The problem with H1Bs, is they allow the company to have a leverage over their employees beyond just mere payment. Your employer can essentially deport you at will. Not just fire and cut off income, but literally cut off residency. This leads to a terrible power imbalance, that of course the employers would seek.
You're right, but also wrong.
Yes, H1-B gives a company more leverage over the employee as would be the case with regular U.S. Citizen/LPR employees. However, they are not entirely at the mercy of their employers since an H1-B petition can be ported to another company. Yes, they will have to file the petition and USCIS will need to approve it, but essentially an H1-B can move companies.
In practice, most H1-Bs do not, because they are waiting for their greencards. Let's be honest here: most H1-B visa recipients are from Indian origin. Regardless of how you feel about that, since India is an oversubscribed country in terms of immigration visas available, it takes many, many years for most Indians to get their greencards. Switching employers while having an approved I-140 (and waiting for a greencard to be available) is not so easy. That's why most Indian (and thus the vast majority of) H1-Bs stick with their employers, not because their employer can deport them at will.
In the case of the L1 visa, the story is true. An L1 cannot be ported to another company, and thus termination of employment means termination of residency.
You might be surprised to learn that in a significant portion of the U.S. the roads tend to be iced over for several months every winterâ"and people still need to travel despite the conditions. In warmer climates that rarely see snow and ice people may just stay home for a few days and wait it out, but that isn't practical everywhere.
In those cases, I cannot blame someone choosing to enjoy a heated four-wheeled can over a 2-wheeled piece of frozen metal.
During the summer here I'd wind up going to the office covered in sweat.
I live in Norcal, can get pretty crispy here in the summer. We have showers at work. Most of the time, my mesh-jacket cools well enough.
Not going to happen. and a "scooter" by definition isn't legal to take on a freeway at any time. It's not capable of the speed limit. Doesn't matter if there's a traffic jam, it doesn't fucking belong there.
Depends on your definition of scooter. My "scooter" is a 500cc Yamaha T-Max which can do double the speed limit. My other bike is an R1200GS, for those complaining about a guy riding a scooter.
Yes. Rain or shine, I'm wearing my gear. I'm not one of those dumb-ass organ donors line-splitting at 80mph in the summer wearing a t-shirt and shorts. Also, I have dashcams on all my vehicles. Cars and bikes.
I'm not sure a scooter could make it to the end of my road in its current condition, much less work. And then contend with both New England weather and New England drivers on a scooter? That's basically suicide.
While I live in California now, I'm originally from Europe. I would ride my bike to work no matter what. Rine, snow or shine, I'll be fine. The one exception would be when the roads are iced over. But then again, cars don't drive then either.
And I had a different bike, an R1200GS, at the time. But the same thing still applies. Get out of your 5-person car if you only need a 1-person vehicle.
I commute on a scooter. Yes, that's right. A scooter. 28 miles one way, every day. I get to go on the carpool lane, and pass thousands of single-driver cars every day. I do 60mpg, with a bike that's not even 25% of the weight of a Tesla.
Who cares about electric cars. Get out of your damn car.
If you're subpoena'd to appear yes, your ass will sit and not speak while you are being lectured for as long or as many days as they want to drag it out. They do have the power to have you arrested and held until you agree to testify, yes they sure as hell do.
See, you contradict yourself. I will have no problem agreeing to testify. Testifying is a matter of them asking questions, and my answering them to the best of my ability.
Testifying does not include being lectured to like I'm a toddler that stole a cookie. Unless I break the law, or congress needs my input in developing legislation, congress has no business summoning me, let alone arrest me. If they do, they are the state-mandated terrorists, for depriving me of my liberty without a just cause. A just cause does not include some dumb-ass politician that got elected on a bunch of lies that needs ears to spread her propaganda to.
Realistically you're there to sit and take whatever they say because otherwise they'll put your ass in a sling.
Realistically if it were me I would simply smile and walk out. Oh, you mean they will hold me in contempt of congress? Let's see how that will pan out in front of the supreme court
Congress has the right to subpoena anyone to answer questions that are important to pending legislation. Congress does (or individual senators/representatives do) not have a right to force me to listen to their political speeches or campaigning. That is not the intent of Congress' right to subpoena. Doing so would violate my civil rights and the supreme court, however much they like to stay out of Congress' business, will be quick to recognize that.
They can ask questions, listen to my answers, and then create, amend or abolish laws. That's what they're there for. Which, funnily enough, is the one thing they have been doing a piss-poor job at lately, dems and reps.
"I'm disappointed that you're here, and not your CEOs," said independent senator Angus King. "If we go through this exercise again we should appreciate seeing the top people."
They are not there to be berated. They are there to testify. Congress has the authority to subpoena people to answer questions. Congress does not have the authority to force people to appear before them and get yelled at.
So how will you deal with the frustration when you find that the majority of the top ten results from a particular web search query come from that site and others like it? It becomes tedious to add a dozen or more -site:domain.example terms to every single query. Google Search used to allow blacklisting a domain, but this feature has since been permanently discontinued.
Ah yes, like the super-annoying "experts exchange" site that I blacklisted wherever I can. Those assholes should die a slow death.
I'm going to flip this on its head.
A credit card is fully usable without power.
No, I'm going to flip this on its head. In times of despair, the mathematician is king. Why? Because he can manually calculate and verify your beloved BTC transactions.
Equifax should be shut down, but the C-level executives should get the electric chair.
You have to be realistic, and be fair. Read my comment and see if you still feel this way. And before I start: I am in no way affiliated with any credit reporting agency. I'm just a network engineer.
1. Credit reporting agencies serve a purpose. They ensure that future creditors can make a responsible decision on whether or not you can handle credit, and are creditworthy.
2. The information that they obtain, is provided to them by your creditors, and with your consent (you did read the terms and conditions, right?). Also, usually you will sign a waiver or permission slip of some kind, allowing a potential creditor to review your credit report when you apply for new credit.
3. That said, I fully agree with you that this information should not have leaked. It is the company's responsibility to ensure that our data is safe and secure. However, let's be realistic. No system is secure. Hell, even the NSA got hacked. I would love to see the executives get some form of punishment, but primarily for the way they handled the hack. The hack itself: that's a risk of doing business.
4. But my biggest thing: this should not be a problem. I should be able to have my social security number printed on the frontpage of the Wall Street Journal, without needing to be afraid of "identity theft". Why the F am I carrying ID? Banks and other creditors should always require and check my government issued ID prior to even talking to me. Having knowledge of a number does not constitute being me.
And that my friend, is the real issue here, and that's not just the Equifax executives' fault.
For example, my home country prints your SSN (well, it's tax-id equivalent) on your passport. Why? Because it also requires banks to have a copy of your ID on file, which they verified and checked for validity and authenticity. If someone is able to open an account in my name, I'll be suing the bank for failure to properly check ID.
everyone gets to have the number tattooed their forehead!
This should not even be a problem. The problem is not SSN security. The problem is the way that people think it's some kind of secret password.
On my foreign passport, my SSN equivalent is printed on the same page as my name and photo. It's not a secret because we expect banks and similar businesses to verify identity using photo ID, not knowledge of a random 9 digit number associated with my person.
And that is the problem. That somehow, knowledge of a 9 digit number does not prove that you actually are that person.
I originally thought this was a dumb idea, but now not so much. If they pass this law, it might force the Mexicans to go back to Mexico. If it accomplishes that, I'll pay for a new car happily.
Then who is going to
- mow your lawn
- clean your house
- work in your restaurants
- pick your fruits
- clean your restrooms at the office
- clean your hotel room
and so on, and so on.
Without the good, hardworking people from Mexico, your life would be a lot different.
You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
Military cargo planes don't fly below 500ft for fun. Also, you mentioning that you live in Germany, tells me that you most likely moved near an existing airport because no new military airports have been built in a while.
So one of two things is true: either you willingly moved close to a military airport, or you are 95 and are the victim of a military airfield being built next to your house.
I think the chances that you knowingly moved next to an existing military airport are higher than you being 95 and on Slashdot. So, by the power of deduction, I conclude that you moved next to an airport and now complain about those pesky aircraft flying over your home.
My wife has a yarn store. The customer base has a very, very well defined demographic and they tend to buy yarn and related stuff many times.
The single best advertising we can buy is through Facebook. They target at the people within a certain distance in the knitting and crochet groups on Facebook with our ads, which essentially say "There's a yarn store over there".
And this is exactly how advertising should work.You attacked the problem like a sniper. Single bullet to the target's head. Large advertising firms just take a shotgun and start shooting hail 360 degrees around anyone near them.
California in general, and SF in particular, have very pro-union laws snd policies,
The unions where also very powerful in Detroit. That did not work out too well ultimately now, did it?
As with everything, there has to be a balance. I don't like powerful unions. I don't like unions that have obtained the right to grab money from my paycheck as they wish. I don't like unions dictating how a business should be run.
I also don't like businesses like early Ford, peeping into people's windows to see if they adhere to Ford's personal morals. Or businesses that abuse workers like the truck companies that force their employees into leasing trucks. That's when unions are needed, to correct the imbalance.
Unions and corporations are always playing a game of rope-pulling, and it is in everyones interest to maintain a healthy balance. You give some, you lose some. If one of either sides is able to "defeat" the opponent, everybody loses.
Sir, you have this backwards. Government regulations are not granting permission, they are there to set a process that ensures everyone's rights are protected during the negotiation process, and to enforce penalties on those that break their contracts.
Yes, but as soon as the government starts dictating the contents of those contracts, we divert from "protecting rights" to allowing only permissible contracts. And that's exactly the case with regulations requiring warranties. That's a direct interference of my right to enter into a contract.
Without regulations, why should a billionaire CEO of a multi-national company give a shit what *you*, sabri, think about their policies and contracts? They can tell you anything you want to hear and then say "nevermind" after they've gotten your money. And what are you going to do as an individual?
Small claims court.
Our court system is effectively broken for most Americans. Have you been to court? I have. It's a lot of legal fees, meeting with lawyers, filing paperwork, waiting months for a court case, only to have the decision appealed by a defendant with way more money and time than you. It is extremely delayed justice, if you get it at all. The working and middle classes are typically hugely disadvantaged in court. We could fix it by requiring speedy trials, hiring more judges and public defenders, and other tweaks, but that would require a more expensive court system and likely higher taxes, which many completely flip their shit when they hear the word "taxes" so we've not been able to have constructive discussion on the topic.
Same answer: small claims court. No need for expensive lawyers. Everyone has access to small claims court, the fees are acceptable and you don't need representation.
"At-will" or "right to work" laws are *not* in your favor, why do you think business likes it so much? Can you survive waiting potentially months for the next job to come up? This is why we have safety nets, but those nets have been slowly dismantled and defunded too.
This is where the core of your argument becomes visible. You want to divert responsibility for your income to private businesses instead of yourself. If a company no longer needs a worker, whether that's due to downsizing, slow business or automation, why would the company be forced to keep you on payroll? It is your own responsibility to update skills and stay attractive to get hired. It is your own responsibility to save up for the months that you need to find another job. And if you are unable to support yourself, why should a private company be responsible for that? When you accepted employment, you entered a contract to perform a certain labor in exchange for a certain reward. That is not "a certain reward + however long it takes to find another job". Yes, bigger companies might be able to have a small percentage of low performing/no longer needed personnel on payroll, but your average mom&pop shop doesn't. So why would the government need to create laws to do so?
I do agree with one thing: for these cases we do need a social safety net, but that should be funded by everyone and there I do see a role for government. But not to interfere in my private contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with H1Bs, is they allow the company to have a leverage over their employees beyond just mere payment. Your employer can essentially deport you at will. Not just fire and cut off income, but literally cut off residency. This leads to a terrible power imbalance, that of course the employers would seek.
You're right, but also wrong.
Yes, H1-B gives a company more leverage over the employee as would be the case with regular U.S. Citizen/LPR employees. However, they are not entirely at the mercy of their employers since an H1-B petition can be ported to another company. Yes, they will have to file the petition and USCIS will need to approve it, but essentially an H1-B can move companies.
In practice, most H1-Bs do not, because they are waiting for their greencards. Let's be honest here: most H1-B visa recipients are from Indian origin. Regardless of how you feel about that, since India is an oversubscribed country in terms of immigration visas available, it takes many, many years for most Indians to get their greencards. Switching employers while having an approved I-140 (and waiting for a greencard to be available) is not so easy. That's why most Indian (and thus the vast majority of) H1-Bs stick with their employers, not because their employer can deport them at will.
In the case of the L1 visa, the story is true. An L1 cannot be ported to another company, and thus termination of employment means termination of residency.
You might be surprised to learn that in a significant portion of the U.S. the roads tend to be iced over for several months every winterâ"and people still need to travel despite the conditions. In warmer climates that rarely see snow and ice people may just stay home for a few days and wait it out, but that isn't practical everywhere.
In those cases, I cannot blame someone choosing to enjoy a heated four-wheeled can over a 2-wheeled piece of frozen metal.
During the summer here I'd wind up going to the office covered in sweat.
I live in Norcal, can get pretty crispy here in the summer. We have showers at work. Most of the time, my mesh-jacket cools well enough.
Not going to happen. and a "scooter" by definition isn't legal to take on a freeway at any time. It's not capable of the speed limit. Doesn't matter if there's a traffic jam, it doesn't fucking belong there.
Depends on your definition of scooter. My "scooter" is a 500cc Yamaha T-Max which can do double the speed limit. My other bike is an R1200GS, for those complaining about a guy riding a scooter.
Better dress for the slide, not the ride.
Yes. Rain or shine, I'm wearing my gear. I'm not one of those dumb-ass organ donors line-splitting at 80mph in the summer wearing a t-shirt and shorts. Also, I have dashcams on all my vehicles. Cars and bikes.
I'm not sure a scooter could make it to the end of my road in its current condition, much less work. And then contend with both New England weather and New England drivers on a scooter? That's basically suicide.
While I live in California now, I'm originally from Europe. I would ride my bike to work no matter what. Rine, snow or shine, I'll be fine. The one exception would be when the roads are iced over. But then again, cars don't drive then either.
And I had a different bike, an R1200GS, at the time. But the same thing still applies. Get out of your 5-person car if you only need a 1-person vehicle.
A recent study shows that they're still better than typical vehicles. https://electrek.co/2017/11/01...
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
I commute on a scooter. Yes, that's right. A scooter. 28 miles one way, every day. I get to go on the carpool lane, and pass thousands of single-driver cars every day. I do 60mpg, with a bike that's not even 25% of the weight of a Tesla.
Who cares about electric cars. Get out of your damn car.
PROTIP 2: Just because there's no law against it, doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Wrong.
Any basic principle in every criminal code is that no person shall be punished for an act or omission that is not prohibited by law.
If you're subpoena'd to appear yes, your ass will sit and not speak while you are being lectured for as long or as many days as they want to drag it out. They do have the power to have you arrested and held until you agree to testify, yes they sure as hell do.
See, you contradict yourself. I will have no problem agreeing to testify. Testifying is a matter of them asking questions, and my answering them to the best of my ability.
Testifying does not include being lectured to like I'm a toddler that stole a cookie. Unless I break the law, or congress needs my input in developing legislation, congress has no business summoning me, let alone arrest me. If they do, they are the state-mandated terrorists, for depriving me of my liberty without a just cause. A just cause does not include some dumb-ass politician that got elected on a bunch of lies that needs ears to spread her propaganda to.
Realistically you're there to sit and take whatever they say because otherwise they'll put your ass in a sling.
Realistically if it were me I would simply smile and walk out. Oh, you mean they will hold me in contempt of congress? Let's see how that will pan out in front of the supreme court
Congress has the right to subpoena anyone to answer questions that are important to pending legislation. Congress does (or individual senators/representatives do) not have a right to force me to listen to their political speeches or campaigning. That is not the intent of Congress' right to subpoena. Doing so would violate my civil rights and the supreme court, however much they like to stay out of Congress' business, will be quick to recognize that.
They can ask questions, listen to my answers, and then create, amend or abolish laws. That's what they're there for. Which, funnily enough, is the one thing they have been doing a piss-poor job at lately, dems and reps.
"I'm disappointed that you're here, and not your CEOs," said independent senator Angus King. "If we go through this exercise again we should appreciate seeing the top people."
They are not there to be berated. They are there to testify. Congress has the authority to subpoena people to answer questions. Congress does not have the authority to force people to appear before them and get yelled at.
So how will you deal with the frustration when you find that the majority of the top ten results from a particular web search query come from that site and others like it? It becomes tedious to add a dozen or more -site:domain.example terms to every single query. Google Search used to allow blacklisting a domain, but this feature has since been permanently discontinued.
Ah yes, like the super-annoying "experts exchange" site that I blacklisted wherever I can. Those assholes should die a slow death.
I'm going to flip this on its head. A credit card is fully usable without power.
No, I'm going to flip this on its head. In times of despair, the mathematician is king. Why? Because he can manually calculate and verify your beloved BTC transactions.
Reverse engineering is generally legal in the EU. License agreements can't supersede law here.
License agreements are unable to supersede law anywhere.
You are clueless.
Thanks for your thorough assessment.
people apply for loans and credit cards without ever seeing anyone face to face
Yep. And don't you think this is the problem, rather than relying on a "secret" number?.
Now you tell me what would be a smarter move:
1. Keep relying on "intimate" knowledge to verify someones identity
2. Mandate the verification of someones identity using government issued ID
Equifax should be shut down, but the C-level executives should get the electric chair.
You have to be realistic, and be fair. Read my comment and see if you still feel this way. And before I start: I am in no way affiliated with any credit reporting agency. I'm just a network engineer.
1. Credit reporting agencies serve a purpose. They ensure that future creditors can make a responsible decision on whether or not you can handle credit, and are creditworthy.
2. The information that they obtain, is provided to them by your creditors, and with your consent (you did read the terms and conditions, right?). Also, usually you will sign a waiver or permission slip of some kind, allowing a potential creditor to review your credit report when you apply for new credit.
3. That said, I fully agree with you that this information should not have leaked. It is the company's responsibility to ensure that our data is safe and secure. However, let's be realistic. No system is secure. Hell, even the NSA got hacked. I would love to see the executives get some form of punishment, but primarily for the way they handled the hack. The hack itself: that's a risk of doing business.
4. But my biggest thing: this should not be a problem. I should be able to have my social security number printed on the frontpage of the Wall Street Journal, without needing to be afraid of "identity theft". Why the F am I carrying ID? Banks and other creditors should always require and check my government issued ID prior to even talking to me. Having knowledge of a number does not constitute being me.
And that my friend, is the real issue here, and that's not just the Equifax executives' fault.
For example, my home country prints your SSN (well, it's tax-id equivalent) on your passport. Why? Because it also requires banks to have a copy of your ID on file, which they verified and checked for validity and authenticity. If someone is able to open an account in my name, I'll be suing the bank for failure to properly check ID.
"Could be paywalled" is Slashdot's equivalent of "additional fees may apply".
Ergo, on Slashdot, "Could be" means "is".
https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...
No need to click the link. It's a Faraday bag.
everyone gets to have the number tattooed their forehead!
This should not even be a problem. The problem is not SSN security. The problem is the way that people think it's some kind of secret password.
On my foreign passport, my SSN equivalent is printed on the same page as my name and photo. It's not a secret because we expect banks and similar businesses to verify identity using photo ID, not knowledge of a random 9 digit number associated with my person.
And that is the problem. That somehow, knowledge of a 9 digit number does not prove that you actually are that person.
Once it's illegal to view any material the government deems dangerous, you can tell them anyone is your ally.
Exactly this. The U.K. has been working on becoming a full police state for many years now. And every time I point this out I get downmodded here on /.
But guess what, the joke's on you, silly Brits. You get what you vote for.
The U.S. voted for a clown and got a clown. The U.K. voted for a police state, and got a police state.
I originally thought this was a dumb idea, but now not so much. If they pass this law, it might force the Mexicans to go back to Mexico. If it accomplishes that, I'll pay for a new car happily.
Then who is going to
- mow your lawn
- clean your house
- work in your restaurants
- pick your fruits
- clean your restrooms at the office
- clean your hotel room
and so on, and so on.
Without the good, hardworking people from Mexico, your life would be a lot different.
You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
Military cargo planes don't fly below 500ft for fun. Also, you mentioning that you live in Germany, tells me that you most likely moved near an existing airport because no new military airports have been built in a while.
So one of two things is true: either you willingly moved close to a military airport, or you are 95 and are the victim of a military airfield being built next to your house.
I think the chances that you knowingly moved next to an existing military airport are higher than you being 95 and on Slashdot. So, by the power of deduction, I conclude that you moved next to an airport and now complain about those pesky aircraft flying over your home.
You, good sir, are a hypocrite.
this is not the same as when the corporate 'leaders' left trump's stupid panel thing, forcing it to dissolve itself. w3c isn't going anywhere.
On the contrary. The w3c is making itself irrelevant by forcing issues. Their own charter states:
Consensus is a core value of W3C
Well, guess what. They just threw their own core value away.
My wife has a yarn store. The customer base has a very, very well defined demographic and they tend to buy yarn and related stuff many times. The single best advertising we can buy is through Facebook. They target at the people within a certain distance in the knitting and crochet groups on Facebook with our ads, which essentially say "There's a yarn store over there".
And this is exactly how advertising should work.You attacked the problem like a sniper. Single bullet to the target's head. Large advertising firms just take a shotgun and start shooting hail 360 degrees around anyone near them.
California in general, and SF in particular, have very pro-union laws snd policies,
The unions where also very powerful in Detroit. That did not work out too well ultimately now, did it?
As with everything, there has to be a balance. I don't like powerful unions. I don't like unions that have obtained the right to grab money from my paycheck as they wish. I don't like unions dictating how a business should be run.
I also don't like businesses like early Ford, peeping into people's windows to see if they adhere to Ford's personal morals. Or businesses that abuse workers like the truck companies that force their employees into leasing trucks. That's when unions are needed, to correct the imbalance.
Unions and corporations are always playing a game of rope-pulling, and it is in everyones interest to maintain a healthy balance. You give some, you lose some. If one of either sides is able to "defeat" the opponent, everybody loses.
Sir, you have this backwards. Government regulations are not granting permission, they are there to set a process that ensures everyone's rights are protected during the negotiation process, and to enforce penalties on those that break their contracts.
Yes, but as soon as the government starts dictating the contents of those contracts, we divert from "protecting rights" to allowing only permissible contracts. And that's exactly the case with regulations requiring warranties. That's a direct interference of my right to enter into a contract.
Without regulations, why should a billionaire CEO of a multi-national company give a shit what *you*, sabri, think about their policies and contracts? They can tell you anything you want to hear and then say "nevermind" after they've gotten your money. And what are you going to do as an individual?
Small claims court.
Our court system is effectively broken for most Americans. Have you been to court? I have. It's a lot of legal fees, meeting with lawyers, filing paperwork, waiting months for a court case, only to have the decision appealed by a defendant with way more money and time than you. It is extremely delayed justice, if you get it at all. The working and middle classes are typically hugely disadvantaged in court. We could fix it by requiring speedy trials, hiring more judges and public defenders, and other tweaks, but that would require a more expensive court system and likely higher taxes, which many completely flip their shit when they hear the word "taxes" so we've not been able to have constructive discussion on the topic.
Same answer: small claims court. No need for expensive lawyers. Everyone has access to small claims court, the fees are acceptable and you don't need representation.
"At-will" or "right to work" laws are *not* in your favor, why do you think business likes it so much? Can you survive waiting potentially months for the next job to come up? This is why we have safety nets, but those nets have been slowly dismantled and defunded too.
This is where the core of your argument becomes visible. You want to divert responsibility for your income to private businesses instead of yourself. If a company no longer needs a worker, whether that's due to downsizing, slow business or automation, why would the company be forced to keep you on payroll? It is your own responsibility to update skills and stay attractive to get hired. It is your own responsibility to save up for the months that you need to find another job. And if you are unable to support yourself, why should a private company be responsible for that? When you accepted employment, you entered a contract to perform a certain labor in exchange for a certain reward. That is not "a certain reward + however long it takes to find another job". Yes, bigger companies might be able to have a small percentage of low performing/no longer needed personnel on payroll, but your average mom&pop shop doesn't. So why would the government need to create laws to do so?
I do agree with one thing: for these cases we do need a social safety net, but that should be funded by everyone and there I do see a role for government. But not to interfere in my private contracts.