Slashdot Mirror
New Book Sold Out Offers a Look At the H-1B Debate
theodp writes: The New York Post has published an excerpt from
Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires and Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best and Brightest Workers, a new book on the H-1B debate from conservative syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and programmer-turned-attorney John Miano. "Sold Out," notes a Computerworld review, "clearly has a point a view about the program (crapweasels, for instance), but it backs up its assertions and gives H-1B supporters a high threshold to cross. A serious argument in defense of the visa program requires explaining how America gains when a U.S. worker is replaced by a foreign visa holder hired to do the exact same job. If you are going to justify the H-1B program, then you have to defend firms that force their employees (no severance otherwise) to train their replacements. That may be the point here. This book lays bare the replacement process, the broad use of the H-1B visa by the IT offshore outsourcing industry, and the lobbying effort in Washington to minimalize the visa's use in displacing U.S. workers." With anecdotes like "how Microsoft wined and dined the Bush administration to expand the foreign worker supply through administrative fiat to circumvent public disclosure and congressional debate," the book seeks out a broader audience than just those already familiar with the H-1B issue.
Won't someone think of the billionaires and politicians?
Yes because when I am putting forth a position I ALWAYS make sure to argue against myself.
Seriously where did people get the idea that opinion pieces need to be objective or balanced?
Seriously where did people get the idea that opinion pieces need to be objective or balanced?
During my K-12 education, in a public school no less, I was taught to do something like this when writing a persuasive essay. You would attempt to consider some of the best counterarguments to your own position and then address those in your essay and attempt to explain why your position is still the best option.
Somewhere along the way it seems that we've gotten away from that and now it's just, "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot." If I were to opine on why this change has come about, I would point to the rise of things like Fox News and MSNBC and the self-segregation based on political philosophy that they represent.
Renting cheap apartments, maybe buy a car. Of course, that means rent goes up, and used car prices.
One culturally-related element of this is that most of the Indians I know in the US, highly value family and education (and properly-prepared food, incidentally). As such, I suspect many H1-B parents are instinctively motivated to apply continuous pressure to the local schools to ensure the curriculum is rigorous and the environment is conducive to learning.
And who knows? The school lunches might improve too.
AC here for reasons. The problem isn't H1Bs coming over to take jobs that can't be filled. The problem is H1Bs coming over to displace entire IT departments that are already fully staffed.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/southern-california-edison-it-workers-beyond-furious-over-h-1b-replacements.html - fair example.
Either you're naive to the issue or you're schilling for the other side. Hopefully the first thing.
For the several positions I recruited for, I could not get a single qualified resume. We were paying competitive market rates, with excellent benefits, but, I did not have much luck hiring any good candidates in the Silicon Valley.
Then by definition you were not paying competitive rates. If you were, you wouldn't have had any trouble poaching the available talent from another organization or paying to bring them in from outside the area. The H1-B program is not for local worker shortages "No good candidates in Silicon Valley", it's for NATIONAL shortages as in "No qualified workers in the United States". If you saying that are no qualified embedded programmers in the US with the skillset you need, then I'm going to want so extraordinary levels of proof because that seems highly unlikely.
Since many of us work in IT, the widespread, unchecked abuse of the H1B program has had an overwhelming negative effect on many /.ers, so it's no surprise that it would be reported on frequently. I find it strange that you'd complain about the number of posts on the topic, but not the rampant fucking over of IT workers.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Problem is that's ALL they do. But we're to blame too. FTFA:
Yes, companies hire and fire workers all the time. But only in the case of H-1B and related foreign guest worker programs are American corporations and offshore outsourcing rackets explicitly aided and abetted by the US government- and routinely in violation of the basic principles of these programs. With no well-financed, high-powered interest group in Washington, DC, to advocate on their behalf, American technology workers have endured this systemic displacement and humiliation for at least two decades.
Should have listened when some of us were calling for unionization to help restore some semblance of a balance of power.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They are out there, you just don't want to pay for them. The are two answers to your problem that would be much better than hiring H1B:
1. Increase the offered pay until you get the qualified people you need. This is the best option when you don't have time for training and development.
2. Pick the best of those your now rejecting and train them. Many of them would be willing to work for below market rates while in training. Of course some of these will not work out but you will find some real gems as well.
After you have done this then H1B may be appropriate for the the really rare cases it was intended for.
OK, I'm pretty left leaning, but unfortunately the conservatives appear to be the only ones attacking this issue at all. I think that's just because it doesn't affect "average people" yet, but it's creeping that way slowly.
I posted a piece the other day about Cengage Learning kicking out their entire IT department to Cognizant and forcing their "unskilled, unqualified" staff to train their H-1B replacements. Here's the deal -- nothing is going to get done until some of us become "beltway crapweasels" and buy favorable legislation through a professional organization. Not a union, an AMA-style guild dedicated to making sure salaries stay reasonably high and employment remains stable. Every single one of these Zuckerberg "everyone can code" initiatives or pushes to increase the visa cap is designed to get what these companies want - cheap labor.
I walk the employee-manager line in a "lead" role, so I have to hire staff as well as do actual work. (I'm a pretty well-seasoned systems integration guy with a solid reputation, if that matters.) I'm not entirely deaf to the "we can't find talent" argument, but I do think it's overblown. Even if you're not looking for a drop-in replacement for someone who left, and I'm not, there are some pretty big gaps in knowledge. Nothing is insurmountable given the right attitude and background, but I've seen lots of padded resumes and people who call themselves "expert level" without any justification for that label. It makes the hiring process frustrating because you have to wade through the obvious liars, then phone-screen the people who might be somewhat close, and then still interview a bunch of duds.
Being "experienced," I don't like the trend of entry level IT and dev jobs going away, because that kills your talent pipeline. I like the idea of a professional organization for the following reasons:
- If done right, it could ensure a basic vendor-agnostic, technology-agnostic fundamental education for members. No more "web architects" who can only stich together node.js snippets they saw on Stack Overflow or MCSEs who can't troubleshoot basic TCP connectivity.
- Gives members a career progression while still allowing them to be individuals -- makes the Libertarian crowd happy.
- Unlike a union, each member would be their own person rather than bargaining collectively.
- Gives employers a consistent experience and recourse in the case of malpractice -- professionals would need to be responsible for their work, which is sorely lacking today.
- Allows members to buy favorable legislation via lobbyists. I can't imagine Congressmen would turn down millions in campaign donations in exchange for a few limits on the H-1B program.
- Provides a pipeline of newbies to train as apprentices so companies aren't reliant on these offshoring firms for basic work in the future.
I just don't know how bad it's going to get before people wake up and realize they're not going to become billionaires just because they let them get away with things like this.
Should have listened when some of us were calling for unionization to help restore some semblance of a balance of power.
No thanks. Unions only advocate on their own behalfs. Unions are bad for the tech industry.
I don't need a union to take money out of my paycheck under the cover of "mandatory union dues". In normal language, that's called theft, or racketeering.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.