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?
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.
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.
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?