Enron.
You are being screwed over due to years of propaganda that equated unions with commies, baby eaters or whatever.

Re:Unionize

[Maxo-Texas]

Nope, there are videos on Youtube of seminars where they teach how to prove that you've done a qualified job search and found no workers to fill them. Even has procedures to escalate workers who meet the qualifications to a manager who can find a reason to disqualify them.

Search for lou dobbs and h1b visa. It'll turn up.

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

Did you really just blame the generational fuckups of the car industry on unions instead of not seeing the Japanese coming despite years of warnings? Funny thing is GM, Ford and the bits they own are doing pretty well in overseas branches where the unions have far more say than in the US which shows you couldn't be any more wrong.

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

Whether or not that is possible to create such a union is left as an exercise to psychology majors.

Or someone willing to look at existing examples instead of political propaganda - bonus points for looking at unions overseas where there has been a less "us and them" view of unions.

Re:Unionize

[dbIII]

If the deals are impossible to fund why did the city agree to the deal? Was the city being dishonest in agreeing to a term that they had no intention to abide by?

Re:Unionize

[scruffy]

A simpler rule would be to raise the price for a H1-B to $1M. The price should be far higher than hiring and training someone here.

Re:Unionize

[Cyberax]

NAFTA? Do you realize that it's "North American Free Trade Association" and it can't drive jobs overseas. I always wondered what's that with NAFTA obsession - it's basically a dead agreement with zero effects or relevancy.

Re:Unionize

[Chalnoth]

Unions increase the wages of all workers. The decline of unions has directly led to a decline in real wages across the board.

This really shouldn't be hard to understand. Unions increase the bargaining power of workers, and wages depend upon worker bargaining power.

Re: Unionize

[WindBourne]

Perfectly legal, yes. However rarely done as they do not want another business doing the same to them.

Re:Unionize

[Maxo-Texas]

And because corporations spend a lot of money on anti-union propaganda. Don't underestimate that.

Re: Unionize

[Cyberax]

Uhm, what? Do you think that there's a global conspiracy of all technical companies?

Re:Unionize

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The main problem is bogus credentials. There are diploma mills in India where people who could not pass 8th grade in USA get BTech and MTech degrees. If the credential verification system is instituted so that foreign universities and colleges are checked and their credentials correctly validated it would go a long way in solving the problem.

The US treats a B Tech from IIT or an ME from IISc the same way as a B Tech This-is-a-totally-real-engg-college-in-my-backyard Institue of Technology.

Any US High school grad can be trained to do what these Masters and Bachelors being exported by the body shopping Indian companies.

But, it is collusion with corporate America. They know it true. But they figure their company will survive long enough to give them their bonus after that they plan to jump ship anyway.

Re:Unionize

[GargamelSpaceman]

This is bullshit. There is always someone qualified to do any job. The problem is incentives. Pay more, provide training for locals to acquire skills and someone will fill the role. Just end H1B. It's the only way.

Re:Unionize

[Ol Olsoc]

Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.

We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.

Here's a little story, that might sound Off Topic, but since it illustrates exactly what the problem is, it is directly on topic:

A man coming into work one day, sees his CEO arriving at work in an awesome and beautiful expensive car. So he complimented him on it.

The CEO, put his hand on the guys shoulder and said:

"Thank you - it is a real beauty isn't it? And the great thing about America is that if you apply yourself really diligently to your work, work really, really hard and put in any extra time needed - go that extra mile for the company - it will soon pay off, and I'll be able to buy an even more expensive car next year."

Re:Unionize

[pupsocket]

... most in Congress are more loyal to the executives in the IT industry demanding higher quotas...

In case anyone doubts, as I once did, that Congressperson Gerry Connolly is the outsourcing plant in the Democratic party, I offer the following quote from a recent e-mail to constituents:

"Right now, almost anyone avoid background checks buy purchasing a weapon at a gun show."

Re: Unionize

[HornWumpus]

I hope the 'Taiwanese' have a plan for when the mainlands economy takes a crap.

What's the average PE ratio on the Shanghai exchange today? Don't answer if you can be arrested for answering.

One of the biggest problems with rigged economies is they fail hard. China has been managed single metric (100% industrial utilization) for a long time.

Re:Unionize

[pupsocket]

We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screwdriver for a living they are all well and good, but in IT where people work with their minds, it needs to be a creative, innovative, free environment.

Unions didn't kill the motion picture industry.

Re:Unionize

[ebvwfbw]

Only stupid people unionize today. Even then, unions are largely unsuccessful. Dirty little secret is we don't need them anymore. That stuff was all put into law. Now they just plunder their rank and file and don't do squat. A union boss lives across the street from me. Larger house, money to burn.

Smart people use professional organizations like the IEEE.

Re:Unionize

[cthulhu11]

I get this madness all the time. The best was the three month admin assistant gig in Tallahassee.

Re: Unionize

[dbIII]

The thing with a rigged economy is that the stock market doesn't mean crap since so little of the economy has anything at all to do with it. There are plenty of other more reliable signs of a slowdown at the moment (decreased coal imported etc) and we'll know about it in plenty of other ways when a recession hits.

Re: Unionize

[WindBourne]

HRs regularly know each other and know the high upfront costs of H1B. They rarely steal from each other on H1Bs (regular employees are different matters).
As to global conspiracy, it is illegal for HR to notify others of the fact of how you were fired, laid off, or simply quit. However, they can and do, tell each other if you are re-hirable inside the company. In essence, they are telling each other that you were fired if you are re-hirable.

Re: Unionize

[Cyberax]

Oh, come on. HRs from Google in Mountain View care about this much >.< for HRs from Amazon in Seattle. Never mind a myriad of smaller companies.

Changing jobs on H1B is easy - I've done this before myself. Getting the initial H1B petition approved is another story.

Re:Unionize

[mjwx]

Say that to the auto industry that drove almost everything overseas. Right now, the IT industry is having it bad. Unionizing under the current paradigm would be WORSE!. It would be like "fuck it, ALL IT goes overseas, and the US as a nation is but a client purchasing all IT services overseas. There's nothing than can stop that happening now, but unionizing would definitely hasten that to occur.

I'm all about getting organized and having proper representation as a single unified voice to be heard, but unionizing as it's currently known as isn't the answer.

Explain why the highly unionised German auto industry isn't suffering?

Same with Japan that also has very strong worker protection.

Next.

Unions didn't kill the US (or Australian) auto industries, it's the companies. Germany realised that it cant make shit cars in Germany and profit on it, so they make them in Spain, the Czech republic and other places that are less expensive than Germany. Good cars that can command a premium are still made in Germany. The US didn't want to do this so in order to compensate for making cars that they cant profit on, they declared war on their own workers for daring to ask for a liveable wage.

The auto union in Australia has been nothing but helpful to the auto industry in Australia, often offering concessions to keep jobs in Australia but because we ultimately made crap cars that we couldn't export there every concession and subsidy only delayed the inevitable destruction.

So if unions are the problem, explain why highly unionised Germany has one of the strongest car industries in the world.

Re:Unionize

[beastofburdon]

Licensing/qualification organizations, guilds, and unions; Three names for the same institution. The only difference between the 3 is the public mask they wear.

Re:Unionize

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

"USAian" is not the correct term. The correct term is American.

Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring a specific sub-sect of human because they can be paid less is more than discriminatory. It's unethical.

Re:Ethics

[bulled]

You presume that any of the firms involved give two shits about ethics. Legality is the _only_ way to make any of them care.

Re:Ethics

[Maxo-Texas]

That's really only true if buying products produced by a subsect of humans which are less expensive due to structural pay differences in their native countries is also unethical.

Enough knowledge has been transferred to other countries that if local companies do not hire remotely, then they will be driven out of business or forced to relocate overseas by cheaper competition.

There is no good solution except allowing wages to equalize and removing some of the barriers to capitalism which prevent us from buying products which are sold overseas much less expensively than locally. For example movies are about 1/10th the price, blood pressure medicine is about 1% the price, etc. Some can't be fixed-- housekeeping and lawn staff is about 3% of the price.

Unfortunately, under good growth projections (which don't look to hold for the coming 12-18 months) it will be 2045 before china approaches wage parity and 2065 before india approaches wage parity.

Re:Ethics

[Rob Riggs]

Hiring a specific sub-sect of human because they can be paid less is more than discriminatory. It's unethical.

Multi-national companies are *not* American companies and they have no allegiance to America or its citizens. Their ethics are not your ethics. They see "shareholder value" as the highest ethic. To them, national boundaries are a hindrance to maximizing shareholder value.

Re:Ethics

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How is it unethical to want to hire doubly-cheaper workers? Foreign, younger (lower wage, much less medical cost)?

I am not saying it isn't wrong somehow, but how is it unethical?

Re:Ethics

[mrchaotica]

There is no good solution except allowing wages to equalize and removing some of the barriers to capitalism which prevent us from buying products which are sold overseas much less expensively than locally. For example movies are about 1/10th the price, blood pressure medicine is about 1% the price, etc. Some can't be fixed-- housekeeping and lawn staff is about 3% of the price.

For that to be a "good solution," developing-world labor protections and environmental standards have to come up to meet ours. Otherwise, it's a race to the bottom and we only fuck ourselves over.

Re:Ethics

[Moof123]

Ethics don't help you hit your quarterly targets. Ethics can't easily be monetized. Any questions?

Re:Ethics

[tnk1]

The problem is that we expect corporations to see to our well-being when that isn't their primary motivator, and they won't succeed if they suddenly care more about employees than profits.

If we're going to organize, why don't we set aside trying to get corporations and governments to do it for us and form organizations that instead negotiate group rates based on voluntary participation? There are some groups like this, AARP would be one example.

Additionally, organizations which voluntarily represent skilled workers would also have value, both to the members and even corporations. If you maintained standards bodies like professional organizations, corporations would know they are getting good value from members, and members would be able to not have to deal with the issues of closed shops and bureaucratic one-size-fits-all contract negotiations.

Also, if there is a roll of registered and tested professionals, it is harder to state that there are not qualified applicants available for a position. The organization can simply raise its hand and point to the list of registered and certified members in its area who happen to be unemployed.

Re:Ethics

[david_thornley]

There's laws forbidding what those firms are doing. Legality itself is not going to make them care.

Re:Ethics

[dbIII]

Unfortunately, under good growth projections (which don't look to hold for the coming 12-18 months) it will be 2045 before china approaches wage parity and 2065 before india approaches wage parity.

Since the US banks haven't learned from 2008 it may happen a lot sooner than that but not in a way we will like.

Fine by me

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, I poke fun at the "dey tuk ar jerbs" anti-H1-B crowd but if the feds want to beat up the body shops like Infosys, Tata, Wipro, and the rest that's just fine by me. The people they bring in are really barely one step above warm bodies.

Re:Fine by me

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Feds,

Please to do the needful.

Re:Fine by me

[unixisc]

Let me revert back to you on that one

Re:Fine by me

[unixisc]

Can we prepone our next meeting to go over this?

Re:Fine by me

[StirlingArcher]

Tika

Apples-to-Llamas

[pla]

"But Your Honor, we didn't get any applicants to our job posting for a minimum-wage principal engineer... We had no choice but to use H1Bs to fill this critical position!"

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[__aaclcg7560]

A recruiter called me for an I.T. support position that paid $25/hr (my usual rate). I go in for the interview, but the hiring manager is out and the position only pays $15/hr. I told the recruiter I was no longer interested in the position. The recruiter accidentally sends me the salary spreadsheet. Lo and behold, all the I.T. support positions paid $10/hr. If I have returned for another interview, it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to badger me to take the job at $10/hr.

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[Coren22]

You mean not all enterprise architects make $30k?

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[__aaclcg7560]

When I worked as a video game tester and lead tester for six years, we were paid $16/hr and nearby Sony paid $20/hr. Management always told us if we didn't like our pay rate, we could go down the street and work at Taco Bell to clean toilets after the lunch hour rush. One of the testers looked into it, quit his job and started working at Taco Bell. He made more money, had better hours and more benefits. Management stopped talking about Taco Bell after that. The company eventually filed for bankruptcy protection after the dot com bust.

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[Joe_Dragon]

Taco bell payed more then $15 hr where?

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[__aaclcg7560]

Silicon Valley prior to the dot com bust in 2001. Even today restaurant wages are 42% higher than the national average.

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Restaurant-l-Silicon-Valley,-CA.html

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sounds like one of the recruiters that I got a call from. Was for a position doing basically what I do now but instead of in a low cost area in the midwest it was in the Philadelphia area. When I was told the pay I laughed. The recruiter asked if that was good, I told here it was fucking awful and that I made almost 3x that living in a cheaper area that also was a lot nicer. I told here that to get me to move out there they would have to double my current pay.

Re:Apples-to-Llamas

[cthulhu11]

Two of my Amazon interviews and all with Google were clearly ones where they had no intent from the start of seriously considering me. I don't even bother any more when their recruiters come knocking, they're just wasting my time. It's easy to game your stats when you demand knowledge irrelevant to the job, but only from middle-aged citizens with families. The very first Amazon interview in the 1990's their excuse was that I didn't live within 5 minutes of downtown.

My experience with Infosys

[UnknowingFool]

Here's my experience with Infosys: Their tactic is to always be the lowest bidder. When they get the contract, the staff they send generally is untrained with many of them learning the skills they need on the job on the client's dime. We had a contract with a client and were replaced by Infosys. So we had to hand over all of our functions to them; it was apparent that only one person in a team of 12 had the skills to do the job. After a year, the client fired them and came to us. But they wanted Infosys rates; we declined.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[Maxo-Texas]

My experience with Infosys was different.

For older technology they were highly competent. For newer technology they were not competent. They were always training on our time.

They always said yes to every project which managers loved until the projects failed. You need to learn that when infosys personnel people say "I'll do my best" an american would say, "We probably can't make that deadline even working overtime" and think "WTF!?!? Are you batshit crazy? That's impossible."

One BIG thing to learn when Infosys specifically is brought in to "help" you is that 90% of your staff is on the chopping block within 5 years.

When Infosys walks in the door, unless you are the lead in the area and have superior business side skills, you should be walking out the door. Today- not tomorrow-- unless you want a nice severance package.

But don't underestimate their competence with technology once it's about 3 years old. Unlike most U.S. companies they pay for continuous formal training and certification for their staff. They DO catch up.

And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.

And if all you need is "construction" coding by "code monkeys" combined with unit testing they fill that need as well as u.s. resources. If you are working for a company and you are a "code monkey"-- even a very good one- you need to think about a new job when they come onboard. Business analysts usually survive. But not programmers unless they are top 1% or have some very obscure specialty knowledge (and even then they are often hired by infosys for a year or two at best).

BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN YOUR COMPANY HIRES INFOSYS. YOUR JOB WITH THEM IS PROBABLY ENDING in 3 to 5 YEARS.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[UnknowingFool]

I didn't deal with the negotiations but was told we offered our old rate but was turned down. So the client was focused more on the bottom line than productivity/effectiveness. It may also have hindered them to get the Infosys contract in many ways; it's hard to justify to upper management that you need more money for a contract when you paid so little in the past for the same contract from a different vendor.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how almost all contract workers operate - even highly-paid ones. When I worked in a massive public works program, huge contractors like Parsons and URS would send resumes for their workers that made them sound like major stars in their field. They do this by including everything the company has done while this person was an employee and counting it as a project the applicant had experience with. When we hired them, it turned out they didn't know shit from shinola and the government employees had to train them how to do their jobs even though the government employees were making less than half what these guys were billing. Then when these guys got good and trained, Parsons and URS would increase their billing rates.

Ripping off the taxpayer is a national pastime in the United States. The worst part is that the lobbyists for these firms that institutionalize the practice have convinced the American public that the pension of the poor slob making $20 an hour as a government worker is the reason governments are broke, while not mentioning the $250 per hour billing of their consultants who have to be trained on the taxpayer dime.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[ranton]

But don't underestimate their competence with technology once it's about 3 years old. Unlike most U.S. companies they pay for continuous formal training and certification for their staff. They DO catch up.

And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.

My problem has rarely been Infosys's technical competence. Their staff is rarely as good as a quality senior developer, but they are usually as good as a generic mid-level developer.

My issue is with the companies that use Infosys as a core of their IT development staff, instead of just as staff augmentation. I have never witnessed a company whose core IT staff was contractors who ended up liking their IT systems 5 years down the road. They may like it on day 100 because they have new flashy websites and mobile apps, but then the technical debt starts creeping in.

I currently work at a company where about 30% of our IT staff is contractors, and it works out great. We can double our manpower on a project in under a month, and it allows our steering committees to make decisions based on the needs of the company instead of the capabilities of our IT staff. But our systems architects, lead developers, and most importantly our skilled project managers are all in house making sure these IT systems benefit our company instead of just fulfilling some poorly written SOWs.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[gstoddart]

This is what happens when management becomes penny wise and pound foolish.

They say "hey, we can save 20% here". They don't factor in the other costs, like increased downtime, longer times to get stuff done, or the sheer amount of time wasted "helping" them do their jobs.

I was in a situation not long ago in which an out-sourcing company was being brought in. In my opinion, they were largely incompetent.

You'd submit a request to get something installed on 4 machines ... they'd make a hash of it on one machine, and then send you the instructions to install it on your remaining 3 machines and ask you to do it. Sorry, your job is to do all of this, we don't own it. If you can't do it and you expect me to do it, what value do you bring? Once people started refusing to pick up their slack it became apparent they really couldn't do the job.

The problem is the people who make these decisions do not have visibility into how much the associated costs go up as people have to do their own job and the job of the outsourced people.

To then come back after several years and say "we're getting shitty service, can you do this as cheap as the people giving us shitty service" says they have no idea of how they caused their own problems. If you want shitty service, pay the shitty service rates.

The decision makers and accountants are removed from the actual ramifications of their own decisions. Which means they evaluate their own decisions on faulty and incomplete information, pat themselves on the back, and give themselves bonuses for saving money.

In fact what they've really done is fuck up things which worked, make the system work terribly, failed to account for all of the new problems, and then they act as if they've saved the world.

If your expensive staff all have to devote 35% more time to make up for the slack of the cheaper workers .. what the hell are you saving?

If you can't measure your own productivity and effectiveness, and the other costs created by hiring the incompetent out-sourcing people, you have no way of evaluating your own decision. The problem is management frequently has no way of evaluating their own decisions -- and I often suspect that is by design.

And the shortsightedness of this says people are incapable of realizing if you are sacking the cheaper company because they gave terrible service and poor results, you can't go back to the original vendor and expect them to give you good service for the new lower price.

That kind of stuff is at best wishful thinking, and at worst completely delusional.

But then again, many of us think that's what management is for.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[mrchaotica]

It may also have hindered them to get the Infosys contract in many ways; it's hard to justify to upper management that you need more money for a contract when you paid so little in the past for the same contract from a different vendor.

That's the thing, they didn't pay for the "same contract," they paid for shit that failed to deliver. Of course, I can see how it could be hard to admit to upper management that your dumb ass got swindled...

Re:My experience with Infosys

[gstoddart]

You know, sometimes the problem is getting upper management to admit it was they who got their dumb asses swindled, and no matter how much they complain, they can't hire back the competent people for the same price as the incompetent people they themselves chose.

I've seen more cases of this being the management who chose this stuff in the first place and then being unable to fix it than I have of middle management doing it and realizing they chose poorly.

The guy loudly saying "we can save 25%" is seldom on the hook if that savings turns into shitty outcomes ... they just say "well, we saved you 25%, if you can't make use of them that's your fault".

Of course, in large companies, those people are often either no longer around (but got their massive payout), or are no longer in that role and can escape any responsibility.

I've lost track of how many people in management I've seen who have a knack for making bad policy decisions and then making sure the shit doesn't stick to them.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[swb]

I thought all contractors trained on the client's dime.

We sure as hell don't train on our employer's dime.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[UnknowingFool]

If your contract is for 12 DBAs or 12 Java programmers, then I'd expect that on day 1, all your personnel are trained/have experience in whatever the contract says. In my experience, only 1 of 12 had the skills that they contract required. Whereas our company actually had the personnel with the skills that the contract required. Sure some of our people had differing amounts of experience (5-10 years vs 2-3 years) but everyone had their certifications and some experience.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[Anonymous Coward]

BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN YOUR COMPANY HIRES INFOSYS. YOUR JOB WITH THEM IS PROBABLY ENDING in 3 to 5 YEARS.

Regardless of the company (Infosys, Wipro, even IBM) , you're competing with a company and not individuals. Companies like IBM can place some one who is not very confident in a technology and he get to learn on your company's dime. Your own company wouldn't let you do that, why can IBM? Because the person they placed has three hings going for them:

1. They are IBM and not an individual. They have resources that can help them that probably exceed your own company's resources.
2. They are IBM and not an individual. They have canned solutions that IBM probably developed for other customers and can be dropped into place.
3. They are IBM and not an individual. They can be replaced and reassigned at your location without IBM losing much.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[Maxo-Texas]

My experience with IBM was that they were highly skilled but also they were too expensive ($200/hr billed vs $30/hr offshore/$60 onshore billed for Infosys) to consider replacing skilled employees with IBM employees. They did replace low skill positions (like computer operators) because they gained economies of scale (one operator could work on 12 companies). But they did not replace programmers or analysts.

You are spot on with regards to your points 1-3.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[orlanz]

This is the way Wipro was and is. InfoSys became their better replacement. Then Infosys did the same. And TCS, they started this way. I guess we should be happy that there are atleast 3 major competitors in the race to the bottom. As an another poster said, these guys are fine as low cost maintenance folks for steady state operations. But for actual development (what management calls "innovation") I see few that are happy with the result. And I don't blame them, its the management's fault for not knowing enough to make an informed decision.

Re:My experience with Infosys

[Maxo-Texas]

I think you mean- look for a new job and then quit when you find one.

I disagree with the second (sabotage) for personal reasons.

But so many people do neither.

They ride it out to the end working hard but not getting certifications or updated experience.

Age discrimination is obvious

[Notorious G]

I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat.

Over 40 in IT, hold on to the job you got because the next one won't hire anyone over 40.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, that's a violation of federal law and you could (and should) file a complaint with the EEOC if the statute of limitations hasn't expired. It might also be a violation of state laws, depending on where you live/interviewed. You are NOT allowed to use a person's age as a qualification for a job unless there is some aspect of the job that requires it (i.e. you're doing a photo shoot for toddler clothing).

If more people started filing complaints about this kind of thing and more companies started getting slapped with fines and lawsuits filed by the EEOC and state counterparts (assuming your state even has its own version of the EEOC) things would start to change as it became cheaper for companies to ensure everyone with hiring authority was trained on what they can and cannot do.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[kilfarsnar]

I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat.

Over 40 in IT, hold on to the job you got because the next one won't hire anyone over 40.

I don't doubt the dynamic, but I'm surprised they would be so up front about engaging in illegal discrimination. Questions about your age are out-of-bounds AFAIK. Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Khyber]

"I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat."

That's entirely illegal age discrimination. Age is not a legal bona-fide occupational qualifier for IT work.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[choke]

Same thing here. I'm over 50. I was told by one recruiter that the team thought I wouldn't 'fit in', after it was obvious that age was an issue for them.

News flash - I probably wouldn't have fit in for reasons more material than age, if you care about age.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[DigiShaman]

That's OK, because when no one will hire anyone over 40, we'll just be unemployed, poor, and without skills that make us marketable. Guess we will be "retiring" on the tax payer dime thanks to the young whom are employed =).

Pay now, pay later. In the end, WE ALL PAY!

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Kagato]

Payday man. If they don't hire you then grab a lawyer on contingent. If you really want it to stick (and are in a single person notification state) see of you can get the recruiter to admit to it on tape.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

The companies that discriminate illegally make sure to get their paperwork in order to show that they hired the best person for the job. Each person who is discriminated against would have a writeup of which skills weren't on their resume or which questions they could not answer during the interview. It's not uncommon for the real reason to not hire someone is "failed the which-part-of-india-are-you-from interview question", but nobody will ever say that's the reason.

Likewise, the "right" candidate will only have positive things written up about them. An outsider could easily see that the selection is on something other than merit, but they'll never be part of the hiring process, so the documentation, long after the fact, is the only thing people will ever see.

You can file a complaint with the appropriate government agency if you want, but it would be naive to think that your name won't get back to the company you filed the compalint against. Likewise, don't be surprised when other companies won't talk to you for reasons they refuse to divulge. HR people know how to make sure their paperwork is compliant with the law while they are breaking it.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[tehcyder]

Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.

The thing is, if your resume says you graduated with a BSc in 1992, it's pretty obvious you were born around 1970.

It's not what you look like that's the problem. Anywhere discriminating against older people almost certainly has an unwritten company code of "you have to devote yourself to the job, be single and available to work weekends or nights when we say so". Older people are (a) more likely to have family and other important outside interests and (b) won't put up with the same deluded shit that wannabe hotshots will, as they've seen it all before.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Notorious G]

It was indeed a violation of state and federal law - this was California, Silicon Valley. Even they way they mentioned my age and questions they asked about it were illegal. One interviewer asked me point blank, "Don't you think your age will be a problem working here?" I would have unloaded on him but I was so surprised he'd been that brazen about it I was just kind of shocked into saying a simple "No".

I considered filing a complaint but in Silicon Valley this type of discrimination is so wide spread and so openly done that I figured the most I would get out of it is some frustration and just drag out the irritation I had from the interviews. They got more lawyers than me.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Notorious G]

Yeah, I kind of think I got flown out for the interview because my college graduation date is relatively recent. They did not count on my years in the military before going to college so on paper I looked about 10 years younger.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[kheldan]

The age-discrimination thing is just a symptom of the real problem, as is the H1-B problem: It's all about money. They'd rather hire some kid fresh out of some cheesy technical school who can just barely find his ass with both hands, because they can pay him far, far less money, and he'll (or she'll, as the case may be) lick their boots in appreciation for getting any job. Then in 2 or 3 years (if that long) when they've got some real experience and are rightly due a raise, they'll claim 'budget cuts' or some such nonsense like that, and lay them all off -- then the next week go looking for a new batch of dumb kids to hire for peanuts. Same goes for engineering, too; I have a friend who recently retired from HP. He would tell me about how they were slowly but surely edging out the senior engineers and replacing them with kids fresh out of college in another country, who couldnt' find their asses with both hands, because of obvious reasons: They can pay them so much less, and they'll still respond like they've won the lottery because it's still better than they can get in their own country. It's bullshit, it's going to ruin the U.S. economy, it's fucking over U.S. citizens in general, and something needs to be done about it. Complain loud, complain long, my friend, enough people do that and someone will have to listen.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[BVis]

Good luck finding a lawyer. Most of them won't take cases they have no reasonable chance to win.

The circumstances around hiring are obscure enough that any marginally talented corporate shyster can talk rings around any argument your lawyer might make. And no recruiter will admit to that sort of thing out loud.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[kilfarsnar]

Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.

The thing is, if your resume says you graduated with a BSc in 1992, it's pretty obvious you were born around 1970.

It's not what you look like that's the problem. Anywhere discriminating against older people almost certainly has an unwritten company code of "you have to devote yourself to the job, be single and available to work weekends or nights when we say so". Older people are (a) more likely to have family and other important outside interests and (b) won't put up with the same deluded shit that wannabe hotshots will, as they've seen it all before.

Good point. That's why my graduation date is not on my resume. ;-)

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[gblfxt]

working at microsoft, alot of 40+ year olds. how do they know you are over 40? they can't ask, you look haggard?

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[jacobsm]

58 years old for me and just survived another downsizing, offshoring experience. zOS Systems Programmer, 20 years here, 36 total in the field.

Re: Age discrimination is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to contact the EEOC. The process goes like this: fill out your complaint, get a couple emails saying they will review your case, wait several weeks, and finally get an email saying they have closed your ticket. The people answering the tickets are government workers with good jobs, managed by people who report to political dignitaries who answer to institutions like Disney, Preferred Healthcare, California Edison Power, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Cengage Learning, Honda USA, Paypal, New York Life, GE, eBay, HP, HLC, US Chamber of Commerce, Toys R Us, Applera, Dell, Adobe, University of California, Deloitt, Accenture, Ernst and Young, Google, Oracle, Oracle, Oracle, .... My last team lead was Indian for a company in Oakland. He was over 40, but he hired and only went to lunch with other Indians. I trained my replacement who was a DBA/developer, from India. He had trouble writing left joins.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[KGIII]

Dude... You're a zOS programmer. You're not going anywhere - you'll have a job for as long as you want as there's always going to be that niche. Well, not always but for a while to come. You'll be getting recruiters calling when you're 100.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[jacobsm]

Actually they're outsourcing most of our support to IBM and AT&T, most of the IBM people are in India. They spared me (for now).

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[KGIII]

WTF? Really? They've actually got *qualifed* zOS programmers in India? I kind of expected that to be like COBOL. If you're a COBOL hacker then you're golden if you're any good - at least that's what my reading indicates. Given the scarcity of zOS programmers, well, I'd have surmised (or assumed, I guess) that it was much the same. There's got to be, what, three of you in the whole country that are still maintaining their skill set?

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Moof123]

Not surprising. Most companies don't do any sort of training except for managers as to what is legal or illegal to ask.

I once had to do a bunch of phone screenings for a position that had to deal with ITAR materials. My boss asked me to make sure they were citizens. But it turns out that you CANNOT ask that directly. You can list a set of requirements and ask if they meet them, but you cannot legally directly ask about citizenship or country of origin in an interview. There are a bunch of little ways like this that people can get themselves and their company in trouble simply because nobody bothers to do basic training.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[war4peace]

Population of India was 1.252 Billion in 2013. I guess there should be some zOS programmers there as well.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[lgw]

Discrimination based on wage is totally legit, though. That's what shocks me about open age discrimination: you're inviting a lawsuit when you could just make a lowball offer.

I think what's really going on in these cases is worse: it's an extremely exploitive company that relies on hiring people with so little experience they don't realize it's not normal or acceptable to treat employees like shit.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[jacobsm]

There still are plenty of US based mainframe system programmers around, but less everyday for sure. As far as "qualified" mainframe systems people in India, well that's up for discussion. What I do know, based on my research is that senior people, where senior might be a little more than being able to spell zOS, they're being paid about 1/10th of what I'm being paid. People who have just had their training wheels taken off, which is most of them, are paid more like 1/15th of a US based person.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

In many parts of the US, it is only a violation of law if you are over 65.

Age discrimination is discrimination against particular protected age classes. It is not protection against any discrimination made based on age. That's unfortunate, as there are plenty of hospitals that layoff employees just at or near the 60 year old mark.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[KGIII]

So they'll hire nine of them (but take three times as long) and push you out of your job to save money because the project lasts longer than a quarter? Hopefully you work for a better company than that. Then again, maybe you can relocate to India, keep your US salary, and be a senior dev or PM? Me? I'd look into contract work but I may be missing something.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[moeinvt]

Did you ask them why it was a problem? Are employers worried about your health, your learning ability or the degree to which your skills are up-to-date?

One of the considerations of any potential employer is healthcare costs. Even if they can't legally discriminate based on that consideration, they will be making a conscious appraisal of your perceived health and how it will relate to the total cost of employing you.
If you are a healthy, active, 40+ person, let the employers know about it. They cannot legally ask for that information, but that does not mean you are legally prohibited from offering it. List your exercise routine as hobbies. Ask about the quality of the bike paths and running trails in the area. Inquire about the fitness center on site or if they offer discount gym memberships as a benefit.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[david_thornley]

I found that getting my hair dyed worked like a charm. From how my interview-to-offer ratio changed, what was keeping me from being hired was white hair, not age per se.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[TheSync]

I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem.

In the US, that is a specifically actionable event under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. You could have sued all of them. Obviously these companies' HR people are doing a horrible job, competent HR people would tell all hiring managers never to discus someone's age, ESPECIALLY if you think they are over 40 and covered by ADEA.

Re:Age discrimination is obvious

[cthulhu11]

It's nearly impossible to prove.

Re:Ethics are for cows.

[Higaran]

If I ever meet you in real life, I'm going to punch you in the face. This shit is starting to get really old.

Direct experience

[choke]

I've worked with at least two employers where an indian (sorry, not intended to be racist but they were both indian), person from an agency who was converted to perm was put in place in a hiring position and then every single hire afterwards was indian, and exclusively from the contract agency that placed the individual.

I am aware that there are also incentives for these individuals, and that their relationships with the contracting firms are ongoing.

It's so obvious that I can't imagine it's not a known quantity.

It's not really racial discrimination, it's just a moderately biased business practice.

Re:Direct experience

[Anonymous Coward]

lol a bank named after a flag and a star based in michigan is like this.. Indian manager make it to the top of a department... now *all* (yes seriously all) incoming new hires in that department are indian. And that why the bank is failing...

useing contractors get's them around a lot of the

[Joe_Dragon]

useing contractors get's them around a lot of the wage laws. The contractors say we have us works at the same wage or lower working for us. That pay rate is much lower then what Disney pays and they don't give out free park passing and can say there workers are lucky to get free parking as they can change them $15-$20 a day.

Natural effects of a maturing field?

[ErichTheRed]

I really like working in IT - it's good to have a job where you're using your brain every day instead of just churning out reports or something similar. The major complaints I have are:
- Age discrimination -- I haven't been looking for work lately, but I'm sure getting more paranoid about keeping a job when I see stories of people who are basically unhireable after 40. I just crossed that magic threshhold and although I have tons of experience and a solid reputation behind me, I do worry about companies just not even bothering to interview me because of a stupid set of unfounded beliefs.
- Work visa program abuses -- I have absolutely no problem with companies using H-1B, L-1 or other visas to bring in super-intelligent people who are providing a key service to the company. I have a big problem with Tata, Infosys, Accenture, IBM, HP, etc. using them to bring in a cheap run-of-the-mill developer, DBA or sysadmin who could easily have been sourced locally if the company would pay reasonable rates.
- Clueless employers -- This isn't something easy to solve, but outside of Silicon Valley and extremely high-tech or enlightened companies, IT is considered a janitorial-level service. This is why the Tatas and Infosys's of the world are called in. Everywhere I've worked that has done this has had IT productivity slow to a crawl because of change management paperwork, dealing with absolutely clueless remote employees and other factors.

The only long term solution I see is a guild system...heaven forbid you call it a union in front of Libertarian IT workers. If we want a career that continues to pay off and be enjoyable to work in, education has to be standardized in at least the fundamental level, and a career progression needs to be put in place. We need to fund some lobbyists to give Congress the brown paper bags full of money they need to pass limits on work visa programs, and most importantly it needs to be done as a group. Doctors have the AMA, and it keeps their salaries high by limiting the number of medical school graduates and lobbying for favorable insurance rules. Musicians, actors and writers have their guilds that ensure they don't get screwed by studios and keep getting royalties for their work. I just don't see why it's taking so long for people to realize they have no power against any of these forces we're seeing. No one is going to win an age discrimination suit against a corporation and their well-funded legal team. It's nice that people are trying, but it will never happen. At most they'll get a small payout and be blackballed from working in the industry ever again.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[MightyMartian]

Without some sort of protection, how precisely would a union hope to survive?

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[BVis]

Without government support in the form of guaranteeing collective bargaining and the right to organize, unions would cease to exist. Think about it: How does a union form at a new workplace? Someone broaches the topic with their fellow employees.. and they would immediately be fired were there not laws in place to protect that attempt to organize. Sometimes they're immediately fired anyway, since the employer figures that any lawyer the ex-employee hires wouldn't stand a chance against the legal counsel the employer could hire.

Then, once the union forms, what's to keep the employer from ignoring the union or firing everyone in it? Nothing, unless there's a law preventing them from doing that.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[ErichTheRed]

This is precisely what a guild would have to focus on first. I don't know much about the lobbying process, but I do see that politicians are very well compensated by other sources of income than their legislative salaries. You don't see very many Congresspeople living simple lives. However wrong it is, it's time people admit that the only way to get something you want passed is to pay for it. Every other trade/industry group does this. I say form a guild, take up a massive collection, hire lobbyists and basically tell them "we want visa reform and worker protection laws, and here's $XXX million for your "re-election campaign"

You can't win the game if you don't play...and the IT employers are playing the game.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[war4peace]

I really like working in IT - it's good to have a job where you're using your brain every day instead of just churning out reports or something similar.

Ahem, I work in IT and I am churning out reports. I am discriminated by your post! I SUE YOU!!!

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[tnk1]

Presumably because they represent a workforce that the company needs in order to survive.

Fire one person, that's livable.

Deal without all of them, all at once. You're going to have executives jumping out windows.

I don't agree that government has zero role to play. Their job would be to make sure that there was no force or means used which are classically illegal (like fraud or breaking contracts) to cause the workers to give in.

It is harder for this to work for groups with already high unemployment and low skills, but as long as the guild organization both was moderate in its demands, and also offered a carrot (like ensuring that members were qualified), the IT workers as a group have a huge amount of power without bringing in the bureaucracy.

However, let's get a better plan than "Occupy Silicon Valley", please.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[tnk1]

I take it you have never run an IT business. If you lose all your employees, you can't just hire new ones and have it be okay. This is IT, not coal mining. Half these shops would shut down if most of their employees left.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[moeinvt]

I disagree. The union movement was not hatched in the halls of government. In fact, government was (and is) usually on the side of the businesses and has engaged in numerous bloody crackdowns on people attempting to organize and go on strike. The political left is fond of reminding us how unions fought for better working conditions, a 40 hour work week, etc. Then what happened? Government decided that it was government's job to guarantee these things. As a result, unions have withered and died. What's the point of keeping the union strong and paying dues if workers think Big Brother is going to protect them? By contrast, if the union is the only thing standing between a person and a hazardous job with miserable wages, they have every incentive to keep the union strong.

Back in the infancy of unions, what you're describing is exactly what happened. Not only would individuals be fired for attempting to organize their co-workers, companies would share a blacklist of such troublemakers preventing them from getting work anywhere. It took a lot of courage to be an organizer and the work had to be conducted largely in secret.

What's to prevent the company from ignoring the union and firing everyone? Reprisals by the workers. Sit-in strikes, blocking replacement workers and customers from accessing the business, organizing boycotts of the products and basically anything else that can be done to make the company's life miserable. It's necessary to make the pain of paying union wages and benefits much less than the pain of firing everyone. Even sabotage and property destruction might be on the table for pissed-off unemployed people. Also, do you notice how unions are typically for the skilled trades and are organized at an industry level vs. a company level? By doing this, you make it hard for a company to find a large pool of willing replacement labor with the same skills.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[BVis]

You don't have to have most of the employees leave. You publicly fire the organizers and 20% of all those you can identify as being involved in the union. The rest will fall in line.

After all, shoot one hostage and the others start cooperating...

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[MightyMartian]

So long as companies have an easy route to cheaper labor, I can't see how any union/professional association is going to make a difference. Unless laws give such groups teeth, whether that's through some sort of enforced collective bargaining process, or through certification requirements, all this IT union would do is stand outside the gates and watch replacement workers from India flowing in.

Mind you, the minute you do have a professional association, that does mean certifications, which means that a lot of self-taught workers (like myself) could be screwed pretty badly unless some sort of a grandfathering mechanism is put in place.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[BVis]

The trouble with that is that you would never be able to organize a national strike in this environment. Trying to get a whole country full of, say, bus drivers to cooperate is easier when you're England or France or Italy. With the USA, you can't get 3 of 4 people to agree that water is wet, so trying to get that many people to act collectively in the face of so much big-business-owned media-outlet FUD is a fools' errand.

The idea of a teachers' strike is laughable. Teachers already get blamed for a host of society's ills, and a national organization would get the same criticisms that local ones, only ten times as bad. A national strike would probably meet armed resistance, for crying out loud.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[BVis]

Back in the infancy of unions, what you're describing is exactly what happened. Not only would individuals be fired for attempting to organize their co-workers, companies would share a blacklist of such troublemakers preventing them from getting work anywhere.

Have you been following the efforts of Walmart workers to organize? Walmart closed a bunch of stores with identical "plumbing issues" explanations a while back.. and totally coincidentally those were the stores where organization efforts were strongest... They will literally cut their noses off to spite their faces rather than see their workers organize.

What's to prevent the company from ignoring the union and firing everyone? Reprisals by the workers.

Who will be immediately terminated and replaced inside of 2 days.. unless, of course, they immediately cease the behavior and agree to not repeat it in the future.

Sit-in strikes, blocking replacement workers and customers from accessing the business, organizing boycotts of the products and basically anything else that can be done to make the company's life miserable.

"Officer, these folks were terminated from this business and are now trespassing. Remove them from the property, please". End of protest. Boycotts work when there are alternatives; Walmart's business model includes running any competition out of business.. there are large swaths of the country that cannot buy things anywhere else than Walmart.

It's necessary to make the pain of paying union wages and benefits much less than the pain of firing everyone.

Walmart feels no pain firing anyone. They can replace them within hours. (Hell, I've seen them camp out outside unemployment offices and loudly, publicly offer people coming out of there jobs. If you turn down a job, any job, while you're collecting unemployment, you lose your benefits. Those folks have no choice but to take the job.) They would rather fire everyone and incur those costs than allow unions a foothold in their stores. They would rather close stores than allow that to happen, no matter how much it costs, because they know that if their stores were unionized (and thus protected by the NLRA) they'd be forced to negotiate with their workers over wages and benefits. Right now that negotiation looks like this:

"Hey, I don't think you're paying us enough"
"Easily fixed, you're fired."

Even sabotage and property destruction might be on the table for pissed-off unemployed people.

That sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

Also, do you notice how unions are typically for the skilled trades and are organized at an industry level vs. a company level? By doing this, you make it hard for a company to find a large pool of willing replacement labor with the same skills.

Yeah, ask the air traffic controllers about that, from their experience back in the 80s when they all got fired. Granted, those were government workers, but I don't think it's that different for private employers (probably even easier). I'd argue that it's the low-skill employees that need union protection the most, they're the most easily replaced.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[Shadow IT Ninja]

One of the major aspects of age discrimination, in all fields, is that seniority is a major component of how much you get paid. This differs from institution to institution but it can often be the case that you pay twice as much for someone in their fourties or fifties than someone right out of college for the same position. If management doesn't understand the skill sets needed for different IT jobs (and they often don't) then it is convenient to believe that younger people are better at IT for some reason.

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[tnk1]

That actually didn't happen with union organization before the government stepped in. You did get strikers who stayed on strike even when they lost their jobs or scabs were brought in.

And here I should also point out that there are enough well-off IT workers that a strike fund could fairly easily be raised. Certainly if miners are intelligent enough to figure out that they could force changes if they held out long enough, IT workers might as well.

What happened during union organization of mines and factories was that the government (or at least local government) sided with the mine owners. They then shot or dealt with organizers by throwing them in jail.

Certainly, that sort of thing would not be permissible even under a more libertarian view of unionization. The government would not be allowed to intervene on either side. They would be there to keep the peace and enforce legal contracts, freely entered into.

What the real problem is, from this perspective, is that most IT workers do not feel like they *need* to organize. For the most part, we're well paid, our job is not particularly dangerous, and even laid off workers find other jobs relatively readily.

So that does bring us to the question: Are we really as bad off as we think we are?

Re:Natural effects of a maturing field?

[dbIII]

Mind you, the minute you do have a professional association, that does mean certifications, which means that a lot of self-taught workers (like myself) could be screwed pretty badly unless some sort of a grandfathering mechanism is put in place.

That's why it should really be a union but just call it a "professional association", which is exactly the same thing 99% of the time but doesn't fall prey to all the propaganda about unions being all about satanic baby eating communists.

Very little known secret

[slmdmd]

H1b employees also get displaced by TCS/Infosys. Their official policy is 85% offshore and 15% on shore employees. The onshore 15% exists mostly for co-ordination. An H1b employee's CTC is always higher by at least by 1.5x times to locals. Recently my friend who is on h1b was forced to look for another h1b sponsor because the company A signed a partnership agreement with TCS. TCS provided 3 sysadmins for his replacement but they were not upto the mark as expected by A because TCS's sysadmin's won't know scripting. This H1b guy was forced to train the TCS guys(10 of them) in perl scripting. He did that too but then they quit TCS for better salary and work hours. A new PM from TCS would come onshore every 1.5 to 2 years and he would question why they are employing a h1b guy for 2x the cost of an L1B. In the mean time the h1b guy's extension process etc. would be delayed. He used to be in lot of stress, they would still be search for an replacement and apply for the extension on the last week/day of original h1b expiry and then too they will provide 1 yr extension. Frustrated he quit for another company B. The same story has started to repeat at company B now. There is another category of visas called L1A and L1B(intra company transfer visa) where prevailing wages doesn't have to be shown and qualifications are not a factor. Almost 95% of the TCS onsite guys had either L1A or L1B and they were getting 60k for a 110k job position and their taxes found some loop hole and they were hardly paying any taxes, that is around 4k. The h1b guy was getting 85k and his vendor the rest. CTC was around 140k to the company. L1A visa is also eligible for immediate green card processing under "multinational manager"(eb1) category. The master degree H1b guys on an average wait for 10 years(talking Indian), the bachelor degree holders wait for 20 or more years. L1A guys just 3 to 6 months. For a foreign student he has to become a scientist(Phd + papers etc) to qualify for the equivalent category as "multinational manager". Some "multinational managers" are just 10+3(diploma) qualified. Last year there were around 500 eb1 gc applications(search 485 inventory on google). This year already 13000 eb1 applications have been received. H1b guys are under the Eb2 and Eb3 green card quotas. So companies have figured out the L1 loop hole and bringing in the 15% onsite workers as managers. That explains the huge jump in eb1 category. So the foreign scientists/Phds are unhappy too. The L1As get green cards in 6 months and then are not counted as foreign workers, qualifying the company as less than 30% dependent on foreign workers. Thus they import for L1As. So I would say, the anger is misdirected towards H1b instead of L1x visas.

Re:Very little known secret

[slmdmd]

We bash h1bs and that too works out in favor of out sourcing companies. They quietly bring in more L1s. Also restricting H1B has opposite effect like IBM moving almost their entire workforce abroad.

Another related outsourcing loop hole - Govt. purchase contracts mandate that the service calls/support is done within USA. So, the calls are attended by onsite persons, then tickets are logged. Sub-tickets are created for the tickets and the subtickets are worked on from offshore. The parent ticket is worked in USA(practially 0) thus they are in compliance.

Re:Very little known secret

[dj245]

H1b employees also get displaced by TCS/Infosys. Their official policy is 85% offshore and 15% on shore employees. The onshore 15% exists mostly for co-ordination. An H1b employee's CTC is always higher by at least by 1.5x times to locals. Recently my friend who is on h1b was forced to look for another h1b sponsor because the company A signed a partnership agreement with TCS. TCS provided 3 sysadmins for his replacement but they were not upto the mark as expected by A because TCS's sysadmin's won't know scripting. This H1b guy was forced to train the TCS guys(10 of them) in perl scripting. He did that too but then they quit TCS for better salary and work hours. A new PM from TCS would come onshore every 1.5 to 2 years and he would question why they are employing a h1b guy for 2x the cost of an L1B. In the mean time the h1b guy's extension process etc. would be delayed. He used to be in lot of stress, they would still be search for an replacement and apply for the extension on the last week/day of original h1b expiry and then too they will provide 1 yr extension. Frustrated he quit for another company B. The same story has started to repeat at company B now. There is another category of visas called L1A and L1B(intra company transfer visa) where prevailing wages doesn't have to be shown and qualifications are not a factor. Almost 95% of the TCS onsite guys had either L1A or L1B and they were getting 60k for a 110k job position and their taxes found some loop hole and they were hardly paying any taxes, that is around 4k. The h1b guy was getting 85k and his vendor the rest. CTC was around 140k to the company. L1A visa is also eligible for immediate green card processing under "multinational manager"(eb1) category. The master degree H1b guys on an average wait for 10 years(talking Indian), the bachelor degree holders wait for 20 or more years. L1A guys just 3 to 6 months. For a foreign student he has to become a scientist(Phd + papers etc) to qualify for the equivalent category as "multinational manager". Some "multinational managers" are just 10+3(diploma) qualified. Last year there were around 500 eb1 gc applications(search 485 inventory on google). This year already 13000 eb1 applications have been received. H1b guys are under the Eb2 and Eb3 green card quotas. So companies have figured out the L1 loop hole and bringing in the 15% onsite workers as managers. That explains the huge jump in eb1 category. So the foreign scientists/Phds are unhappy too. The L1As get green cards in 6 months and then are not counted as foreign workers, qualifying the company as less than 30% dependent on foreign workers. Thus they import for L1As. So I would say, the anger is misdirected towards H1b instead of L1x visas.

Looks like an informative story but I couldn't get through it due to the lack of line breaks, excessive abbreviations, and poor formatting.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but when you write like this, it's awful difficult for others to follow.

Re:Very little known secret

[cthulhu11]

Glad I'm not the only one. I just can't tell WTF the poster was trying to say. CTC??? Best guess via the google is Cut The Check ? 10+3? 13? Huh?

high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT pay

[Joe_Dragon]

high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT pay

have a minwage of say 80-100K + COL for HB1's to stop them saying we can't find some for $35K in the bay area to work and 40+ hour week.

This is why we can't have nice things

[jcadam]

The concept behind the H1-B program sounds reasonable. Bring in highly skilled experts from overseas that we can't find here. However, since it's now been thoroughly demostrated that:

1) Employers can't be trusted to act ethically and honor both the letter and spirit of the law, and
2) The government has been steadfastly failing to monitor the program and enforce the rules

The entire program needs to be scrapped. No H1-Bs, period. We apparently can't handle it, so employers need to find the talent here, or do without (or, you know, invest in employee development/training again).

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[mrchaotica]

The concept behind the H1-B program sounds reasonable. Bring in highly skilled experts from overseas that we can't find here.

There's nothing whatsoever reasonable about the idea that with a population this large and (some of) the best universities in the world, that we somehow can't find -- or make -- plenty of "highly skilled experts" right here.

In other words, I agree with your conclusion, but your premise gave the government way more credit than it deserves.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[kackle]

I agree wholeheartedly. A system can't be abused if there is no system.

...And then copy and paste that concept in many other areas too please.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[war4peace]

You're looking at it incorrectly.
India is 3 times as large in terms of population. The people pool is simply larger, which means that make the "highly" in "highly skilled" high enough and there would be someone in India with better skills (on paper) than someone in the USA.

Mind you, that simple metric does not account for cultural clash, language barrier, etc. That's where the problem is. Effectiveness on the job is not only hard skills, but soft skills too. A person from India who is 10% better in hard skills or hands-on experience might overall be 30% worse when you account for soft skills (conversational, social, cultural affinity, etc).

Disclaimer: I am not from the USA, nor am I from India, but I work with people from both countries (any many others).

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[m00sh]

The concept behind the H1-B program sounds reasonable. Bring in highly skilled experts from overseas that we can't find here. However, since it's now been thoroughly demostrated that: 1) Employers can't be trusted to act ethically and honor both the letter and spirit of the law, and 2) The government has been steadfastly failing to monitor the program and enforce the rules The entire program needs to be scrapped. No H1-Bs, period. We apparently can't handle it, so employers need to find the talent here, or do without (or, you know, invest in employee development/training again).

No, you're mistaken.

The intent of H1B is to find skilled labor that no LOCAL American can fill.

The highly skilled expert or a Nobel prize winning scientist comes under EB1 which is directly green card.

That's why H1B is tied to a specific job at a specific location. There is a region based minimum salary requirement so that salary is not the factor that determines if no local can fill it.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Edgester]

I propose that we keep the H1-B's with one change...let the workers switch companies and stay in the U.S (I.e. green card). That would allow the H1-B's to have more bargaining power and even the scales somewhat.

A long time

[AndyKron]

Ten years later and still fighting in court...

Re:White males can't be discriminated

[Anonymous Coward]

That is entirely untrue. If your age, race, or gender negatively affect your ability to get employment that is illegal. You don't have to be a minority group to be subject to discrimination.

Consulting Companies Serve Similar Purpose

[ranton]

I have worked for a consulting company as a full time employee in the past, and that relationship was very similar to a union. Our business development department set the rates we charged clients, and the partners determined my pay purely based on my own performance.

IT Unions could work if they functioned essentially as a consulting company. Sometimes they may place a "contractor" with an employer for a decade or more, but the contracting company would handle all negotiations with the employer. These "unions" wouldn't ever strike, but they could easily just pull their workers out and place them at a different employer if negotiations don't pan out.

The IT industry may already be moving in this direction anyway.

Re:How do you prove intent?

[oh_my_080980980]

The part where the employee shows up on an H1B Visas and you train that person to do your job....

Unionizing is never the answer in the long term

[nomad63]

And the battle has to start somewhere. If it is a handful of lawsuits, let it be. I am sure more will come, once people start to hear these and by a miracle they get some foothold and succeed. And you spoke just like a union shill... Unionizing, creates union fat-cats in the long run, as if it looks like they are doing some good at the beginning. Once things improve a little, they start lining their pockets, doing nothing, off the backs of the union members, cripple economies, keep incompetent workers in place. Just look at California State Teachers union and CA state employees union. abysmal performance for abysmal pay in both, yet the union bosses drive Mercedes cars and fly first class, get free seats to any major sporting or performance event. I don't want to see it in the IT environment.

This is going to sound awful

[Anonymous Coward]

but it is the true. Hiring programmers now a days is full of fraud. People tailor their resumes to the job requirements. They don't posses the skills they say they do. They have other people who do their phone interviews for them. And many of them when they are on the job have to depend on others to help them.

Don't depend on the resumes they are fraud especially the ones that meet your requirements exactly. Face to face interview everyone. Technical interview those you are interested in. Know that the second interviewee from the same company will already know the questions because that's how they roll.

Re:This is going to sound awful

[__aaclcg7560]

Otherwise known as the signal-to-noise ratio in recruiting. Of course, not every resume submitted for a position will match the requirements. If the economy cratered like it did after the Great Recession with seven applicant for every position (a "normal" economy has two applicants for every job opening), a recruiter will get a flood of unsuitable resumes. Not all of it is fraud. Most are from people who are desperate to get a job and apply for everything in sight.

Re:how will you verify?

[DroolTwist]

I did some contracting for a company that wanted a certain individual because he had what the CEO wanted regarding their project. He wrote the job description so exact, that there was no chance of anyone else having the exact qualifications he was looking for. He did post it like he was supposed to, and after no responses was able to get his H1B hire from India. I'm not sure about the changing jobs thing though, he worked for roughly a year then went to another job although I didn't have, nor did I want to know, the details behind it.

Re:how will you verify?

[nobuddy]

Amazingly simple solution: the H1b they bring in has to meet the same qualifications they listed. If they are willing to accept a lesser candidate, they have to re-list and go through their US applicants first with the lowered requirements before they can hire the H1b.

Re: how will you verify?

[TWX]

Basically it's not possible to audit to verify that they actually hired the person with the qualifications that they demanded of American workers when there no mandates for professional association to work in the field. Even vendor-accredited certifications (Microsoft, Cisco, etc) don't mean much if the published qualifications do not call for them, nor is there a requirement to have a post-secondary degree as there is no licensing model requiring it.

Right now, IT is a black-hole in that sense. Anyone can claim to work IT, there are no rules regarding who qualifies to work IT, and formal education and certification are not only not always necessary, sometimes they are not valued. Because of this it is very easy to skirt having any sort of outside hard qualifications in a job posting while putting inane crap in to disqualify people solely to remove them from contention regardless of the ability to actually do the job.

Re:how will you verify?

[Anonymous Coward]

They never put the pay in the listings. It is always "Pay: N/A" or "Pay: DOE"

I was called by a recruiter recently on one. I had all the experience they wanted, all the Must Haves, and all the Would like to haves.

Me: So what is the pay range that they are offering?
Recruiter: That is Dependent on experience.
Me: You know as well as I do that they will not list a position with out budget approval. As such they must know what they are willing to pay and have a pay range they are looking in. Just ball park it for me.
Recruiter: Well, for the right person it is wide open. What are you currently making?
Me: (Adding %50 to my pay to make sure it is worth my time to discuss) $250,000 a year. As you can see from my qualifications I am an exact match so if it is wide open they should not have a problem discussing what I can bring to the company.
Recruiter: Oh, they are no where near that number. Sorry.
Me: Well let me know how much they are looking to pay and I may be able to direct you to a candidate that is in that range. He will not have all the stuff they want.
Recruiter: They are only looking for someone in the $50,000 to $60,000 a year range.
Me: You are not going to find anyone with 20 years experience and expert level skills in the things listed at that rate. I know someone who has 2 years experience as an L1 and is looking in that range.
Recruiter: Never mind....CLICK.

Im sure they found an H1B or used it to justify an H1B.

Re:Ethics are for cows.

[tnk1]

I don't know. It's pretty harmless. It's about as funny as Dane Cook, and probably twice as original.

Re:White males can't be discriminated

[war4peace]

...in theory.

Re:White males can't be discriminated

[PRMan]

Religion too. If they don't hire you because you are a Christian (is Christian still 50%+ in America?), it's still discrimination.

Re:high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT p

[chilenexus]

What do you think of the idea of mandating that workers on H1B must be paid at least 3% higher salary than domestic workers - just to offset things affiliated with relocation costs. This would get rid of the motivation to import foreigners for no other reason than finding someone that will work for less, and could motivate the companies to invest in training the employees they have in the skills they need.

discrimination happens

[randalware]

I have been discriminated against over
        age 45+
        single parenting single fathers get no respect
        criminal record I was once charged with a felony (over charged to make me plead to a lesser charge without trial)
                                                                                                                                                                  ( not going to share the details, but minor shit and NOT work related)
        haircut wasn't fashionable, too long
        beard had short hair & beard was nicely trimmed
        operating system windows shop wouldn't hire someone that thought windows was a poor data center choice. ( job was a SAN manager)
        vehicle I ride motorcycle to work (clean bike, non-harley, no leathers, no tattoos) & my other vehicle is a pickup (clean, stock equipment)
        salary I have always been reasonable, but local wage averages are not realistic if you have to hunt regional & national for personnel

Shit happens, of all the above. My criminal record causes me the most grief, because of it's just a check box to HR. check the box no job.
                              And I don't lie about anything important.

Re:discrimination happens

[jittles]

Have you tried having that record sealed or expunged? It'll cost you a few thousand dollars but it'll pay off in the long run.

Re:discrimination happens

[randalware]

I was working in environments that could and would use lie detector tests on the sysadmins.
You answer the questions without lawyer weasel words.

In the other jobs, I just mark the "charged" question N/A.

Never feed the lawyers

Re:how will you verify?

[luis_a_espinal]

"prove you have done a qualified job search" just how do you think this will work? You've seen the ads "Seeking experienced Scala developer with 15 years experience, Must know CICS, JCL, DOS/360, C, Java, Python, Perl, FORTRAN, PL/I, SNOBOL, LISP. PhD preferred. Starting pay depending on qualifications, 50-60k/annually"

Funny thing, nobody responds, and they file the certification "Unable to locate qualified person".

And you can't go "person actually hired must match requisition", because that really doesn't happen for anyone, imported or not. Realistically, employers publish an ad that is a "wish list", not a "must have", and then they look for the maximal fit between "wish list" and "resume" to call for an interview, where they refine the "what I really need" vs "what you have to offer".

And that is the problem that needs fixing. Whoever they get via H1B must match those qualifications (and this should/must be verifiable by law). That is, H1B hires must match very specific openings, down to the T (and that is what is not being verified nowadays.)

Except for the contractors.

[sethstorm]

I currently work at a company where about 30% of our IT staff is contractors, and it works out great

Unless you're a contractor, where you're considered a second-tier person that has to please two masters.

Re:Except for the contractors.

[ranton]

I currently work at a company where about 30% of our IT staff is contractors, and it works out great

Unless you're a contractor, where you're considered a second-tier person that has to please two masters.

I come from a consulting background, and both contractors and FTEs can be considered second-tier based on their capabilities. A skilled contractor is never treated as a second-tier person (not by any company that will keep them that is). In my company for instance we have two contractors who are highly fought over resources by our project managers.

And everyone without their head up their ass knows they always have multiple masters, regardless of how far up the food chain they are. Ask the CEO of any major company how many people they feel they need to answer to, and I'm sure it would be more than one.

Re:Except for the contractors.

[sethstorm]

...both contractors and FTEs can be considered second-tier based on their capabilities

Except that FTE's have the full protections and benefits of the main entity employing them, with the typical ability to plan for years at a time. On the other hand, contractors typically do not receive the full protections and benefits of FTE's - as the main purposes of contract/agency arrangements are to dodge those costs and view the covered individuals as a problem.

And everyone without their head up their ass knows they always have multiple masters, regardless of how far up the food chain they are.

Typically, the average FTE answers to internal/external entities to the mission, vision, and direction of the company itself - a single master. The contractor/agency worker has multiple sets - the agency and the client(s) - that do not always coincide with one another.

A skilled contractor is never treated as a second-tier person. In my company for instance we have two contractors who are highly fought over resources by our project managers.

Such individuals understand their value and have the rare option to not go as a regular entity. For most people, they're lucky if they have the former.

Want to make that route more attractive? Make it a strict option to do anything less than FTE, with no penalty or skill restriction.

The problems of a contractor.

[sethstorm]

They did replace low skill positions (like computer operators) because they gained economies of scale (one operator could work on 12 companies). But they did not replace programmers or analysts.

Except that such individuals are usually treated with disrespect for being a contractor.

It's not great to dehumanize.

[sethstorm]

And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.

Unless you're the resource, which experiences the worst of the benefit-dodging and the least stability of work with the expectations of a regular FTE.

It only shows the need for agency labor, much less Infosys types, to DIAF and to be nuked from orbit.

Before I join...

[Dareth]

Before I join... I need to know what the suggest will be the official text editor of the IT Union.

Re:high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT p

[AuMatar]

Not a flat minimum wage, a relative one. AN H1B worker must have a salary equal inside the total compensation range of the top 10% of domestic workers- not just in category, but in the company. So you can get one, but you're going to pay for them. This will allow companies to hire high talent individuals from overseas while not creating an advantage for them doing so.

Jackson Lewis/Mgmt Associates != IT

[sethstorm]

You don't have to have most of the employees leave. You publicly fire the organizers and 20% of all those you can identify as being involved in the union. The rest will fall in line.

That in turn shows the weakness of the "secret" ballot for such elections - it's effectively "secret only if no".

In addition, that would trigger an exodus of the remaining good help. The best conclusion would result in the company gaining a "employer of last resort" reputation amongst the IT community while the worst conclusion would end the company by sheer incompetence.

Re: how will you verify?

[sjames]

However, when the ad is for 5 years experience in 3 year old technology, it shouldn't be that hard to nail them to the wall if they hire an H1-B for the position since he provably doesn't meet that requirement.

Re:how will you verify?

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Amazingly simple solution: the H1b they bring in has to meet the same qualifications they listed. If they are willing to accept a lesser candidate, they have to re-list and go through their US applicants first with the lowered requirements before they can hire the H1b.

You've apparently not been paying attention to just how the H1B's are hired. The wonderful presention in 2007 about how to hire a cheap H1B instead of an expensive American revealed a number of fascinating tricks, all still in use, used to avoid hiring expensive Americans.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Nope; kill off all guest worker programs

[WindBourne]

Seriously, kill ALL guest worker programs. Foreign companies representing foreign gov, and nations, will ALLWAYS cheat on these. Instead, we need change green card programs in which we cut the number of ppl from each nation in half, and then apply that total count to bringing in ppl on needed skills as green card. By bringing them here, most will stay and keep the skills going. In addition, for anybody brought on needed skills, they need to be paid at least average for that position and location.

Hillary's big Indian donors

[hidflect]

Madame Clinton has received millions of dollars in "donations" as well as being wined and dined by Tata and Infosys amongst others so be very, very careful who you vote for next election or you may find yourself on 2 weeks notice creating the handover manual for the grinning replacement sitting by your side.

• http://townhall.com/tipsheet/aaronbandler/2015/06/15/labor-department-to-investigate-clinton-allies-for-abuse-of-visa-system-n2012854
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1922368/posts
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4836695
• http://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/07/30/clinton-woos-outsourcers-workers-fear

Re:Hillary's big Indian donors

[Zeekort]

No surprise there. After all she's already proven to NOT be friendly to IT by using her own e-mail server. Even if you put all the legal implications aside with the confidential information, she was working for an organization (the government) and gave their IT dept the finger when she decided to use her own e-mail server.

As a network admin who just migrated the organization I work for to a new e-mail server (not the government, but it doesn't have to be), I take it personally. How can I NOT take it personally when the action she took basically says MY work is meaningless? This also extends to everything else I work on as well. IT workers work very hard to keep existing systems up and running and the developers work very hard on moving things forward. How can we all NOT be offended by that.

Even if you're not an IT worker, how can you NOT be questioning her authenticity when she breaks the rules and somehow isn't held accountable for it?

Also, most people in IT I know, live paycheck to paycheck and they aren't maintaining that middle-class life style we saw our parents have or talk about. How the hell can somebody who has no respect for IT help us? They can't.

Factory workers, minors, teachers, and hell even fast food employees asking "do you want fries with that" get more respect from Clinton than IT people do. For me, Bernie Sanders all the way. He was one of 10 senators that asked for a formal investigation into H1-Bs taking IT jobs away from Americans.

You still need to organize

[rsilvergun]

Otherwise you'll have no voting block, and without a voting block you have no power. Like it or not we're a two party system. You need something to overcome social issue voters if you're going to put the economy back on the table.

Re: how will you verify?

[HornWumpus]

That's just a basic character check.

Will you come in and lie to my face?

Will you be able to lie to the clients face?

Alternatively think of it as '5 years experience bullshitting, while learning fast'.

Re:high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT p

[pupsocket]

These visas are for experts of extraordinary skill, training, and achievement, people who are expensive even when you can find them and recruit them.

The one way that to prove no United States citizens were available for the job: pay twice the prevailing wage. If businesses are willing to do that, then they are bringing in someone they need.

There shoud be a $250,000 salary minimum against a 200%-of-prevailing-wage minimum.

Otherwise, they are separating Americans into spoiled consumers and unemployed workers. It doesn't work, because workers and consumers operate out of the same economic households.

Simple solution

[NewYork]

Tax Corporate Revenues, Not Profits;

From wikipedia

[dbIII]

Taiwan (Listeni/tawn/; Chinese: or ; pinyin: Táiwn; see below), officially the Republic of China

Re:Ethics are for cows.

[goose-incarnated]

I don't know. It's pretty harmless. It's about as funny as Dane Cook, and probably twice as original.

You are seriously overestimating Dane Cook's originality.

Happened to me

[Stubbyfingers]

I applied at a company advertising for programmers at the State Unemployment Office--at a rate of $10/hr. I thought it was ridiculously low, but I was jobless at the time, and the place was less than a mile from my house in a small (grungy) industrial park, so I said, WTH.

I applied. Heard nothing. Did some digging to find a phone number a few days latter to "Follow up" and was summarily dismissed with "We're not hiring any Americans".

I relayed my "interview" outcome to the Unemployment office and was told They already KNEW! They just weren't allowed to use resources to deal with the problem. Said to wait to complain until we had a Democrat in the Governor's and State Attorney General's office.