Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoisjuan | Hacker News Reader

All this bullshit over 10 positions, the last one filed on 2008 (12 years ago) and the first one filed on 2001? And for specialized jobs nonetheless.

https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=Tennessee+Vall...

He fired the first poor bastard he found to rile up his base on the idea that he is protecting American jobs. This is not only absolutely stupid and unjustified. It also shows how petty are politics in this country.

View on HN

Actually, most of the positions are being outsourced to contracting firms who are hiring the H1B workers. The actual cost per worker to the TVA is likely not significantly different, however, the workers can lose their jobs at any time, and the contracting firm makes bank.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/st...

Ok. I get that. But then again he is punishing them for hiring sub-contractors then. What's the rationale here? I don't understand how any government agency can operate without subcontracting. Why would anyone go for the most expensive subcontractor on the basis that they don't employ H1Bs? I don't think anyone is using that criteria.

They should explicitly write rules for this if that's what they want to enforce.

Either way, it seems like a very petty and selectively populist political move. "Look I fired this fucker who wasn't prioritizing American workers".... That dude hardly knew about that. He was looking at the price tag, not the LCAs of their sub-contractors.

> But then again he is punishing them for hiring sub-contractors then. What's the rationale here? I don't understand how any government agency can operate without subcontracting. Why would anyone go for the most expensive subcontractor on the basis that they don't employ H1Bs? I don't think anyone is using that criteria.

I would expect that you would be required to meet federal government labor regulations and standards (including H1B visa requirements), even when using subcontractors, when you are a federally chartered corporation or are doing business with the federal government.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/guide-to-labor-and-empl... (A Guide to Labor and Employment Obligations for Federal Contractors)

> IX. Subcontracting: Contractors must recognize that their obligations under these laws and executive orders also apply to their subcontractors. Many CBAs provide that the agreement applies to any subcontractor used by the contractor to perform work done by covered employees, and the contractor is responsible for the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the terms of the CBA. (snipped non-relevant union language for brevity, available in link above)

EDIT: @belltaco: You're violating the law if you replace US workers with H1Bs [1] [2]. This is supposedly what TVA contractors have done [3] [4] [5].

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/08/h-1b-spouses-h-4-work...

[2] https://www.uscis.gov/report-fraud/combating-fraud-and-abuse...

[3] https://usagag.com/tennessee-valley-authority-firing-america...

[4] https://whnt.com/news/huntsville/protesters-in-huntsville-ra...

[5] https://youtu.be/nlXUooEvd4o

Did TVA or their subcontractors violate any of those? Doesn't look like it.

I thought H1Bs were supposed to be world-class engineers whose class could not be found locally. But if the sole purpose of hiring them is for labour arbitrage then this would not go well with American workers.

One of the dangers of getting old is that it's essentially a trope that your sense of a fair price often lags behind increasing costs.

The constant pressure toward replacing manufactured goods (food included) with cheaper alternatives isn't just about increasing margins, it's also about sticker shock ratcheting up among your customers.

I don't know about recently, but tech salaries were growing much faster than inflation for a long time. I suspect that in some cases those consultancy negotiators were sitting in meetings with customers who didn't understand why they had to pay 25% more to renew a largely unmodified contract. and/or why the senior people are being replaced. Because you can't afford those people anymore, pal.

So for the same dollar you are probably getting more COTS/OSS software and talent that is easier to exploit (young, H1-B, or both). I hesitate to think what happens in 2030 when whole teams are already the most vulnerable developers and it's time to renegotiate contracts again.

The H1Bs in question were hired by contracting firms so you wouldn’t find them in that list.

You know how many government agencies hire contractors that use H1-B workers?? I know at least 3 people that worked as sub-contractors for government agencies while they were on H1B visas.

The three worked for state agencies, though. One was the DOT of NYC, if I remember correctly. Still, this is hardly the issue. This is hinting that any government sub-contractor should abstain from hiring H1Bs and there's no written law that prohibits this. Again pure pettiness.

Perhaps. But just because something has become normalized, the status quo, doesn't make it right.

I'm not taking sides. But the fact is, we can't have change without change. The Grand Canyon started with a drop of water.

What does the executive branch have to do with state and municipal hiring policies? Believe it or not, they don't have the power to do whatever they want.

If you read my comment I'm not conflating both. I did explicitly call out that my knowledge was for people who worked as subcontractors for state agencies, not federal agencies.

So I don't get your question. I was the one that from the beginning claimed ignorance about the federal policies by bringing up the fact that the people I know worked for state agencies.

> hinting that any government sub-contractor should abstain from hiring H1Bs and there's no written law that prohibits this. Again pure pettiness.

In this case, the contractors were breaking the law. It doesn't seem unreasonable for federal agencies to not do business with companies breaking the law.

Even if it’s only ten. SFSU fired it’s IT team and contracted out the whole lot a few years back. The IT team consisted of a variety of backgrounds in SF. Little moves like that are the cracks that bring down the quality of life for locals —the main beneficiaries being the uni administration team.

I am glad for every move that makes sense that doesn’t undermine the stability of jobs for local workers who pay their fair share of taxes and add vitality to the local economy.

> local workers who pay their fair share of taxes and add vitality to the local economy.

Any H1B worker also pays their fair share of taxes and adds to the local economy. This word salad you got here is just FUD.

Maybe you just got confused and thought it was about illegal immigrants instead?

No, these are local workers. It’s like Mexico saying, you know what, the USMCA is making us pay you workers $16 an hour, we can build cheaper by having this work done by Salvadorans, get outta town, we’re hiring them!

They’d be selling out Mexican workers for lower wage workers —which is what happened to the IF group at SFSU. So now they are not working.

This isn’t about saving cobblers jobs or phone assembly jobs, these are skilled jobs that were saying, sorry fellow taxpayers, but we found cheaper!

> the main benefactors being the uni administration team

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Did you really mean "benefactors", or perhaps "beneficiaries"?

Yes, corrected.

H1B workers and their employers pay all taxes, including things like SSA and Medicare FICA taxes that they may never get to use. They also pay a lot of extra fees that US employees don't, some of which are allocated to training US workers.

But why should US workers suffer this? Should Ford Mexico import Salvadoran workers to displace Mexican workers if it’s cheaper?

Good question, and let's see how Mexican workers would feel.

Because this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

h1bsalary site isn't comprehensive, there were changes they made this year too. https://theintercept.com/2020/05/05/tennessee-valley-authori...

The CEO probably pissed him off...

This is prior to his administration though?

FTA:

    U.S. Tech Workers, a nonprofit that wants to limit visas given to foreign technology workers, took out an ad to persuade Trump to stop the TVA from outsourcing much of its information technology division. The group, led by Kevin Lynn, criticized the TVA for furloughing its own workers and replacing them with contractors using foreign workers with H-1B visas.

If true, it does seem like an action that is appropriate for the United States Federal Government to take, no?

I don't know about you, but I don't see the logic in firing someone who made decisions based in a vacuum once you actually have a policy you want to implement, unless of course there was some private refusal on the CEO's part. This reeks of political showmanship to hide poor leadership.

The claim in the article was the TVA furloughed American Citizens, and then brought in more H1B Visa's instead, I suppose on the premise of paying them less than the furloughed workers.

If that assertion is true, then the outcome here (with the CEO being fired) seems very fitting and appropriate. That would amount to a gross misuse of public trust, for a public (US Government) owned organization.

I think we have established a pattern of Trump surrounding himself with sycophants. I'd love to see a history of contact between the TVA and Trump. I suspect this isn't just about the campaign. It's about someone calling him an idiot to his face, which his fragile ego can't tolerate.

There is no excuse to hire a single foreigner into a jobs program meant to help the people of Appalachia. No excuse whatsoever.

I completely agree, but castrating the Authority's ability to run the business, and stay profitable will do more harm than using contractors. Looking at Trump's firing as anything more as a step in the direction of privatizing the TVA at a cost to everyone who buys its power.

Why not privatize it? Also, does it make a profit? If not, maybe privatization should be looked at. As far as I can tell it's always been a government-funded jobs program operating at a loss.

It has been revenue positive for decades, and the rates are cheaper than the private alternative.

So what you're saying is they can afford to hire non-H1B's.

I don't know what the business decision was to hire outside contractors, however it resulted in the layoff of 62 workers. TVA hasn't hired an H1B employee since 2008. But if they needed to hire for a role where H1Bs were required they could afford to pay a competitive salary.

What's your point? Something wrong was done a long time ago so by now it's no longer wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com