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.
#BernOrBust
I am shamed that Bernie would endorse Clinton, as a NH resident, I feel even worse we have to host the event he is going to endorse her in - what CNN and NPR would at this point consider already done with a bow tied around it.
Clinton is just as wrong as Trump.
#BernOrBust
I am a lifelong Democrat and it is Hillary's stance on the H-1B that will prevent me from voting for her. Seriously, she will not get my vote over this one issue. I even donated cash 8 times to President Obama's 2008 campaign but I will neither vote for her nor donate to her campaign over this one issue.
And yet in the entire thread there is not a single mention of the only non-psychopath who will be on all fifty state ballots. It's heartbreaking to see the USA be this stubborn.
Has nothing to do with being stubborn. Has to do with the setup of our voting system. First past the post voting and gerrymandering pretty much ensures a two party system. The reasons why are complicated but the end result is that it is nearly impossible for a third party to make significant headway.
That said, I presume you are referring to Gary Johnson. He supports regressive taxation policies that generally will hurt the poor and benefit the rich (flat consumption taxes). He wants to reduce taxes but has no plan I've seen for how he proposes to get Congress to authorize a reduction in Medicare, Social Security and our Military which account for roughly 3/4 of the federal budget. He's opposed to any budget that would require borrowing money which is both A) impossible as a practical matter and B) stupid policy based in ideology rather than evidence. Not policy positions I consider sensible and/or realistic. Basically this guy wants policies that would almost certainly cause severe economic harm in the short term and that wouldn't have a prayer of getting through Congress in any case. Not that it matters since he hasn't got a prayer of getting elected.
And frankly I don't believe ANYONE who runs for president is anything other than a power hungry, self absorbed, narcissist and I don't trust them at all. Nobody who is sane or decent would want that job and anyone who gets it will almost inevitably be corrupted by the process of getting it.
I'm of a similar age, and with a similar skillset. I've been replaced by H1B workers - it took two do do my job.
Congratulations on your good luck, and I hope it holds out.
People on the left believe there should be more legal immigration, instead of relying on immigrants who have little ability to fight for their rights, like illegal immigrants who basically have no rights and H1B who can be shipped back to pressing for their rights.
Fellow Canadian here.
Just because he "addresses" real concerns doesn't mean his "solutions" won't make things worse then the status quo.
It's heartbreaking that this is news. I also don't like it, and I also don't have a plan to fix it, but you don't see me quoted in the news.
The fix is rather simple really. Minimum salary for H1-B visas is $100k/yr. The way it is now, companies have to pay a "prevailing wage" that is very easy to manipulate. Just using a blanket, but high wage simplifies the process and makes it harder to cheat.
I admit, the $100k number I chose is rather arbitrary. I suppose a more precise statistical method could be used (e.g. poverty threshold x4, or greater than 90% of individual income). Additionally, there should be adjustment factors based on location (California and New York must pay more).
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".