"OK, no problem. Having Google on my resume means I can get a new job by the end of the week. I'll be sure to spread the word to users and developers alike that you're shady."
Let's not pretend that developers are powerless.
Let's not pretend that developers are powerless.
In my experience, most of the H1-B workers we have are very much Yes Men when it comes to doing what's asked of them. There are also cultural factors that come into play (e.g. never admitting ignorance on a topic, pleasing authority ) and .
Eh, there's a power imbalance, but let's not go overboard.
They are offered a good job with good pay in another country. That means they have less power in negotiations, and may be deported, but they don't lose the money they earned, and it's not like they are being exiled to some foreign place, they are literally sent home.
Nobody's freedom is being taken away, and nobody's rights are being infringed (that I know of). It may not be morally acceptable depending on your point of view, but it's not slavery. Using that word here lessens how strong it is when used in other contexts, modern day (human trafficking) and historically (in America and eslewhere). We don't need that.
Than slavery? Yes it does make it better. Much better.
To bring things back to the ancestor comment this was all responding to: people who can't leave a job because they're relying on a paycheck are definitely less powerful when it comes to being able to take a stand and make change at that job. People who are able to rely less on a paycheck have a bit more of a cushion in this area (especially when they have some savings for e.g. doctors, car problems, etc, and have enough set aside to find another job before those savings run out).
Anyone can put a % of their paycheck aside each month to become more financially independent. Whether they're at Google or not doesn't really matter here -- but, it is probably a bit more likely that an engineer at Google might be able to put aside a little bit more than a grocer at Target (and, is probably more capable of finding another job faster).
"I have to do something immoral or I won't be able to feed my family" is not a position they're likely to be in.
He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.
Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.
Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.