General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsH1B Issue. - American Business Community Does Not Want American Workers.
Big business and the GOP have pretty much shattered the structure of the labor market in so many ways. What they have done is disadvantaged American workers. Whether it is skills mismatch or outright qualification distortion it all adds up to American business no longer wants American workers and actively discriminates against American workers at all levels.
In the view of American business American workers are spoiled. They do not work enough. They have too many rights. They have too many benefits. American workers wages are too high for the global market. The business strategy on labor has always been about global wage and benefit and rights parity with the rest of the planet. In fact that has been the case for countries like Canada and in Europe as well. When Romney and the GOP talk over regulation it is about getting rid of all our labor laws. THE MARKET MUST RULE WHEN IT COMES TO WORKING CONDITIONS.
The H1B issue is a message. American workers need not apply.
What that also means is that companies no longer train workers at many levels. They are content to force workers to train endlessly at their own expense to acquire ALL the skills they will need for almost any job. And that does not even then guarantee that you will get a job. Go to China or India if you want employment.
It also means that employers will insource and outsource at will and will work for permanent unlimited insourcing and outsourcing. They want to force American workers to compete with foreign nationals. Again, what American employers want is open ended insourcing and outsourcing.
MOST IMPORTANTLY when it comes to insourcing when I worked at DOL "immigration clearance" job orders would come in. Most of these H1B orders were "trick orders" meant to eliminate all American workers who might qualify. The employers would simply insert requirements into the job that NO American worker would have. In many cases all the requirements were congruent with the foreign national's resume. Like must must speak, read and write Mandarin Chinese from "x" province. It was sneakier than that but they might as well have put it that way.
There is one other factor that most workers and Americans do not realize. American corporate CEO"s no longer look at the US as their PRIMARY market. THEY DO NOT CARE IF AMERICAN WORKERS CAN AFFORD THEIR PRODUCTS ANY MORE. They are concentrating their sales efforts on the GLOBAL MARKET. That market is primarily in Asia and India.
So American workers need to understand that they are now at the bottom of the list now. And our American soldiers are dying to protect FOREIGN markets for our quasi American corporate community. Besides guys like Romney make a lot of money killing American workers jobs. CEO's get mind boggling golden parachutes. And the goal of American CEO's is to outsource all the jobs they can.
Why do you think we have so many billionaires now? Now you know what Reagan and the GOP have always been all about and what Romeny is all about. IT IS ABOUT THE ART OF THE DEAL.
So as long as Americans are anti union, anti government and anti labor the GOP can play them like a fiddle.
Addendum - How do I know this accusation to be true. Well I worked as an employment specialist I was always surprised when I brought up my IT or engineering screen. It would be LOADED with "immigration clearance" orders (orders that were for foreign workers). On one occasion ALL the orders were for visa requested workers. And I worked there for 24 years. And it got worse and worse after Ronald Reagan.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not significant number in the overall scheme of things.
Plus there are legal requirements that their job not affect the market negatively for American workers.
Read the law itself, not the partisan, anti-immigrant propaganda.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Federal investigators discovered fraud in more than 20 percent of applications they examined in which employers were requesting H-1B visas...
By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter
Federal investigators discovered fraud in more than 20 percent of applications they examined in which employers were requesting H-1B visas to hire foreign professionals in the U.S., a finding they called a "significant vulnerability."
In a report released late last year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service cited one especially egregious case in which an employer petitioned for a business-development analyst position but later told investigators the worker would be doing laundry and maintaining washing machines.
The report's findings appear to vindicate some critics of the H-1B program, who have said the hiring of foreign professionals hurts U.S. workers.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008746255_h1bside15m.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)Sure the right wing can find a report of that or more on welfare scams.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Immigration attorneys from Cohen & Grigsby explains how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers. See what Bush and Congress really mean by a "shortage of skilled U.S. workers." Microsoft, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, and thousands of other companies are running fake ads in Sunday newspapers across the country each week.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
treestar
(82,383 posts)Let's get rid of welfare too then.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Are the big boys in favor of it? If the answer is "Yes" then I know were going to get screwed.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Federal authorities have busted an alleged nationwide H-1B scam ring, arresting 11 people in seven states and bringing a 10-count indictment against a New Jersey IT services company. The indictment charges Vision Systems Group with one count of conspiracy and eight counts of mail fraud and seeks $7.4 million in forfeitures.
The individual arrests were carried out Feb. 11 by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in Iowa, California, Massachusetts, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and New Jersey.
According to Matthew G. Whitaker, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, the federal investigation involves companies that sponsor primarily H-1B nonimmigrants. Vision Systems and five other companies under investigation have said their H-1B workers have been brought to the United States to fill existing IT vacancies. Whitaker claims the companies have not always had jobs available for these workers, placing them in nonpay status after they arrive in the United States.
In some cases, according to the charges, the H-1B workers have been placed in jobs and locations not previously certified by the Department of Labor, replacing qualified American workers and violating prevailing wage laws. The companies and foreign workers have allegedly submitted false statements and documents in support of their visa petitions.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Feds-Bust-Nationwide-H1B-Visa-Scam/
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that pig.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that there are millions of us that need jobs. American CITIZENS that can't find work of any kind. When we're all working and there are openings that can't be filled by American CITIZENS, then import help.
But you've got yours, right? Fuck the rest of us.
And Rmoney is "out of touch?"
treestar
(82,383 posts)Employer has to pay H-1B (always a professional, where unemployment is still not that high) but can pay the person in China or India peanuts. That's where the job loss is mostly - concentrate on that. This is a big FAIL, since if you read the laws, they are written to protect American workers. Chinese workers have no such protection though. They "can" work for much less, as living expense in China is much lower and the laws of China do nothing to protect American workers.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)That's supposed to be some sort of comfort?
The elitist scum in DC aren't doing a fucking thing about that either. What the fuck does it take to get through to some people?
EVERY job is needed by American CITIZENS. Geesus fucking tits, you have an lame excuse for every gawdamn shitty policy coming down the tubes, don't you?
treestar
(82,383 posts)You won't solve any problem. What is this post for? Reality is reality. You can't make your own facts up.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. when it isn't your fucking life being destroyed.
Fucking clueless.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)Mr. Treestar, you clearly have not read the law.
The H-1B statutes are a tangled mess of lobbyists written provisions that are written to ensure that American workers can be run over.
1. Nearly all H-1B alien work in a few fields. The number of h-1b aliens in fields like engineering and computers exceeds the number of jobs created in those fields. In addition to H-1B there are TN, E, OPT and L visas being used for the same purpose.
2. The statutes permit Americans to be replaced by workers supplied by 3rd parties. Congress has been aware of this loophole for at least 18 years. The 1998 Legislation had a provision to close this when it left the House judiciary committee. This short provision was magically replaced by several pages of lobbyist-written provisions that were designed to do nothing.
3. An employer must submit a Labor Condition Application prior to applying for an H-1B workers in which the employer states the prevailing wage and the wage to be paid to the Dept. of Labor. The DoL must make a decision in 7 days. However, the DoL can only check that the form is filled out correctly. The employer can put down anything as the prevailing wage and know that it will be approved.
4. The h-1b statute redefines the term "prevailing wage" (look up 8 USC 1182(p)) from its normal meaning to allow employers generate a "prevailing wage" that is significantly less than what American workers actually make.
5. I have worked as a programmer at three companies that were replacing their American workers with H-1B workers using the loophole described above.
Political correctness is going to kill the American worker.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)(H) an alien (i) [(a) Repealed. Pub. L. 106–95, § 2(c),Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1316] (b) subject to section 1182 (j)(2) of this title, who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services (other than services described in subclause (a) during the period in which such subclause applies and other than services described in subclause (ii)(a) or in subparagraph (O) or (P)) in a specialty occupation described in section 1184 (i)(1) of this title or as a fashion model, who meets the requirements for the occupation specified in section 1184 (i)(2) of this title or, in the case of a fashion model, is of distinguished merit and ability, and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Attorney General that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary an application under section 1182 (n)(1) of this title, or (b1) who is entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of an agreement listed in section 1184 (g)(8)(A) of this title, who is engaged in a specialty occupation described in section 1184 (i)(3) of this title, and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 1182 (t)(1) of this title, or (c) who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services as a registered nurse, who meets the qualifications described in section 1182 (m)(1) of this title, and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Attorney General that an unexpired attestation is on file and in effect under section 1182 (m)(2) of this title for the facility (as defined in section 1182 (m)(6) of this title) for which the alien will perform the services; or (ii)(a) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform agricultural labor or services, as defined by the Secretary of Labor in regulations and including agricultural labor defined in section 3121 (g) of title 26, agriculture as defined in section 203 (f) of title 29, and the pressing of apples for cider on a farm, of a temporary or seasonal nature, or (b) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform other temporary service or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country, but this clause shall not apply to graduates of medical schools coming to the United States to perform services as members of the medical profession; or (iii) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States as a trainee, other than to receive graduate medical education or training, in a training program that is not designed primarily to provide productive employment; and the alien spouse and minor children of any such alien specified in this paragraph if accompanying him or following to join him;
1182(n)(1)
(n) Labor condition application
(1) No alien may be admitted or provided status as an H–1B nonimmigrant in an occupational classification unless the employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an application stating the following:
(A) The employer—
(i) is offering and will offer during the period of authorized employment to aliens admitted or provided status as an H–1B nonimmigrant wages that are at least—
(I) the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question, or
(II) the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of employment,
whichever is greater, based on the best information available as of the time of filing the application, and
(ii) will provide working conditions for such a nonimmigrant that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed.
(B) There is not a strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place of employment.
(C) The employer, at the time of filing the application—
(i) has provided notice of the filing under this paragraph to the bargaining representative (if any) of the employer’s employees in the occupational classification and area for which aliens are sought, or
(ii) if there is no such bargaining representative, has provided notice of filing in the occupational classification through such methods as physical posting in conspicuous locations at the place of employment or electronic notification to employees in the occupational classification for which H–1B nonimmigrants are sought.
(D) The application shall contain a specification of the number of workers sought, the occupational classification in which the workers will be employed, and wage rate and conditions under which they will be employed.
(E)
(i) In the case of an application described in clause (ii), the employer did not displace and will not displace a United States worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) employed by the employer within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing of any visa petition supported by the application.
(ii) An application described in this clause is an application filed on or after the date final regulations are first promulgated to carry out this subparagraph, and before [8] by an H–1B-dependent employer (as defined in paragraph (3)) or by an employer that has been found, on or after October 21, 1998, under paragraph (2)(C) or (5) to have committed a willful failure or misrepresentation during the 5-year period preceding the filing of the application. An application is not described in this clause if the only H–1B nonimmigrants sought in the application are exempt H–1B nonimmigrants.
(F) In the case of an application described in subparagraph (E)(ii), the employer will not place the nonimmigrant with another employer (regardless of whether or not such other employer is an H–1B-dependent employer) where—
(i) the nonimmigrant performs duties in whole or in part at one or more worksites owned, operated, or controlled by such other employer; and
(ii) there are indicia of an employment relationship between the nonimmigrant and such other employer;
unless the employer has inquired of the other employer as to whether, and has no knowledge that, within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of the placement of the nonimmigrant with the other employer, the other employer has displaced or intends to displace a United States worker employed by the other employer.
(G)
(i) In the case of an application described in subparagraph (E)(ii), subject to clause (ii), the employer, prior to filing the application—
(I) has taken good faith steps to recruit, in the United States using procedures that meet industry-wide standards and offering compensation that is at least as great as that required to be offered to H–1B nonimmigrants under subparagraph (A), United States workers for the job for which the nonimmigrant or nonimmigrants is or are sought; and
(II) has offered the job to any United States worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the job for which the nonimmigrant or nonimmigrants is or are sought.
(ii) The conditions described in clause (i) shall not apply to an application filed with respect to the employment of an H–1B nonimmigrant who is described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 1153 (b)(1) of this title.
The employer shall make available for public examination, within one working day after the date on which an application under this paragraph is filed, at the employer’s principal place of business or worksite, a copy of each such application (and such accompanying documents as are necessary). The Secretary shall compile, on a current basis, a list (by employer and by occupational classification) of the applications filed under this subsection. Such list shall include the wage rate, number of aliens sought, period of intended employment, and date of need. The Secretary shall make such list available for public examination in Washington, D.C. The Secretary of Labor shall review such an application only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies. Unless the Secretary finds that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary shall provide the certification described in section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title within 7 days of the date of the filing of the application. The application form shall include a clear statement explaining the liability under subparagraph (F) of a placing employer if the other employer described in such subparagraph displaces a United States worker as described in such subparagraph. Nothing in subparagraph (G) shall be construed to prohibit an employer from using legitimate selection criteria relevant to the job that are normal or customary to the type of job involved, so long as such criteria are not applied in a discriminatory manner.
(2)
(A) Subject to paragraph (5)(A), the Secretary shall establish a process for the receipt, investigation, and disposition of complaints respecting a petitioner’s failure to meet a condition specified in an application submitted under paragraph (1) or a petitioner’s misrepresentation of material facts in such an application. Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person or organization (including bargaining representatives). No investigation or hearing shall be conducted on a complaint concerning such a failure or misrepresentation unless the complaint was filed not later than 12 months after the date of the failure or misrepresentation, respectively. The Secretary shall conduct an investigation under this paragraph if there is reasonable cause to believe that such a failure or misrepresentation has occurred.
(B) Under such process, the Secretary shall provide, within 30 days after the date such a complaint is filed, for a determination as to whether or not a reasonable basis exists to make a finding described in subparagraph (C). If the Secretary determines that such a reasonable basis exists, the Secretary shall provide for notice of such determination to the interested parties and an opportunity for a hearing on the complaint, in accordance with section 556 of title 5, within 60 days after the date of the determination. If such a hearing is requested, the Secretary shall make a finding concerning the matter by not later than 60 days after the date of the hearing. In the case of similar complaints respecting the same applicant, the Secretary may consolidate the hearings under this subparagraph on such complaints.
(C)
(i) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, a failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E), or (1)(F), a substantial failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(C), (1)(D), or (1)(G)(i)(I), or a misrepresentation of material fact in an application—
(I) the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of such finding and may, in addition, impose such other administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation) as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions filed with respect to that employer under section 1154 or 1184 (c) of this title during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be employed by the employer.
(ii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1), a willful misrepresentation of material fact in an application, or a violation of clause (iv)—
(I) the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of such finding and may, in addition, impose such other administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per violation) as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions filed with respect to that employer under section 1154 or 1184 (c) of this title during a period of at least 2 years for aliens to be employed by the employer.
(iii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of material fact in an application, in the course of which failure or misrepresentation the employer displaced a United States worker employed by the employer within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing of any visa petition supported by the application—
(I) the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of such finding and may, in addition, impose such other administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount not to exceed $35,000 per violation) as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions filed with respect to that employer under section 1154 or 1184 (c) of this title during a period of at least 3 years for aliens to be employed by the employer.
(iv) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee (which term, for purposes of this clause, includes a former employee and an applicant for employment) because the employee has disclosed information to the employer, or to any other person, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of this subsection, or any rule or regulation pertaining to this subsection, or because the employee cooperates or seeks to cooperate in an investigation or other proceeding concerning the employer’s compliance with the requirements of this subsection or any rule or regulation pertaining to this subsection.
(v) The Secretary of Labor and the Attorney General shall devise a process under which an H–1B nonimmigrant who files a complaint regarding a violation of clause (iv) and is otherwise eligible to remain and work in the United States may be allowed to seek other appropriate employment in the United States for a period not to exceed the maximum period of stay authorized for such nonimmigrant classification.
(vi)
(I) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to require an H–1B nonimmigrant to pay a penalty for ceasing employment with the employer prior to a date agreed to by the nonimmigrant and the employer. The Secretary shall determine whether a required payment is a penalty (and not liquidated damages) pursuant to relevant State law.
(II) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to require an alien who is the subject of a petition filed under section 1184 (c)(1) of this title, for which a fee is imposed under section 1184 (c)(9) of this title, to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer for part or all of the cost of such fee. It is a violation of this clause for such an employer otherwise to accept such reimbursement or compensation from such an alien.
(III) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that an employer has committed a violation of this clause, the Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty of $1,000 for each such violation and issue an administrative order requiring the return to the nonimmigrant of any amount paid in violation of this clause, or, if the nonimmigrant cannot be located, requiring payment of any such amount to the general fund of the Treasury.
(vii)
(I) It is a failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A) for an employer, who has filed an application under this subsection and who places an H–1B nonimmigrant designated as a full-time employee on the petition filed under section 1184 (c)(1) of this title by the employer with respect to the nonimmigrant, after the nonimmigrant has entered into employment with the employer, in nonproductive status due to a decision by the employer (based on factors such as lack of work), or due to the nonimmigrant’s lack of a permit or license, to fail to pay the nonimmigrant full-time wages in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) for all such nonproductive time.
(II) It is a failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A) for an employer, who has filed an application under this subsection and who places an H–1B nonimmigrant designated as a part-time employee on the petition filed under section 1184 (c)(1) of this title by the employer with respect to the nonimmigrant, after the nonimmigrant has entered into employment with the employer, in nonproductive status under circumstances described in subclause (I), to fail to pay such a nonimmigrant for such hours as are designated on such petition consistent with the rate of pay identified on such petition.
(III) In the case of an H–1B nonimmigrant who has not yet entered into employment with an employer who has had approved an application under this subsection, and a petition under section 1184 (c)(1) of this title, with respect to the nonimmigrant, the provisions of subclauses (I) and (II) shall apply to the employer beginning 30 days after the date the nonimmigrant first is admitted into the United States pursuant to the petition, or 60 days after the date the nonimmigrant becomes eligible to work for the employer (in the case of a nonimmigrant who is present in the United States on the date of the approval of the petition).
(IV) This clause does not apply to a failure to pay wages to an H–1B nonimmigrant for nonproductive time due to non-work-related factors, such as the voluntary request of the nonimmigrant for an absence or circumstances rendering the nonimmigrant unable to work.
(V) This clause shall not be construed as prohibiting an employer that is a school or other educational institution from applying to an H–1B nonimmigrant an established salary practice of the employer, under which the employer pays to H–1B nonimmigrants and United States workers in the same occupational classification an annual salary in disbursements over fewer than 12 months, if—
(aa) the nonimmigrant agrees to the compressed annual salary payments prior to the commencement of the employment; and
(bb) the application of the salary practice to the nonimmigrant does not otherwise cause the nonimmigrant to violate any condition of the nonimmigrant’s authorization under this chapter to remain in the United States.
(VI) This clause shall not be construed as superseding clause (viii).
(viii) It is a failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A) for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to fail to offer to an H–1B nonimmigrant, during the nonimmigrant’s period of authorized employment, benefits and eligibility for benefits (including the opportunity to participate in health, life, disability, and other insurance plans; the opportunity to participate in retirement and savings plans; and cash bonuses and noncash compensation, such as stock options (whether or not based on performance)) on the same basis, and in accordance with the same criteria, as the employer offers to United States workers.
(D) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that an employer has not paid wages at the wage level specified under the application and required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall order the employer to provide for payment of such amounts of back pay as may be required to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1), whether or not a penalty under subparagraph (C) has been imposed.
(E) If an H–1B-dependent employer places a nonexempt H–1B nonimmigrant with another employer as provided under paragraph (1)(F) and the other employer has displaced or displaces a United States worker employed by such other employer during the period described in such paragraph, such displacement shall be considered for purposes of this paragraph a failure, by the placing employer, to meet a condition specified in an application submitted under paragraph (1); except that the Attorney General may impose a sanction described in subclause (II) of subparagraph (C)(i), (C)(ii), or (C)(iii) only if the Secretary of Labor found that such placing employer—
(i) knew or had reason to know of such displacement at the time of the placement of the nonimmigrant with the other employer; or
(ii) has been subject to a sanction under this subparagraph based upon a previous placement of an H–1B nonimmigrant with the same other employer.
(F) The Secretary may, on a case-by-case basis, subject an employer to random investigations for a period of up to 5 years, beginning on the date (on or after October 21, 1998) on which the employer is found by the Secretary to have committed a willful failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1) (or has been found under paragraph (5) to have committed a willful failure to meet the condition of paragraph (1)(G)(i)(II)) or to have made a willful misrepresentation of material fact in an application. The preceding sentence shall apply to an employer regardless of whether or not the employer is an H–1B-dependent employer. The authority of the Secretary under this subparagraph shall not be construed to be subject to, or limited by, the requirements of subparagraph (A).
(G)
(i) The Secretary of Labor may initiate an investigation of any employer that employs nonimmigrants described in section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title if the Secretary of Labor has reasonable cause to believe that the employer is not in compliance with this subsection. In the case of an investigation under this clause, the Secretary of Labor (or the acting Secretary in the case of the absence of [9] disability of the Secretary of Labor) shall personally certify that reasonable cause exists and shall approve commencement of the investigation. The investigation may be initiated for reasons other than completeness and obvious inaccuracies by the employer in complying with this subsection.
(ii) If the Secretary of Labor receives specific credible information from a source who is likely to have knowledge of an employer’s practices or employment conditions, or an employer’s compliance with the employer’s labor condition application under paragraph (1), and whose identity is known to the Secretary of Labor, and such information provides reasonable cause to believe that the employer has committed a willful failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), (1)(E), (1)(F), or (1)(G)(i)(I), has engaged in a pattern or practice of failures to meet such a condition, or has committed a substantial failure to meet such a condition that affects multiple employees, the Secretary of Labor may conduct an investigation into the alleged failure or failures. The Secretary of Labor may withhold the identity of the source from the employer, and the source’s identity shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5.
(iii) The Secretary of Labor shall establish a procedure for any person desiring to provide to the Secretary of Labor information described in clause (ii) that may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the commencement of an investigation described in such clause, to provide the information in writing on a form developed and provided by the Secretary of Labor and completed by or on behalf of the person. The person may not be an officer or employee of the Department of Labor, unless the information satisfies the requirement of clause (iv)(II) (although an officer or employee of the Department of Labor may complete the form on behalf of the person).
(iv) Any investigation initiated or approved by the Secretary of Labor under clause (ii) shall be based on information that satisfies the requirements of such clause and that—
(I) originates from a source other than an officer or employee of the Department of Labor; or
(II) was lawfully obtained by the Secretary of Labor in the course of lawfully conducting another Department of Labor investigation under this chapter of [9] any other Act.
(v) The receipt by the Secretary of Labor of information submitted by an employer to the Attorney General or the Secretary of Labor for purposes of securing the employment of a nonimmigrant described in section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title shall not be considered a receipt of information for purposes of clause (ii).
(vi) No investigation described in clause (ii) (or hearing described in clause (viii) based on such investigation) may be conducted with respect to information about a failure to meet a condition described in clause (ii), unless the Secretary of Labor receives the information not later than 12 months after the date of the alleged failure.
(vii) The Secretary of Labor shall provide notice to an employer with respect to whom there is reasonable cause to initiate an investigation described in clauses [10] (i) or (ii), prior to the commencement of an investigation under such clauses, of the intent to conduct an investigation. The notice shall be provided in such a manner, and shall contain sufficient detail, to permit the employer to respond to the allegations before an investigation is commenced. The Secretary of Labor is not required to comply with this clause if the Secretary of Labor determines that to do so would interfere with an effort by the Secretary of Labor to secure compliance by the employer with the requirements of this subsection. There shall be no judicial review of a determination by the Secretary of Labor under this clause.
(viii) An investigation under clauses [10] (i) or (ii) may be conducted for a period of up to 60 days. If the Secretary of Labor determines after such an investigation that a reasonable basis exists to make a finding that the employer has committed a willful failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), (1)(E), (1)(F), or (1)(G)(i)(I), has engaged in a pattern or practice of failures to meet such a condition, or has committed a substantial failure to meet such a condition that affects multiple employees, the Secretary of Labor shall provide for notice of such determination to the interested parties and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 556 of title 5 within 120 days after the date of the determination. If such a hearing is requested, the Secretary of Labor shall make a finding concerning the matter by not later than 120 days after the date of the hearing.
(H)
(i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), a person or entity is considered to have complied with the requirements of this subsection, notwithstanding a technical or procedural failure to meet such requirements, if there was a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply if—
(I) the Department of Labor (or another enforcement agency) has explained to the person or entity the basis for the failure;
(II) the person or entity has been provided a period of not less than 10 business days (beginning after the date of the explanation) within which to correct the failure; and
(III) the person or entity has not corrected the failure voluntarily within such period.
(iii) A person or entity that, in the course of an investigation, is found to have violated the prevailing wage requirements set forth in paragraph (1)(A), shall not be assessed fines or other penalties for such violation if the person or entity can establish that the manner in which the prevailing wage was calculated was consistent with recognized industry standards and practices.
(iv) Clauses (i) and (iii) shall not apply to a person or entity that has engaged in or is engaging in a pattern or practice of willful violations of this subsection.
(I) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as superseding or preempting any other enforcement-related authority under this chapter (such as the authorities under section 1324b of this title), or any other Act.
(3)
(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term “H–1B-dependent employer” means an employer that—
(i)
(I) has 25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; and
(II) employs more than 7 H–1B nonimmigrants;
(ii)
(I) has at least 26 but not more than 50 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; and
(II) employs more than 12 H–1B nonimmigrants; or
(iii)
(I) has at least 51 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; and
(II) employs H–1B nonimmigrants in a number that is equal to at least 15 percent of the number of such full-time equivalent employees.
(B) For purposes of this subsection—
(i) the term “exempt H–1B nonimmigrant” means an H–1B nonimmigrant who—
(I) receives wages (including cash bonuses and similar compensation) at an annual rate equal to at least $60,000; or
(II) has attained a master’s or higher degree (or its equivalent) in a specialty related to the intended employment; and
(ii) the term “nonexempt H–1B nonimmigrant” means an H–1B nonimmigrant who is not an exempt H–1B nonimmigrant.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A)—
(i) in computing the number of full-time equivalent employees and the number of H–1B nonimmigrants, exempt H–1B nonimmigrants shall not be taken into account during the longer of—
(I) the 6-month period beginning on October 21, 1998; or
(II) the period beginning on October 21, 1998, and ending on the date final regulations are issued to carry out this paragraph; and
(ii) any group treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) ofsection 41
You don't get your own facts. Work with the facts as is. This is dishonest propaganda, 19th century Know-Nothing stuff. You didn't read the law and know no one else will and so spread propaganda.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)You don't get your own facts. Work with the facts as is. This is dishonest propaganda, 19th century Know-Nothing stuff. You didn't read the law and know no one else will and so spread propaganda.
You left out two sections that contradict your initial claims.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You think you can change the law by making a false claim like that? Anyone can google US code and go directly to it all:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Really the dishonesty on this subject is blatant. Xenophobes will jump at the opportunity to believe what they want without checking things out. This lie has long been exposed on DU. H1bs are very restricted by law. They are not a way for an employer to pay less. Employer has to pay the same wage and be supervised by the government and deal with the paperwork and bureaucracy.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)Clearly, you have not read the statutes carefully. Your quick cut and paste job left out two important pieces related to your claims.
Plus there are legal requirements that their job not affect the market negatively for American workers.
Where is that in your quote?
I do add that the law USED TO say (but no longer for guest workers) what you claimed
Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act read as follows from 1965 until 1990:
Aliens seeking to enter the United States, for the purpose of performing
skilled or unskilled labor, unless the Secretary of Labor has
determined and certified to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney
General that (A) there are not sufficient workers in the United States
who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of application
for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place to
which the alien is destined to perform such skilled or unskilled labor,
and (B) the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the
wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States
similarly employed.
Treestar knows just a smidgen enough to be dangerous.
The pot calling the kettle black:
Really the dishonesty on this subject is blatant.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There's no way to post "it all" since that could include the regulations and any case law or the entire Immigration Act.
What section of 212(a) does not say any longer anything about not adversely affecting wages and working conditions?
What about section (n) fails to protect those for Americans? That's an entire, huge section which is all about that. You can't get around that by claiming one sentence is not there any more - the statute has obviously been re-written.
That Hs are paid less than Americans is simply false. That has been pointed out on DU time and time again. And if an American were qualified, the bureaucracy of section (n) would not have to be dealt with, so the American would be easier to hire. Furthermore, an American could be paid less, since there is no law requiring employers to pay Americans the prevailing wage (if they don't know what it is - a poor or ignorant negotiator, who is American, could end up agreeing to work for less)
This section is clearly meant to bring in professionals. It's the brain drain section.
ozsea1
(36 posts)but in practice, no. You are mistaken.
I live in Microsoft territory, and the OP describes the reality.
The law is indeed an ass.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)are in IT. It's certainly enough to pull down IT wages, considering that there are only about 150 million workers employed in the US as a whole & IT employment is a small fraction of that.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)but these visas each last from 3 to 6 years. So multiply a little.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)I worked at DOL and was right in the center of it all. So I do not buy either argument. And what I have posted is not anti immigrant. It is bullshit.
Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)
juxtaposed This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)There are more than enough qualified Americans to fill most of these open jobs. And they could do the job with minimal training. Employers are simply spoiled in so many way. The qualification gap is a complete lie. I talked to so many people who had all the degrees and all the training. The problem was they were too old or too educated. And they would have to be paid a proper wage. The American business community has become too stingy, greedy, and corrupt in so many ways. They want the workers to work for low wages and pay for everything including the infrastructure that makes business activity possible.
Big business is now more profitable than it has ever been and is sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. And they are refusing to create jobs. This business cycle malarky is just bullshit to cut down American workers. And H1B is another way to screw Americans.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)do what their big donors want.
Even during election season, are we hearing much about this from politicans if at all? Even if we ever do as November gets closer, how could any of us think that any politican raising the issue at that late point is sincere?
A major goal of American CEO's is, as you say, to outsource all the jobs they can. More jobs are going to be sent to foreign countries. And more jobs in America are going to be given to foreign workers, including H1B workers.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)specific requirements that I would guess nobody could possibly meet. The last requirement was some salary figure that was always about half what any reasonable person would expect for the job. I expect that this is still going on, tho I haven't looked in a long time.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The US workforce is approximately 150 Million.
There is an annual cap on H1Bs of 65,000. Total. For the entire country. That's four one hundredths of one percent.
While there may be fraud in a percentage of H1B applications it is a percentage. And hardly a majority. So cut that number down even more. The majority that are not fraudulent require that the person being hired receive the prevailing wage and benefits that would be paid to any US worker for the same job... and then you add on the additional cost of all the H1B paperwork and filings that actually make it MORE expensive to use them for most major companies who absorb those costs themselves. These people are being hired because they have *necessary skills* that are not present in sufficient quantity in the US workforce. If you want to get outraged about that your beef is with the way the education system has been systematically undermined.
There are numerous issues with the way the US workforce is treated. Pretending the H1B program hiring those darned foreigners instead of good old Americans is a major contributor to that problem is ridiculous xenophobic nonsense that belongs on a Tea Party forum. If you want to go on a crusade about something try a reasonable living minimum wage. Not having THAT is hurting a LOT of people. Try affordable quality post secondary education so companies don't need to ship people with advanced degrees in from overseas to make up the shortfall.
Yes your engineering and IT screen probably did have a lot of visa requests all over it. And if engineers and computer network specialists in the US had some kind of soaring unemployment rate that might represent a problem.
I'm an engineer in a high technology sector. Employment is not a problem for me or other people with my skill set. It got slightly marginally dicey during the worst of the downturn but that's about it. Know why? Because **there aren't enough of us to go around.** Hence the visa requests.
WilmywoodNCparalegal
(2,654 posts)especially since, by law, no job can be just for U.S. citizens (unless it's a federal job and/or requires special security clearances), but must also be open to green card holders (who are not U.S. citizens), those who are waiting for green cards, and certain refugees and asylees.
It reminds me of the outright discrimination my father suffered when he was transferred to the U.S. subsidiary of his Italian employer. The people there made it clear that they didn't want any foreigner - much less their version of the stereotypical Italian mafioso - there. The irony is that this was a wholly owned subsidiary of an Italian company with an Italian name.
They thought their engineers were better and better qualified. Of course, they could barely use the metric system and could not speak a word of Italian to deal with the Italian engineers abroad. Never mind that my dad actually has international patents for his work. He endured mysterious voice mail messages left on his phone at work (obviously by people inside the company) with fake Italian accents and all sorts of wonderful outright discrimination. HR was of no help as they were just as badly behaved. He endured this for over 12 years simply because they thought they were better qualified and didn't like their company being owned by Italians.
Though my dad is now nearly 64, he's still employed as an engineer and has never had trouble finding employment in the U.S. He's a dual U.S.-Italian citizen now, as his current job requires a security clearance. But he has very specific and needed skillsets and has strived to keep himself up to date with the latest technologies and knowledge.
A lot of times it is about the skillset - sometimes a company that does business abroad actually needs someone who is fluent in the language and understands a foreign culture. As an example, an accounting firm that does business with French-owned companies must have someone who knows about French accounting practices and can at least read French financial documentation. Chances are that the more qualified candidate may be some French accountant who needs a visa, versus someone who can say Bonjour.
It is been my experience that most Americans vastly overestimate their fluency in other languages. I've personally interviewed and tested people who were required to have Italian fluency and I can attest to this.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)I've lived this issue, up close and personal. I took a job managing a software technical support group with nine engineers. THREE were H1Bs with one more on the way. One (the most qualified) was a workhorse who did the job and more ... for less pay than an equally-qualified American. One was a back-stabber and predator, with a VERY suspicious "relationship" with the director. The third was barely-qualified, but VERY cheap. There wasn't even ONE of those jobs where I didn't know qualified Americans able to do the work.
The prior 'manager' of the group had a 'personal relationship' style of management ... a senior niche techie that ran the group like a Madam runs a bordello.
I had twenty years working in Silicon Valley and saw rampant abuses of the visa system. The so-called "cap"?? A joke. Somehow, the bureaucracy permitted loads of H1Bs to not count against that "quota." Whenever I tried to subtly get information on how deeply the system was gamed, it was clear my 'interest' wasn't welcome.
For a time, as one of four close friends (two couples) all of us IT professionals, *I* was the only one unemployed and looking ... the other three were foreign nationals: two Canadians and a Japanese. I was also the most senior. (Ageism is also rampant in IT.)
Your clear bias (e.g. casting H1Bs in relation to the ENTIRE workforce) in trying to trivialize this issue only serves to further promote this corruption.
Oh... and about your slanderous implication that we who bring this up are somehow bigots or jingoists: horseshit! I was almost engaged to one of the foreign nationals (a Japanese gal) and am about the furthest thing from being jingoistic in ANY sense of the word. Building such a false belief -- a broad brush smear -- to 'defend' your own opinion betrays a lack of objectivity in dealing with it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I work for a high tech engineering company that employs over a thousand PhDs in the hard sciences and have been actively involved in the interview prospects for new hire prospects. We have recs open for positions for MONTHS... really very urgently needed positions... because there aren't enough people who are capable of doing the job out there to hire. HR has resorted to offering multi-thousand dollar bonuses to anyone who can find them someone qualified to fill a lot of the positions... THAT is how hard it is to get people in who can do what we do. Know why? Because everyone who can do what we do ALREADY HAS A JOB.
The unemployment rate among competent highly educated engineers is basically nothing. IT'S effectively full employment. If you can't even bring yourself to deal with that basic reality that's on you.
And if you're going to complain about H1Bs being a problem in terms of US unemployment then dealing with what percentage of the workforce they are is not "trivializing the issue"... IT IS THE ISSUE. That is the thing you are bitching about. Welcome to the wonderful world of math.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I worked with a heck of a lot more than 3 H1-B workers and some of them were/are my friends. some were good, some were very very bad. All were cheap. I was a consultant so I competed with the H1-Bs since 1970 for jobs. In the early years, it was the English, then it was Phillipinos now it is Indians, there were also some from Sweden and Taiwan in the mix, but not much as they would rather work at home.
I also took a job at the end of my career to be close to home when my mother was ill. Through no fault of my own, I was promoted through the ranks and ended up managing a department with 108 people (many H1-B visa people) in it and had regular meetings with the president and made presentation to the board.
I never got to hire my own staff, slowly they were replaced with H1-B visa people that I never got to interview, they were a mix of people, usually very young who could be away from their families, and usually they were told to lie about their expertise. The reason the head of the company was hiring all these H1-B visa people was so he could outsource the whole department to India, this was to train the people who would be working with the system before it went over there. As much as I proved and gave presentation and begged and yelled, they would never listen to me when I had the figures to prove that my American staff was 6 times more productive and it was not cost justified to replace them. The president said outright I needed to shut up about this because they really made most of their money on tax breaks from our government to move the business out of the US. I was laid off shortly after that conversation, although I was given a choice, I could have gone to India for a reduced salary and managed the Indian workers to get the most out of them or I could transfer to Pittsburgh to another division where they needed my technical expertise. for a lower salary since the cost of living was lower there. And my staff would be let go a bit at a time until they all lost their jobs. I told them to lay me off already.
Outsourcing jobs and H1-B visa personnel are connected. It is a major problem as most of my IT friends are now unemployed (also most of them are older women that face a lot more prejudice in hiring). It is painful to watch these jobs go away, It is painful to watch my friends struggle at a time when they should have been able to work until retirement, it was painful to work with some of these H1B kids that just were not trained for the job they did. So please, do not preach this is not a problem.
ETA there are 65,000 NEW visa a year,not total. And many of the people getting in are coming in on - believe it or not - Student visas - which is another way of paying people less - they are coming here to "work/study" our computer systems.
edited to put missing letters in, must buy new keyboard.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)decimated this profession just as it was developing, all so billionaires could have more billions.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)There is an annual cap on H1Bs of 65,000. Total. For the entire country.
Gcomeau is not counting all the visas. Last year there were 114,529 new visas approved.
The US workforce is approximately 150 Million. ..... For the entire country. That's four one hundredths of one percent.
A classic apples to oranges comparison. These workers are concentrated in a few fields. Between 2000-2009, 547,901 new H-1B visas were approved for computer professionals. Over the same period, the BLS says 370,880 computer jobs were created.
Over the same time period, 139,341 H-1B visas were approved for engineers.
During that time period, the U.S. LOST 162,890 engineering jobs.
[The] additional cost of all the H1B paperwork and filings that actually make it MORE expensive to use them for most major companies
Let's examine Gcomeau's math skill. Go to flcdatacenter.com (the site for filing an H-1B prevailing wage claim. There we find that the average wage for a computer programmer here in Charlotte is $73,965. However, the level 1 prevailing wage (that most employers use) is $50,170. That gives an annual saving of $23,795 or $71,385 over the three years of a visa.
The H-1B visa fee is $325.
For large companies, there is a $1,500 retraining fee.
There is a $500 fraud detection fee.
That's $2,325 in visa costs.
If you use a lawyer, add in $1500 in legal fees.
That gives a total cost of for a visa filing $3,825 compared to a savings of $71,385.
Political correctness is going to kill the American worker.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...yes, there are exemptions to the cap for the HIGH END of the qualifications scale.
Know how many US workers at that level who can actually do the work can't find jobs? I'd be impressed of you could find me one. And your revision changes the value to 0.08%. Wow... you would sure have gotten me there!
As for this:
A classic apples to oranges comparison. These workers are concentrated in a few fields.
Why yes, they are!!!!! And did you catch the part where those few fields tend to be at effectively full employment?
Do you understand what that means?
As for your wage data... you're accusing ME of comparing apples and oranges? Using the average wage for generic "computer programmer" as a comparison point against ONLY the wages for entry level positions which is what the Level 1 wages apply to? Wow... nice work there.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)Clearly you have never read 8 USC 1184 where the cap is specified.
People who actually are at the "HIGH END of the qualifications scale" qualify for an O visa where there is no cap.
8 USC 1182(p) defines the term "prevailing wage" and requires that the DoL provide 4 prevailing wage levels.
8 USC 1182(n) only requires that the alien be paid the prevailing wage based upon occupation and location. There is no requirement that this prevailing wage match the alien's skills.
If you scan the disclosure data, most use the Level 1 wage and nearly all use either the Level 1 or level 2 wage--but of which are significantly less than the average wage. Even at the level 2 wage, the annual saving is $11,898 or $35,694 over the life of the visa.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)People who actually are at the "HIGH END of the qualifications scale" qualify for an O visa where there is no cap.
I didn't think it necessary to include the mind numbingly obvious qualifier "of the H1B criteria" to the end of "qualification scale" considering we are talking about H1Bs. There are H1B EXEMPTIONS for certain positions. High level university research positions, etc.. additionally some non profits are granted exemptions as well and a bunch of those additional visas are for those jobs. Going to bitch about THEM being able to hire those people too?
Even at the level 2 wage, the annual saving is $11,898 or $35,694 over the life of the visa.
Ok, pay attention now. We're going to take this slow.
That would be IF you were comparing the wages paid to workers being hired for level 2 positions to the average wages for ALL level positions. Which is a meaningless statement. of COURSE people being hired for a level 2 position, which is below average on the scale, get paid less than the average for the entire damn profession!!!!
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)In re the quotas:
(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided status under section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title who—
(A) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 1001 (a) of title 20), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity;
(B) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization; or
(C) has earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education (as defined in section 1001 (a) of title 20), until the number of aliens who are exempted from such numerical limitation during such year exceeds 20,000.
There's no mention of "high level university research position". Work on the payroll system and you apply for the exemption. Forums like this are never short of people who make stuff up.
Nearly all LCAs using the DoL supplied wage data use Level 1 (majority) or Level 2 as the prevailing wage. Thus nearly all prevailing wage claims are significantly lower than the actual prevailing wage under the term's normal and customary usage. The disclosure data is available on line.
Thus, either the H-1B program is being use to import people at the low end of the skill spectrum or employers are claiming high skilled people have low skills to pay them less.
Gccomeau, you should get a subscription to westlaw.com and learn to use it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What does point "A" in the text you quoted say?
What did you think it meant? Assuming you read it before copying and pasting it?
Nearly all LCAs using the DoL supplied wage data use Level 1 (majority) or Level 2 as the prevailing wage.
Which they would do filling Level 1 and Level 2 POSITIONS.
Which you then compare against the prevailing wage FOR LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 POSITIONS, NOT ALL LEVEL POSITION FOR THE ENTIRE CAREER FIELD.
I will now step aside from the position you so generously offered me on behalf of your village, I wouldn't want to be accused of stealing a job away from you that you were so well qualified for.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jobs (you'll have to crunch the numbers at the link below to verify):
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm
And one of those job categories (computer support specialist, which contributes 607K, 15%, of that total) doestn't even require a degree.
Even if average job growth in these fields is 20% over the next ten years (an overestimation per bls) that = about 70K new jobs a year, or 1400 per state on average, with about 1190 requiring degrees.
The IT industry uses about half of those 65K h1b spots:
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/47-percent-h1b-visa-requests-computer-fields/
Or about 30K a year. Which means that more than 1/3 of new IT jobs are being filled by h1bs.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)....since they DON'T MATTER unless there are a corresponding number of Americans who are sitting unemployed unable to find work and are also qualified for *those specific jobs* the H1B recipients are filling (FYI, those jobs are not "computer support specialist" positions that require no degree)
There are not.
Which means what your numbers show is that the industry needs way more qualified people than the US workforce can currently provide.
So?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:30 AM - Edit history (3)
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Computer-Support-Specialists-2012OC.htm2012 H1B Visa Reports: Computer Support Specialists
Rank: 1 - 25 | 26 - 50 | 51 - 75 | 76-100
Category: All | Visa Status | Job Title | Occupation | Industry | Work City | Work State
Rank H1B Visa Sponsor Number of LCA * Average Salary
1 Natsoft 36 $58,500
2 Cisco Systems 29 $104,379
3 The MathWorks 25 $71,466
4 Hewlett Packard 21 $77,148
5 Intergraph 15 $65,004
6 Microsoft 14 $102,501
7 IBM 14 $87,778
8 Jean Martin 10 $45,938
9 TeraRecon 9 $59,064
10 Applied Materials 8 $83,976
11 Google 8 $82,852
12 Tibco Software 7 $93,420
13 Beyond Management Group 7 $31,417
14 EMC 6 $85,830
15 Progress Software 6 $82,267
16 Brocade Communications Systems 6 $82,044
17 Boston Technologies 6 $47,500
18 Oracle 5 $84,843
19 Informatica 4 $86,954
20 Palo Alto Networks 4 $86,250
21 Gspann Technologies 4 $77,750
22 ING Direct 4 $76,875
23 Intec Telecom Systems 4 $76,725
24 Extreme Networks 4 $70,094
25 Jetnexus 4
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Computer-Support-Specialists-2012OC.htm
those highly specialized jobs....are offered for wages as low as $27K. That's about $13/hour. Helpdesk wages.
and they're not *my* numbers, they're bureau of labor statistics numbers.
and if over 1/3 of new IT hires = h1b, that's plenty to drive down wages.
i read that the university of washington has the same number of slots for IT students it did in 1999. That's Microsoft territory & Bill Gates & two of his family members are UW Trustees.
So if the UW isn't turning out enough IT people, that's *by design*.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)eliminated.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)TheMasterNemesis has done a great job of posting material. I though I would add a couple more.
Here is a recent blog post in which IBM rejects a qualified American because they only want workers from India. They will only hire Americans when there are not "visa ready" Indians. IBM's HR explains this is because the Indians are so much cheaper.
I have a lawyer friend who explained this to me. The H-1B statutes (8 USC 1182(n)) clearly state the H-1B workers have to be paid the prevailing wage. What I did not know is that the lobbyists write the statutes. They do it in a manner that is deliberately misleading. 8 USC 1182(p) redefines the term "prevailing wage" as having 4 levels. However, there is no requirement that the level match the worker.
You can see the effect by going to flcdatacenter.com where employers submit prevailing wage claims for H-1B worker. If you go to the Wage Library, pick an occupation and location. You can see the average wage along with the four wage levels. Most employers pick the lowest wage level. Instant savings.
WilmywoodNCparalegal
(2,654 posts)or you are assured a DOL or USCIS audit. Infact, for most H-1B positions you should pick level 2 or level 3 (if a Master's is required). But a Level I will definitely get you audited.
I'm an evil foreigner and job usurper by virtue of my green card, so perhaps I don't understand the system well, but lobbyists don't write laws - Congress does. Of course, lobbyists do influence Congress. Ultimately, however, Congress passes laws and ultimately 8 USC 1182 is their responsibility.
Yes, there is a requirement that the wage level must match the experience and academic credentials of the foreign national. You can't use a Level 4 for an entry level position and you certainly can't use a Level 1 for a managerial position either.
The blog is from the Center for Immigration Studies which, despite its self-serving description, is not an immigrant-friendly source. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center considers CIS on the same level as FAIR and NumbersUSA for their ties with some guy who is involved in anti-immigrant and white supremacy activities.
Moreover, as I have stated previously, having worked for the company indicated in this 'blog' in a very direct role with executive capacity I find the assertions to be quite unbelievable. That company has offices throughout the U.S. as well as many wholly-owned subsidiaries abroad, including a major one in India. Transfers between subsidiaries, affiliates and branches of employees are best accomplished via the L visa which is appropriately called the 'intracompany transferee' visa and not the H-1B. There are plenty of campuses nationwide and I worked in the largest one. There were plenty of U.S. engineers, managers and IT workers there.
SteveSmithCharlotte
(25 posts)Here is the complete text. Pray tell. Point out the part that says the selected wage level must match the experience of the employee.
8 USC 1182(P)(4) Where the Secretary of Labor uses, or makes available to employers, a governmental survey to determine the prevailing wage, such survey shall provide at least 4 levels of wages commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision. Where an existing government survey has only 2 levels, 2 intermediate levels may be created by dividing by 3, the difference between the 2 levels offered, adding the quotient thus obtained to the first level and subtracting that quotient from the second level.
The statute says how to create a prevailing wage.
8 USC 1182(n) state that the employee must be pad
(II) the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of employment,
There is no requirement that the employee be paid the prevailing wage for the skill level---only location and occupation.
American Made
(18 posts)I agree with this -> "So American workers need to understand that they are now at the bottom of the list now. "
Americans are being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in our OWN COUNTRY.
Time for this shit to stop once and for all.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)twins.fan
(310 posts)The politicians from both sides of the aisle are almost unanimously supporting big corporations on the H1B visa. The politicians don't say anything because the politicians are afraid to face us with the facts on their positions. The politicians work in the background away from our scrutiny.
agent zero
(33 posts)No small wonder people are getting enraged.
All that money could be going to Americans. But instead THEY are taking it.