Fearing Tighter US Visa Regime, Indian IT Firms Rush To Hire (moneycontrol.com)

From a report on Reuters: Anticipating a more protectionist US technology visa programme under a Donald Trump administration, India's $150 billion IT services sector will speed up acquisitions in the United States and recruit more heavily from college campuses there. Indian companies including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Wipro have long used H1-B skilled worker visas to fly computer engineers to the US, their largest overseas market, temporarily to service clients. Staff from those three companies accounted for around 86,000 new H1-B workers in 2005-14. The US currently issues close to that number of H1-B visas each year. President-elect Trump's campaign rhetoric, and his pick for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a long-time critic of the visa programme, have many expecting a tighter regime.

Comments

"H1-B skilled worker visas"

[sexconker]

H1-B skilled worker visas

Depends on your definition of "skilled".

Re:"H1-B skilled worker visas"

[Hognoxious]

Doesn't even need any changes. They just need to vigorously enforce that rule and the one about the skills not being available locally.

That's "available" without any qualifier or modifier, not "available at the wage they're prepared to pay".

Re:"H1-B skilled worker visas"

[Fire_Wraith]

This, exactly.

These companies, and the companies that hire them, are performing an end run around the restrictions of the law that completely subverts the intent. Specifically, they do this by acting as a middleman, so that a company like Disney (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/disney-h1b-workers/) or SoCal Edison (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-edison-layoffs-20150211-story.html) doesn't actually 'replace' a US worker with an H-1B. Instead, they simply subcontract out the positions (or the entire department) to a company like one of these, who just happens to employ H-1B visa holders working at a cheaper rate.

This is the loophole that needs to be closed. These companies constitute the lion's share of H-1Bs, and make a mockery of the ones who are actually higher-paid expert workers in critical demand.

Re:"H1-B skilled worker visas"

[Hognoxious]

Sure but even that gives wiggle room because they can take the average wage nationally instead of locally

Do you even read?

From the link above:

"The prevailing wage is determined based on the position in which you will be employed and the geographic location where you will be working (among other factors)."

Re:"H1-B skilled worker visas"

[saloomy]

I'll be modded down for this... but there is also I believe a problem with the perception of "skilled" IT labor, and the expectation of lifestyle being in IT brings. You have good people that are even certified in one profession or another (Oracle DBA's, storage admins, etc..) who expect to earn $200k a year when that isn't really feasible most of the time. The education requirements to become decent DBA will be a few years in a robust environment, plus a few months of courses, and voila!

It's not the same regimen as 8 years of medical school, 4 years of residency, $300,000 in student loans and years of practicing before you earn that much. I know IT pros who legitimately make more than the salaries of senators, and still bitch about how much everything costs and how they deserve to earn more. The market is sorting itself out. There are others out there who can come in and offer a better value, so a better value will end up winning. To have the delusion that it's always because some asshole manager is trying to earn a bonus or pocket from a deal is just not a reasonable view of reality.

Uneven

[Tablizer]

An article in the LA Times describes how un-equal our trade deals are in terms of professions. Doctors and lawyers are protected from much offshoring & visa workers due to various laws and trade agreement exceptions, for example.

There's no reason law and medical schools couldn't be set up other countries to train remote and visa workers on US law and medical practices. But our rules arbitrary limit or exclude those schools.

You want cheaper ACA? make outsourcing and/or visa-ing doctors easier. Otherwise somebody who used to make $25/hr at a factory and now making $9 as a Walmart clerk has to pay $200 an hour for a doctor. One is zapped by globalization and one protected from it, creating a huge discrepancy between their service rates. Of course medical care goes up for such people. It's not ACA's direct fault.

If the impact of globalization is spread around more evenly, then perhaps life won't be so difficult for those subject to globalized careers: their wages may go down, but so will their cost of living as others' wages also go down.

Trump may be a babbling blowhard, but he has focused attention on this issue. Let's do it right this time: Spread the "love".

However, something tells me the heavy lobbying money of those professions will buy protection. Blue-collar workers don't have the equivalent counter-bribing force. Lawyers and doctors won't accept a cut without a heavy fight. The rich simply have more weapons.

Re:Uneven

[swb]

Doctors and lawyers are protected from much offshoring & visa workers due to various laws and trade agreement exceptions, for example.

Mostly it's because the regulatory bodies for those professions are made up of...wait for it...people in those professions, and they are often statutorily empowered to make rules and often adjudicate problems. So the medical board is run by doctors who, surprise, surprise, rig the rules in their favor and limit qualification for their trade which has the effect of limiting the labor pool.

In some ways it makes total rational sense, because why wouldn't you want doctors, who best understand the practice of medicine, setting the rules and standards for who can practice medicine?

On the other hand, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. I had a friend get horrible dental care. In so much pain, he pretty much randomly selected the closest dentist he could get into on short notice and dentist 2 was horrified at the work. Dentist 2 documented everything wrong and what he did to fix it, solving my friend's problems. He submitted a claim to the dental board against Dentist 1 -- only to have the claim rejected as unsubstantiated. And why not? If a bunch of dentists gets to decide what complaints are legitimate, why wouldn't they reject a claim against a fellow dentist, even if another dentist provides documented clinical proof?