Slashdot Mirror
Issa Bill Would Kill A Big H-1B Loophole (computerworld.com)
ErichTheRed writes: This isn't perfect, but it is the first attempt I've seen at removing the "body shop" loophole in the H-1B visa system. A bill has been introduced in Congress that would raise the minimum wage for an H-1B holder from $60K to $100K, and place limits on the body shop companies that employ mostly H-1B holders in a pass-through arrangement. Whether it's enough to stop the direct replacement of workers, or whether it will just accelerate offshoring, remains to be seen. But, I think removing the most blatant and most abused loopholes in the rules is a good start. "The high-skilled visa program is critical to ensuring American companies can attract and retain the world's best talent," said Issa in a statement. "Unfortunately, in recent years, this important program has become abused and exploited as a loophole for companies to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas."
I can only hope that our voices are STARTING to be heard and taken seriously.
I can't compete with an h1b. I have more experience, I know silicon valley quite well, I have good contacts and can get things done; but I'm 'an expensive american' because I have US healthcare to pay and US rents to pay, etc. and I'm not willing to have 5 other room mates and live-for-work just to stay employed.
we need a break from this heat wave. many of us who need work cannot get it. companies stopped caring about us and refuse to even consider us. we badly need relief from this or we'll find more of us slipping into the poorest underclass and that's just an absurdity. intelligent and capable thinkers and builders unable to get work because our corp overlords sold us all out.
I'll believe in the relief when I see it. so far, though, its killing many of us. in some ways, almost literally (I may lose my home soon, that's how bad it can get).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Most americans were actually against removing the trade barriers that allowed labor market shopping of the kind you imply. The agreements were railroaded through anyway.
Most Americans would actually support reintroduction of tariff and excise costs on foriegn goods and services, even though this will increase domestic product cost.
The government already does cost-of-living adjustments for government employees. How hard is that to apply to H1-B? Here in Detroit, $60K probably isn't a bad minimum for H1-B workers, but it's crazy low in the San Francisco Bay. Why not tie the minimum to the region?
Can you provide some details as to why this would happen and how?
Pretty simple really. Our shop isn't going to fork out 100K/year for US talent when off-shore talent is about 1/2 the cost...
Karma: Bad
and in some time afterwards, when they realize that we have infrastructure that pretty much WORKS and they do not, they'll be back.
yeah, its cheap in india. when the electricity works. and when the workers actually DO real quality work.
let them go to india and china. once they realize that cost savings is not all there is, they'll be back.
perhaps they need to truly learn the value of having us, the US born workers who know this country and how to get things done, be in their employ.
I hope more companies do 100% offshoring work.
they will learn that its not all roses.
I think we need to experience more pain (damn) in order for us to get back what we all lost. and we ALL did lose; because if it did not happen to you yet, it will; and it most certainly is happening to people you know.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Your example is a perfect example for unintended consequences of each and every government's decision.
I can give one more example. There may be some bona-fide less desirable locations with low wages, that do have difficulty attracting qualified personel. This will be a burden for some organization in the midland of America trying to hire a skilled worker.
That being said, every law will have consequences, the outcomes that the politicians would not want to think about it. Here are the few: the limit of $100K does not appear to be indexed to inflation. Which means that in a decade the new limit of $100K will become what is now $50K.
As others already mentioned, some jobs a highly telecommutable. IT, accounting, calling centers are frequent examples, but there are many more. Because of never ending increases in taxes (local property taxes), workers demand 2-3% annual raise, annually compounding corporate costs. Basically, because of the increasing taxation and now mandatory health tax increase (wait for 2017 enrollment period), more companies will be looking for ways to cut the costs and will outsource the jobs.
Even president Trump with his promises will not be quick to help.
Finally, US will become less desirable destination to study. Which is a good thing, of course, because it will help to prick current US study cost bubble, as less foreigners (paying full price) will come to study to the USA.
All in all, increase is probably a good thing. However the blowback will be very different from what people expect.
Just make two simple reforms:
*) H1B visas convert to Green Cards after two years.
*) Limit them to no more than 5% of the workforce for any work site.
I don't think we need a visa system, either. you think we're UNDER POPULATED here in the US? maybe in the flyover states we are, but in the tech area hubs we are overcrowded in a way that is not beneficial to anyone but the corps, who prey on us like vultures.
when we have locals who can't get or keep a job and you have 90% indians and chinese walking around in google, intel, cisco, facebook, twitter, etc - there is something really wrong, here. locals can't get work and we import people who don't really understand our culture and actively avoid being part of it, in fact.
we have no right to hand out jobs to non-citizens when citizens are going hungry, begging to be hired. yes, its true, I speak from personal experience here.
do we need more citizens? really? why would you think we need more people here? a lot of the world is overcrowded. are we supposed to be the world's solution by letting everyone come work and live here?
I was dinged on some of my previous posts when people didn't understand what my beef was. let me be clear; most countries give preference to their citizens, first. for some reason, we do not and I think that's quite unfair. a US person can not go to india and just get a job. you just can't. but indians can come here and get jobs no problem. does that sound equal, to you? why do we have to take everyone in? we can't even feed ourselves, as a whole nation. we are not in any condition to open our doors and let more and more people in. and especially not 'guest workers'. again, we don't have those rights in other countries. I can't just go to places in europe or asia and find a job, even at pay lower than locals. there are laws that stop them from hiring non-citizens. but the US does not do that, we let anyone in and give them first chance over jobs before people who spent 50+ years investing in this country.
most software and hardware jobs are not rocket science. we don't need 'the best and brightest in the world' to patch bugs and write for-loops. most of IT work is not genius-level stuff. and its clear when you walk around the hallways at places like the ones I mentioned that the people there are definitely not the brightest ones findable. they are average guys and girls, doing an average job. I can do that, too, but I can't get work because the companies have given up hiring locals and look to hire only h1b's. for even the simple software jobs, people like me can't get a company to hire them. and we all know why, too.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yeah.... But half of my department are h1b or some sort of opt/ept graduates, so this would fuckin kill my startup. No way can I pay 100K to someone with next to no experience.
There's a whole country full of people with "next to no experience" - the country you're living in in fact, which should be quite convenient.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Offshore has always been cheaper than H1B onshore. If it were possible to make it work with 100% offshore, then it would have been done already.
Our government doesn't even enforce our current laws on H1B, what good would new ones do? A few months ago I got a "form letter" denial for a support job I applied for, didn't even get an interview. I had worked with this team for about three years, I knew their applications, escalation lists, support teams, ticketing system; in some ways I probably was more qualified than some of their current staff members. I was told by their management that they had zero actual control over HR's initial acceptance / cut system as all of the HR people are in another state thousands of miles away; HR (by unofficial policy) wouldn't take any local suggestions for who would be interviewed...the "process" didn't work like that. "The process" had HR giving them a list of pre-approved candidates, then HR would allow the local staff to interview them, and then HR would take it from there. After I got my form letter of rejection, I found an LCA for my job had been filed within a few days of my application. Using various H1B "job sites" in conjunction with the Department of Labor's LCA system, I found dozens of jobs in my area that never had any advertising on any job board, nor had any recruiters been contacted. These jobs went straight to H1B, they didn't even bother looking for a US citizen.
Most frustratingly, there is no one to really complain to, no regulatory agency that will listen. Even when the law is broken...until it gets to the level of a Congressional hearing nothing is done. Even then, nothing happened to Disney, or SEC, or any of the other giant corps. A few donations to re-election campaigns via shadowy 501s and the issue is dropped every time. Sometimes I think the only solution is to destroy the staffing corps pushing this, and by that I mean literally set fire to the US locations of companies like Tata and Infosys.
Do-nothing Darrell Issa is NOW concerned about H1B abuse, because people in his district (a high-tech hotbed North of San Diego) have been having their jobs overtaken by imported, lower-cost workers...conveniently, just before his performance is questioned by challengers for his Seat in the House of Representatives.
He could've done this anytime in the past two (or four) years, but, no-o-o. He waits until he can make it a CAMPAIGN ISSUE to help his faltering reputation. His Democratic challenger is now approaching parity in polling, so, pull out the project he SHOULD have been working on for the past several years in office. But, schemer that he is, he's held it in reserve until it could save his butt...and he hopes you forget about all the butts of working who've lost their jobs because of his passive attitude toward constituents in prior years!
I hate to sound crude or callous, but--
The government, nor the labor force are beholden to your vision of a successful startup. The labor you seek costs money. Even if it does not cost you, it still costs that money. Preventing abuse of h1b labor prevents the sideloading of that cost onto the rest of society. If your startup requires impossible wages (wages only possible via h1b or other wage shenanigans) then your startup is not really viable as a business venture. Hard thing to swallow, but that is the way it is.
As an employer, the sooner you understand that you too have to negotiate at the hiring table, and that you can't get AAA+ talent for D- wages, the better. You are beholden to the economy, the same as the rest of us. We only succeed when we both benefit.
My suggestion to you: hire new grads at new grad pay. Hire a small number of AAA+ people, and use them to improve the quality of your new grad workers. Set company goals that are attainable with that arrangement, and reward employees that exceed those expected goals.
The age of getting the best while paying next to nothing are nearly gone forever. Plan for that future. Hire the lackluster, at lackluster pay, then improve them. Contrary to what you have been trained in MBA school, employees are a valuable asset that you invest in. If you are good to your people, they will be good to you. Treat them like disposable trash, and they will dump you in a minute, the soonest they can, and spit on your memory.
architectural Engineering. A starting electrical engineer with a Masters is around $60-65k in Los Angeles, more in Bay Area. Junior staff cannot be effective remotely; they do not work independently for a few years, and when they hit that mark they need to be helping to mentor the next generation.
Senior engineers can be remotely with only limited loss in productivity, and mid-level can safely be remote a day or two per week. We do have a remote office, as well as one full-time remote employee. It works very well for some things, but going for a job survey on a day's notice is a little hard when you are a thousand miles away.
We can find plenty of people, at salaries we are quite comfortable with. It is important to understand the cost of bringing one employee on board through the first few months of work though. It is rarely less than $50k, and often double or triple that for senior staff.
As for flyover country, grew up there, went to school there, always happy to hire from there. Not especially interested in hiring people living there that can only be productive for 65% of tasks though, even if it is at a 50% salary discount. Too many additional costs that direct salary don't reflect.
In this case, there is no counter-benefit to the trade, other than "inexpensive purchases", without a subsequent offsetting or balancing return transaction. Tariffs and excise duties help to balance out these kinds of inequalities, and help to artificially secure such comparative advantages, where otherwise it would be impossible to sustain them.
The goal of a tariff is not to squelch foreign products in the market. It is to ensure that the domestic products remain in the market, and continue to be produced by the country engaging in the trade. The counterpoint to the principle thesis of the theory of comparative advantage is that a country that is very prosperous, and able to supply itself with any and every good conceivable in a more efficient manner than any other nation it could trade with, will still engage in trade-- is that countries that are less capable of producing goods, still produce goods to trade to the more capable country.
The US produces fewer and fewer trade goods, and consumes more and more trade goods every year, and with it, employment (and financial liquidity) decline, and with those, standard of living declines, or at least progresses at slower and slower rates.
Again, the goal of a tariff is not to completely squelch the flow of foreign trade goods--- Foreign trade goods enrich the local market by leveraging the creativity and resources of other nations, allowing the local consumers to benefit from other country's advances as well-- The goal is to ensure that local production CONTINUES.
Now, are you satisfied, AC?
I feel like lots of people here are seeing only one face of the H1B program. I got hired as an H1B and I am permanent resident now. Though I entered the US on a J1 program. When I entered the US, I did not even want to stay, then life being life, I decided too. I work for a university and there are not many qualified applicants.
It is very unlikely that you would someone that is skilled and permanent resident or us citizen for a professor position. They pretty much just do not exists. There are some, but not many and definitely way less than opened position.
I can understand that there may be issues in the H1B program. But there are legitimate use of it as well.
If you are good to your people, they will be good to you. Treat them like disposable trash, and they will dump you in a minute, the soonest they can, and spit on your memory.
That used to be the way of business before the age of the bean counters getting their fingers on everything and believing that workers are as disposable as a broken calculator. Hell one of the first jobs I ever worked at in the 90's had a pension plan, even for the people on the ground floor making $6.25/hr(today's min wage is $11.25). Good luck finding that now.
Om, nomnomnom...
That's the textbook goal of a tariff. Countries have used tariffs to effectively shut off imports.
Tariffs also only work if the imposing country has a significant advantage. It's possible to vastly overdo them, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did (trade dropped by half in both directions). In a global trade era, the effect of tariffs against a given country can be quickly countered by that country offering more advantageous trade opportunities to other nations. China could offer more generous status to the EU, for example, which would probably be quick to accept lower cost imports as a potential boost to its own lackluster economy.
Trade wars benefit few, and rarely end up with the imposing country getting its entire way. As time goes on and trade becomes even more globalized, I suspect that the imposing country will more often be forced to offer significant concessions to get out of the trade war. Eventually, free trade zones the world over will be the rule. Whether that's good in general or not, I don't know.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
When you demand impossible education requirements for basic employment, you impose a significant cost on your potential applicants.
Specifically, the cost of the education level you are demanding. It can easily enter triple digits, and take a third or more of a worker's lifetime to pay off, and is non-dischargeable.
That cost is real. It does not go away when you hire H1B laborers. The local economy is still saddled with the debt created by this wasted educational burden. (Wasted, because you never had any intention of hiring those applicants anyway.)
When you put a want ad out in the local job market, then purposefully ignore all applications that are local, so that you can hire a cheaper H1B, you are saddling the local economy with the difference in the cost of education, since the people that you caused to be trained by putting out your fake demand, now are unemployable, AND IN DEBT.