It's extremely painful secret to keep -- it's unfair to be unable to talk to coworkers about your future plans (as instructed by legal council), and one that detriments career growth (you're forbidden from discussing early on that you are likely to quit, at a time when it may be reconcilable with your current employer, and lead to better things: new positions, pay rises, etc.).
I usually drop hints about a pay raise or change of responsibilities and if my manager doesn't oblige within a reasonable amount of time, then I know it's time to leave. It's nothing personal, but if someone else values me more than my own employer I'd rather seek greener pastures.
I have the I140 petitions from the two employers that I had applied with. This sounds like you are talking about consulting companies who hold their employees hostage. No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.
This thread is discussing a law -- that targets only consulting companies.
>No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.
That is not correct. There is nothing an H1B employee can do if his employer does not share the copy of I-140.
I expect the language of Rep Issa's bill for this session Congress to be largely unchanged.
"Exempt" H-1B employees are not counted when determining whether or not an employer is H-1B dependent. Generally, an employer is H-1B dependent if over 15% of their employees are nonexempt H-1Bs.
The old criteria for exempt status were:
(a) at least $60k annual salary OR (b) Master's degree
The new criterion proposed in the bill is:
(a) at least $100k annual salary
This explicitly targets companies like Infosys, Tata, etc. who use hordes of H-1Bs but pay them just over $60k or ensure that they have Master's degrees.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, et. al. will still be able to employ hordes of H-1Bs but they will be unaffected due to the high paying nature of the work.