Comment by damnyou | Hacker News Reader

Comment by damnyou | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The stated purpose of the H1-B program is to allow companies to fill vacancies with international applicants if they are unable to find US employees qualified for the roles.

This canard keeps getting repeated in HN threads. This is WRONG. 100% absolutely completely WRONG. The only stated purpose of the H-1B program is to allow foreigners with degrees (or equivalent experience) to perform skilled work in the US. Here are the DOL requirements: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm

The only one that affects US workers is to "[p]rovide working conditions for H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 workers that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed." (There are additional requirements on H-1B dependent companies, but those don't apply to most companies.)

Here's a fact sheet from the DOL specifically about this matter: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62O...

What you're talking about is requirements for an EB-2 or EB-3 green card.

> The employer, before petitioning for H-1B status for any alien worker pursuant to an H-1B LCA, took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job for which the alien worker is sought, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. Also, the employer will offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker. This attestation does not apply if the H-1B worker is a "priority worker" (see Section 203(b) (1) (A), (B), or (C) of the INA). [0]

While it may not be the sole purposes as outlined in the link [0] you provided, it does mean that the rules state this very fact that precedence is to be given to US workers. So saying it's 100% wrong is... wrong as well.

[0] https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm#who

That rule only applies to H-1B dependent companies and wilful violators. It is not part of the "stated purpose" of the visa.

The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm

This text is genuinely surprising to me. The only statutes that come close to meeting that goal are the ones that only apply to H-1B dependent employers and wilful violators.

The 1990 legislation creating the H-1B program was pretty specific that it was for getting skills into the country that could not be obtained locally. Considering all the notices that are supposed to be posted. It is abused heavily, but that was the intent.

I like the idea, nearly a throw-away line in the article, that the H-1B visas should be granted to the highest paying jobs rather than by lottery. That would certainly cut down on the abuses.

Bbbbbut, you’re agreeing with Trump when you say that.

"will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed"

Seriously. Who in the world would consider being fired and replaced with cheap labor an adverse effect?

Yeah, but I don't think anyone argues that type of behavior isn't blatant abuse of the program.

It's frustrating when people complain about H-1Bs at big companies like Google/MS/Amazon. Apparently we're underpaid, overworked, and stealing a job from an american. Despite the fact that these companies are almost constantly hiring and if the american wants to go try, they could.

If we weren't around, an American could demand a (significantly) higher wage. If the developer wages were higher an American programer would consider not becoming a manager (why code away for peanuts when you can boss others for much more?).

That's in the short term. In the long term more Americans would do CS, and if the supply is tight enough, Apple and the others would open schools to train teenagers to code.

Not saying that the current system isn't better. But the basic forces are what they are.

Btw, you are underpaid and overworked. The game-room is gaming you to stay at work longer hours.

Or BigCorp would open an office in your hometown and hire you there anyway, because it was now impossible to get enough people for their job.

More likely still, significantly more SaaS in easily configurable packages as companies that can't afford massive dev salaries for an IT department turn towards GoogMicroSAP to fulfill their needs

Or the whole operation would move countries.

> If we weren't around, an American could demand a (significantly) higher wage.

This is exactly correct. I'm a US citizen and work at a high paying tech job. Amazon calls me at least once a month to try to convince me to work for them. The problem is that their highest allowed salary is lower than what I'm already making, and I also get gobs of stock bonuses worth at least as much as their stock bonuses. So they really aren't even trying to compete here. If they really wanted people of my caliber who were US citizens, they'd have to improve their compensation.

Not just that, the alternative is outsourcing to India/another country. The companies that bring in the TCS/Infosys employees are typically looking to cut cost any which way possible. While I hate the gaming by TCS/Infosys and think it needs to be fixed, making H1B unnecessarily hard is not going to help fix that. A H1B employee living in the US, pays the taxes here and spends the money here. An outsourced job is an expenditure written off for tax.

"pays the taxes here"

Not just taxes. They also pay for social security even though they don't get anything from it. If that is not enough, they also have to pay tax for the income they get in their parent country while they are in US. I get paying US taxes, but why pay tax for income that has nothing to do with US?

You are accurately reflecting the status quo, now that impediments to wage-depressing use of H-1B are so thoroughly lawyered into submission. But H1-B requirements say, among several other related things, that employers must consider U.S. candidates in "in good faith."

That's laughable unless you take the legalistic view that, unless it's been litigated not to be in good faith, that's good (faith) enough. Companies like Tata exist only to import cheaper workers. Saying otherwise amounts to claiming you might just want to hold hands with that person from the escort service.

It's also insulting to those who can see the difference between an R&D organization doing a worldwide search for a CTO and a "body shop."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com