Slashdot Mirror


US Law Allows Low H-1B Wages; Just Look At Apple (networkworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: If you work at Apple's One Infinite Loop headquarters in Cupertino as a computer programmer on an H-1B visa, you can can be paid as little as $52,229. That's peanuts in Silicon Valley. Average wages for a programmer in Santa Clara County are more than $93,000 a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the U.S. government will approve visa applications for Silicon Valley programmers at $52,229 -- and, in fact, did so for hundreds of potential visa holders at Apple alone. To be clear, this doesn't mean there are hundreds of programmers at Apple working for that paltry sum. Apple submitted a form to the U.S. saying it was planning on hiring 150 computer programmers beginning June 14 at this wage. But it's not doing that. Instead, this is a paperwork exercise by immigration attorneys to give an employer -- in this case, Apple -- maximum latitude with the H-1B laws. The forms-submittal process doesn't always reflect actual hiring goals or wage levels. Apple didn't want to comment for the story, but it did confirm some things. It says it hires on the basis on qualifications and that all employees -- visa holders and U.S. workers alike -- are paid equitably and it conducts internal studies to back this up. There are bonuses on top of base pay. Apple may not be paying low wages to H-1B workers, but it can pay low wages to visa workers if it wanted. This fact is at the heart of the H-1B battle.

10 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like indentured servitude by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government benefits from importing cheap labor. Rich landowners (now corporations) benefit from cheap labor. History is replete with rich people trying to get richer by importing slaves and/or indentured servants.

    It never works out well for society in the long run, but in the long run you're dead anyways, so might as well make some more money and bribe some more gov't officials while you're here, right?

    Doesn't matter which political party is in power, doesn't matter whether a politician is a leftist or a rightist, they ALWAYS import more cheap labor... because they want to benefit the rich (and by extension, themselves). Trump ran a campaign saying he will put a stop to this, and now that he's in power he's already he's backpedaling. He's just turning into Clinton Lite. I'll bet you large sums that if Bernie was elected, right about now he will be finding excuses to import more cheap labor too.

    1. Re:Sounds like indentured servitude by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be true, but what other choice was there?

      On one hand, you had a politician who openly and proudly proclaimed she will import as much cheap labor as possible. And was well known for having gone from being dead broke to a net worth of $100 million, pretty much exclusively from political cronyism (no one really believes Wall street bankers gave her $500,000 per speech because she had a pleasant voice)

      On the other hand, you had a guy who so far has not taken any political bribes, and who said he will put a stop to this. So it was a choice between someone who you know with a 100% certainty will do something bad, versus someone who might do it but at least he's saying he won't.

    2. Re:Sounds like indentured servitude by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would anyone bribe a president that dispenses highly classified data for free? Plus I'm sure there are bribes, they are just obscured in business dealings.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Sounds like indentured servitude by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, you had a guy who so far has not taken any political bribes

      It's kinda difficult to take a political bribe when you're not a politician. However, Trump openly bragged about giving political bribes, making it clear he was 100% corrupt.

      So it was a choice between someone who you know with a 100% certainty will do something bad, versus someone who might do it but at least he's saying he won't.

      Trump never said he wouldn't, he made it clear he was perfectly OK with bribery!

      Clinton was just another politician. She wasn't especially corrupt, the worst anyone could say about her that wasn't a blatant distortion was that she was quite happy to get paid huge sums of money for making private speeches to Wall Street. There's never been anything specific anyone could point at that Clinton did in response to getting paid to make speeches, beyond the speeches themselves. Clinton endured a 25 year long smear campaign which threw mud constantly at her, making almost every allegation of wrongdoing against her suspicious and likely false.

      Trump? I'm struggling to understand why anyone would think he wasn't going to take bribes. It sounds like a lot of people were so blinded by their hatred of Clinton that they choose to project in Trump a trust that was wholly misplaced, rather than looking at his words and history over 30-40 years, showing him as one of the nation's biggest sleezeballs.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Sounds like indentured servitude by sabri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The president doesn't get to arbitrarily break laws, or communicate sensitive information to hostile foreign powers. What next, you will defend him selling the blueprints for the nuclear submarines, complete with highlighted weak points?

      I'm far from a fan of the current president. However, as the chief of the Executive Branch, the President (this, the previous, or the next one) has the ultimate authority over his subordinates. The CIA, FBI and NSA all report to the President, and as such POTUS has the authority to declassify any information he (or she) wishes to, and share it with whomever he feels is needed.

      Remember that you have no idea what is going on. Maybe those blueprints for nuclear submarines are exchanged for hyperdrives, or the removal of nuclear warheads from Cuba. We don't know, and we have to trust the elected President. If we can't trust this one, we should not have elected him.

      And for the record, I did not vote for him.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. Immigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about we just allow these H1B candidates to immigrate? Then they can be citizens and pay taxes on whatever salary they accept. They might even buy some foreclosed houses.

  3. Raise the wage by byteherder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If companies would be required to pay at least $120,000 as one bill in the House requires, all the H1b problems go away.

    Tech companies don't want to do this.

    Why don't we just bring back slavery? It would be more honest.

  4. Re: A lesson in spinning by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But there is a shortage of STEMs with 20+ years experience willing to work for 40k a year. It's absolutely impossible to find any.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. You don't say? by Dracos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Low wages is the entire point of the H1B program.

  6. Re: A lesson in spinning by N!k0N · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You forgot "on a platform that is only 5 years old" ;)