Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> There are requirements for companies to attempt to hire US workers first

You should read your own link again. It doesn't say that anywhere. Here's what it does say:

"Employers must attest to the Department of Labor that they will pay wages to the H-1B nonimmigrant workers that are at least equal to the actual wage paid by the employer to other workers with similar experience and qualifications for the job in question, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment – whichever is greater."

Heck, another source from the US Department of Labor explicitly answers this question[1]:

"The H-1B employer is not required to recruit U.S. workers, unless it is H-1B-dependent, a previous willful violator of H-1B requirements, or an employer receiving funding described in the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) which hires a new H-1B worker during the period Feb. 17, 2009 through Feb. 16, 2011. Such employers must take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for any job for which they seek H-1B workers."

1. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdf...

Okay, you're right, at least in 2022. I believe it was relaxed in this regard (well placed political "donations" at work) because I'm fairly certain there used to be requirements to recruit U.S. workers first.

Today, it seems that only "willful violators" are legally required to recruit U.S. workers. So FAANG are merely violating the intent of the law, which is stated extremely clearly by the BOL:

"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"

There's nothing debatable or ambiguous about this direct statement of intent.

So these corporations have successfully bribed the right people to make it legal to violate the intent of the law. Which shouldn't surprise anyone but changes nothing about the ethics of the situation. It's still a massive abuse and entirely used for the purpose of increasing corporate profits.

> I believe it was relaxed in this regard

Source?

> So FAANG are merely violating the intent of the law

If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers. At that salary level there are unlikely to be loads of people uninterested in the job. It's not hard, dangerous manual labor.

> Source?

I don't have the interest in doing the legal research. I could be just wrong about the requirement. Or it could be that in practice HR lawyers advise companies to make a token effort of recruiting U.S. workers as a precaution. It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way. Either way, the loophole is absolutely massive and exploited at great scale.

The intent of the law is extremely clear and it is being violated. Just read the statement of intent and then work for any U.S. tech company in a hiring role, and you'll soon know for yourself.

> If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers.

Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? In other words, it's a de facto subsidy for tech companies, to prevent them from having to increase wages. Text book wage suppression.

It just doesn't make any logical sense why FAANG would have to use H-1Bs at all, except for a few roles where their may truly be a lack of candidates. How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all then, if FAANG is in good faith trying to recruit U.S. workers?

I think I've explained the situation clearly, and don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended.

I'm done with this thread now. Have a nice day.

> It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way

Yeah it does. The letter of the law isn't being violated at all. The spirit isn't being violated either at FAANG companies. The wages are in the top 5% nationally - they should have no difficulty attracting domestic workers, if they existed. The visa burden is so onerous. Why would any company go through that willingly?

> How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all

Usually by underpaying workers by promising equity that will be worth way more later, recruiting through a sense of mission, giving out higher titles, or simply hiring lower-caliber talent or less-experienced people who don't know their worth. I've experienced all of the above.

> Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number?

How does that increase supply? Where are the large numbers of people who are otherwise interested in and capable of doing software engineering but $300k just isn't enough money?

> don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended.

I don't know what a "reasonable" judge is - I assume it's whoever agrees with you - so that's meaningless. However, no judge so far has agreed with your opinion, as far as it relates to the FAANG companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com