Slashdot Mirror
Clinton: It's 'Heartbreaking' When IT Workers Must Train H-1B Replacements (computerworld.com)
dcblogs writes: Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, on Monday criticized the replacement of U.S. IT workers with foreign labor but stopped short of offering a plan to fix it. In a videotaped interview with Vox, Clinton appears empathetic and sympathetic to IT workers who have trained their foreign replacements as a condition of severance. She mentioned IT layoffs at Disney, specifically. "The many stories of people training their replacements from some foreign country are heartbreaking, and it is obviously a cost-cutting measure to be able to pay people less than what you would pay an American worker," said Clinton in the interview. Keith Barrett, a former IT worker Disney who was among those replaced by contractors, was not happy with Clinton's comments."She starts off as if she understands the problem, but then dismisses it as collateral damage not of significant volume to address, and blends in the problem of illegal immigrant labor, which is mostly working in unskilled labor," said Barrett.
Well, this time the State Department Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did the investigation, not Republicans, and they did find a few damn things.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/
You do realize 56% of Americans think she should have been charged?
Is that polling of opinions based on media reports or the law? According to the media reports, Hillary is guilty as sin. According to law enforcement officials, there isn't enough evidence for a successful criminal case.
General Patreus gave his mistress 8 highly classified books with the full intention that she read them, and use them as a basis for writing a book (about him). The Justice Department called the information in those "exceptionally grave damage", and was looking at charging him under the Espionage Act. Additionally he lied to the FBI during the investigation (a grave offense in and of itself). Instead of going after him they negotiated that down to $100,000 fine and two years probation, and separately he was drummed out of the military. The final charge was "mishandling classified material"...
So not only was his offense of far larger scale, but it was deliberately giving someone classified material for personal gain, a deliberate offense rather than one of lack of care. Even the most hyperbolic accusations of Hillary Clinton come nowhere near that.
You can argue that someone with a lesser position than Secretary Clinton might have been disciplined for this, but both the FBI and Justice Department have said that there is not enough evidence for charging under one statue that requires malice, or another that has only ever been used in treason cases.
What does smack of a two-tiered system is that both her predecessors in that office, and other contemporary cabinet members, had similar email setups and no-one is talking about trying to prosecute them. Nor are we talking about bringing charges in the Bush email scandal, where the law was clearly violated and 22 million governmental records were lost... including a number that were subpoenaed in investigations of the Bush White House. If we are going to hold people to this standard, why are we not spending $20 million dollars (estimated FBI costs of Clinton probe) investigating those?
You mean a group of employees banding together to get better working conditions? When has that ever worked </sarcasm>
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Email or call her campaign. Tell them your name, that you donated 8 times to Obama, and you're not voting for her over this issue. They have giant tracking systems for public opinion. If all of /. did that, you'd see her take an anti H1B position very soon. After all, that's the upside to a focus-group driven candidate.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The statutes in question do NOT require intent, only gross negligence. That is the way congress originally wrote them, with the intent of being able to prosecute under this slightly lower burden of proof.