> program itself is racist as hell
why is it racist to find workers willing to accept a lower wage to do the same quality work?
why is it racist to find workers willing to accept a lower wage to do the same quality work?
Now is the answer to make things worse, as they’ve been doing (removing the 60 day grace period after losing a job)? Or is it to liberalize the program. Maybe increase standards but make it easier for workers to move jobs?
Employers who really need employees for high-skilled work would thus get visas. Employers who want to underpay their foreign labor will not.
Other uses of the H-1B (e.g. French teacher https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=french+teacher&city=&... ) wouldn't be able to compete. There are also places in rural America where the only way to get doctors and nurses ( https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=nurse+practitioner&ci... ) is to hire them from abroad (the other option is to close the facility as insurance reimbursements aren't high enough to pay more).
Auctions are bad because need is not entirely measured in money. Highest bidders win is not egalitarian. Sometimes we do want to subsidize rocket surgeons visas for disadvantaged parts of the country.
We keep saying H-1B. There used to also be a H-1A visa and an H-1C visa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1A_visa
What if, instead of trying to solve the H-1B visa problem from companies that have gone through the roof for visa applications ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Top_H-1B_employers_b... ), instead split off all the jobs that are classified by the BLS as 15-0000 ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes150000.htm ) and move them to a new section ... Lets call it H-1D.
Within the H-1D which is for tech jobs (just like H-1A and H-1C were for healthcare while they were active), it can have a different pool size and requirements and for that one could require a certain base pay and have an auction on top of that.
https://www.uscis.gov/archive/h-1c-registered-nurse-working-...
This could allow for regulating tech job immigration differently while minimizing the impact to French teachers or medical professionals in rural America that have no way to compete with Big Tech salaries.
The reason I think this is more likely doable is that it works the same way that the H-1A and H-1C visas did before to address one section of the skilled labor visa applications.
is it because you personally would benefit from having tech jobs visas regulated so that your own wages don't get pushed down?
I think skilled labour import is, on the whole, beneficial. The bigger issue isn't this, but that they're legally bound only to that single company (and would need to reapply for the visa when they would change jobs).
If this condition could be changed, then it fix the issue.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/a314508.html or https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-26.pdf
Most employers that submitted petitions to Homeland Security were
approved, and most were approved for one H-1B worker, but a small
percent of employers garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals
between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2009. Over the 10-year
period, about 94 percent of all submitted petitions (initial and
extensions) were approved, with a high of 97 percent in fiscal year
2006 and a low of 84 percent in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 33] With
respect to the number of approved workers per employer, 68 percent of
employers were approved for 1 H-1B worker and about 99 percent of all
employers with approved petitions (627,922) were approved for 100 or
fewer workers. However, over the decade, less than 1 percent of all
employers with approved petitions were approved to hire almost 30
percent of all H-1B workers.
During FY2022-FY2024, approximately 13% of employers
indicated on their LCA filings that they were either H-1B
dependent or were willful violators. However, most of these
employers planned to hire only exempt H-1B workers. Less
than 1% of employers filing LCAs indicated that they were
required to comply with the additional attestation
requirements.
Again from the GAO:
Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections
for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as
worker protections-—such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages,
the visa’s temporary status, and the cap itself—-are weakened by
several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and
restricted. For example, the Department of Labor’s review of H-1B
applications from employers is cursory and limited by law to only
looking for missing information and obvious inaccuracies. Yet a recent
Department of Homeland Security study reported that 21 percent of the
H-1B petitions they examined involved fraud or technical violations.
Strengthening those abilities for BLS classification 15-0000 jobs rather than trying to rewrite H-1B for everyone is likely easier to accomplish.
Video of him saying that: https://youtu.be/BVdIWy9bCEA
Because of this, H1B workers have no choice but to accept bad pay and working conditions.
The employer knows full well that they can pay workers on a visa for less and they have them on a metaphorical leash (in the UK it was 5 years before they could apply for permanent residency).
I've seen this happen personally, I've seen an English engineering manager keep the Indian employees behind by telling them they couldn't leave and he wouldn't have dared said the same thing to me and didn't.
One of the Indians (who I think lived in the UK for a while) said to me in the morning after the incident while we were grabbing a morning coffee "You can see now why the British had India for so long", I took that to mean that he thought that Indians are more placid. I have no idea if that is the case generally, but he certainly thought so.
He was fed up and he went to a meeting and he had to hear "what are you going to do about it?" Manager knew his wife was pregnant and wanted to use it, or I suppose it was it. He told he would pack his stuff and leave. So he did. He packed his stuff, shared the news and another senior manager rushed after him to bring him back to his team with the raise.
I left the company few years ago but now and then I think about it. How someone can be so opportunistic with to the point of trying to abuse someone about to be a father for few thousands of dollars that do not even belong to him. And EVEN if he got a bonus or something it would have been much much less than that to the point that, if it was me, I would be so ashamed to admit that.
Possibly he would have done that with anyone in a special situation. And I am sure this is more common than not, but how f'up it is to hide behind "it is just business" cover to act like this.
Some people just identify with the company and/or like the power they get through the position.
So, yeah, it is not about race, but is very much discrimination that should be illegal.
yes it is right? am i mistaken here?