11 ms·

Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

180 points by nhstanley 11y ago

godzillabrennus 11y ago
I've watched this story unfold more and more as a friend was laid off by Disney and not rehired. Money talks in these situations, without a public backlash against Disney it'll be cheaper for them to keep doing this.
DINKDINK 11y ago
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
- gorbachev 11y ago
  There are certain benefits to making sure your citizens are gainfully employed. Also citizens vote, foreigners don't.
- larrik 11y ago
  I'm not sure I would consider laws that favor a country's citizens over foreign nationals "xenophobia". They CAN be, of course, but they can also be solid policy that most or all nations do.
- strictnein 11y ago
  Because New York and California are part of the same country? And it's not "certain types" of people. It's all non-Americans.
- seibelj 11y ago
  "Certain types of people", you mean non-citizens? The H1B lets non-US citizens into the country, ostensibly to fill a supposed skills gap. In reality, most H1B's issued are to replace high paid citizens with lower paid, low benefits immigrants. Whether you think this is good or bad, it isn't xenophobia or racism, it's a dollars and cents issue.
  - outworlder 11y ago
    > In reality, most H1B's issued That's a pretty bold claim! That would imply widespread fraud. I don't think all companies do that, not even most of them. I think the bodyshops heavily skew the perception, though.
- untog 11y ago
  I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair. The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.
  - davidw 11y ago
    > So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though. Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
    - untog 11y ago
      At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.
      - davidw 11y ago
        Plenty of skilled immigrants have skills that unemployed locals do not have. Even the 'cut rate labor' people love to hate.
  - Legogris 11y ago
    This seems more like an argument in favor of employing these people, not having artificial barriers to employment.
- searine 11y ago
  >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.
  - dafas32 11y ago
    And not only sinks wages, it also wrecks social trust.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
  - DINKDINK 11y ago
    Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments. Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California? There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization. The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.
- diogenescynic 11y ago
  >artificial barriers Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top. How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent? >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone What about the guys on H1B's who are now earning 4x more than they were back in India? Are they not people too?
    - diogenescynic 11y ago
      Of course they are people, but I think the US government should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens (voters), not the international community. The US government has an obligation to protect its own citizens above all others.
      - davidw 11y ago
        The best way to ensure that no immigrants take urrr jawbs is to have a shitty economy. It worked great in reducing Mexican immigration during the recent recession. Of course, it caused a lot of damage for many people in the US, too. Perhaps the best answer for everyone is to worry about growing the pie, rather than keeping people out.
- jowiar 11y ago
  Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? The world (or humanity) as a whole? Not really. US Citizens presumably want employers in the US to employ them over, well, people who aren't US Citizens. The US Gov't is elected by US Citizens. Hence the existence of legal barriers. If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because states don't have the power to enact those restrictions. US Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.
- jmspring 11y ago
  If a company wants to cut labor costs and move, open the new facility and train the people in the new location. Do not bring them in on a visa meant for skilled labor, make someone train their replacement and then fire them. Personally, I would like to see the H1-B system go away/become unavailable to large body shops and consulting firms. All they are doing is the scenario outlined above. Some companies are good, some, like IBM which are attempting to cater to the daily whims of Wall Street, not so much.
- electricblue 11y ago
  It's generally better for your whole country if your citizens are employed doing high wage, productive labor rather than having their jobs poached by foreigners who get paid very little send much of their wealth back to their home country. This in practice benefits a very small minority of very wealthy people and doesn't do much for your overall country. It is also better on a state level as well, to (for example) keep Apple in California rather than have them and their jobs leave for Texas, as well as the highly educated citizens you have leaving California for jobs in Texas.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain. Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people? >If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government. If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries. >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?
- outworlder 11y ago
  What they are trying to protect is US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting lesser wages) due to a sudden availability of cheaper labor. So, the supply is restricted. It's not exactly xenophobia, it is market control. I bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority. Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place. The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.
- whybroke 11y ago
  >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Would you be in favor of increasing the general US immigration cap by 65000 and abolishing H1B completely? Because I would. If you are not in favor of that then perhaps there is a motive to your concern other than racial harmony.
  - davidw 11y ago
    There is no 'general US immigration cap', because most immigrants are family members who pretty much get to come as long as they pass some checks. Source: my Italian wife and I went through that process when we moved here from Italy.
is_it_worth_it_ 11y ago
This is the future of the technology industry. There is no fighting it, you cannot fight with the forces of the free market. The salary differential between US based tech workers and foreign workers is too high. If the products you are working on require no innovation or real skill, as is likely with these disney positions, they will be outsourced.
- dustinchilson 11y ago
  They've done a ton of innovation. http://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/ http://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/
  - is_it_worth_it_ 11y ago
    Right, but its likely the people replaced here wrote ETL jobs and corporate web pages.
  - dangerboysteve 11y ago
    how is RFID use innovative?
    - darkarmani 11y ago
      It's hard to see if you don't actually read the article.
davidw 11y ago
The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs. That way they're not beholden to some low-wage job, and companies that bring people in merely for low wages will face high rates of churn.
- untog 11y ago
  The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs When I was on an H1B visa I changed jobs multiple times, very easily. Part of the problem is that people (including potential employers) aren't aware how easy it is.
  - calvinbhai 11y ago
    I think he meant, change jobs without needing to file for an H1b transfer or any documentation. Once a high skilled immigrant is in US, instead of giving work permit to a specific employer, make it so that its a work permit, with a time limit. 3 years, immigrant can work anywhere, any number of employers. Guess how many illicit h1b employers will be interested in bringing an immigrant, if they are not guaranteed that the immigrant will stay with them?
    - prostoalex 11y ago
      The transfer documentation is not that onerous, to be honest. Allegedly it's a gatekeeper against H1 program turning into a spout for unqualified immigration where "an employer" hires you for extremely high salary, and you quit on day 2 to start an exciting career in dishwashing.
      - bsder 11y ago
        The simplest way is to convert to a green card after being employed for 12 months. Employer is responsible for all legal fees, background check fees, etc. over the course of your employment. If you quit at day 2, the employer is still on the hook for all the fees. It can be gamed, but if you make the fees something like 30-40K, genuine employers will simply shrug as they'll amortize that over 3-4 years. Sweatshops, however, will lose bad.
bruceb 11y ago
they should not be raising the fee on transferring between employers: "and another $4,000 to move an H-1B immigrant who is already in the country to a new employer." This is a give away to the outsourcing firms. Helping them having a bit more control over their employee.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- fidget 11y ago
  Didn't realise this was an editorial
crapolasplatter 11y ago
Wait A second something doesn't make sense here. I thought the main reason for H1-B visas was because there aren't enough American workers? So why would they get rid of American workers they already had ,that have been doing the job? Surely it couldn't be because they lower pay of the H1-B workers?
- electricblue 11y ago
  Surely not, heaven forfend.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Why yes, http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm states: 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 by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States. Sadly, the top H1-B visa sponsors are: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx You'll not that list is pretty heavy on the "body shop" side.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    top 10 are all consulting, wow.
- outworlder 11y ago
  Is, it is the main reason, and the purpose of the visa. It doesn't mean that all companies use it for that purpose, despite what they say. Note that, according to the article, the laid off people seem to be (relatively speaking) older, with multiple years in the company. It is likely that their salaries are higher than what management would like them to be. My theory makes the prediction that the H1 holders are young. If so, they'll take lower salaries, specially if they aren't aware of living costs. Until they actually move, whatever offer they got must have seemed like a crapton of cash.
  - 11y ago
Fat_Rat 11y ago
I'm not against immigration, but the most egregious offense here was having the replacement workers trained by current employees as a stipulation of their severance. Here's the article that was posted here a little over half a year ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-... It's nice to see some closure.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The intent of the H1B is supposedly to provide foreign workers for labor categories where no American national can be found to perform the work. If there is any training going on there at all, that is proof of fraud. If the ones doing the training are American nationals, that just makes it more egregious. Hadean justice would alter the H1B visa category such that the guest worker could perform no function for the company other than to train American nationals to perform adequately in the labor category that required the imported foreign worker. Clearly, if it is advantageous to import a skill, it would be more advantageous to replicate it during the limited time that it is available.
  - tyre 11y ago
    > If there is any training going on there at all, that is proof of fraud. This is not true. Let's say you need someone with expertise in a very specific category, like embedding javascript into Postgres. You find the one person in the world who does that and hire them using an H1B. Your whole company uses Macs and she is used to Windows. Is training that new employee to provision an OS X machine fraud? No.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      If it is a job requirement to use Mac OS, and the guest worker does not know Mac OS, they are not qualified for the job. If they can meet the requirements by being trained in Mac OS, a local could also meet the requirements by being trained in javascript and Postgres. Either the company is being deceptive by making the job requirements much narrower than is reasonable, or in claiming that no local could meet them. Realistically, there are probably at least 18000 people worldwide (top 0.1% of software pros) who could hear that you want javascript embedded in Postgres, and--without any training from you whatsoever--be able to do that two weeks later, and at least 3500 of them are currently authorized to work in the US for any employer. But the people you can get without a visa will want at least $150k a year to do that for you, because they know they are elite software professionals in the US, whereas the person you import may only expect $90k. Please note that the requirements you mentioned as an example are experience based requirements, not aptitude based requirement. Many of us on HN, given a sufficient lead time, can meet any aptitude based requirement that a company might care to advertise. But none of us can have 5 years of experience with a specific technology tool in less than 5 years. The sort of requirements that might non-fraudulently require an H1B worker would include fluency in a natural language other than English, or knowledge of certain areas of computing, such as artificial vision, natural language processing, distributed network architecture, custom hardware interfaces, cryptography, and the like. When you need a cryptographer, you ask for someone with a proven aptitude in cryptography, not someone with 5 years of experience in AES, X.509, and "Bitcoin hacking". Structuring requirements that way is a means to intentionally disqualify everyone but the pre-selected applicant. And it is not limited to gaming the immigration system, either, but as a means to discriminate against protected classes. Someone with 30 years of C experience is undoubtedly an experienced software professional, but requiring five years of experience in Node.js is a great way to weed out that applicant for being too old, rather than being unable to do the job.
utternerd 11y ago
If that replacement can serve the same purpose, and give approximately the same value to the company, why should the native and/or higher-waged person expect to have priority?
- wfo 11y ago
  Because you can always truck in a slew of desperate people willing to work for lower and lower wages until we descend into de facto slavery (not even being hyperbolic, that's essentially what many sweatshops are in some countries, look at hypercapitalist Dubai where companies retain control of 'employee's passports and refuse to return them so employees cannot escape the country/near-fatal working conditions). We've compromised as a society and said sure slave labor will exist but not in the US, if a company wants to benefit from the infrastructure and educated workforce and culture and benefits that American society has developed they have to be decent corporate citizens and treat workers with a modicum of respect. You're suggesting bringing slave labor here, I'd suggest rather we sprint in the opposite direction and ban it everywhere through e.g. making the import of goods made through slave labor a criminal offense.
  - davidw 11y ago
    IT jobs are pretty easy to export, too, so if there's a big disparity, sooner or later, the jobs can go the other direction, if the people can't come in this (towards the US) direction.
    - DannoHung 11y ago
      It's easy to say, "IT jobs are pretty easy to export". In practice, this depends on a number of factors being aligned correctly and an organization being tuned to the idea of remote work. Especially if the deliverable of the IT job in question is part of the core function of the organization.
      - davidw 11y ago
        Sure, it's complex. But if the disparity is great enough, people will find a way to make it happen.
markdown 11y ago
Just as an FYI: People all over the world also get the short end of the stick when expats are favoured over locals. The third world is full of high-paying positions held by white westerners doing jobs that locals can do.
pharrington 11y ago
The obvious next step after preventing corporations from replacing current employees with low wage immigrant workers is to replace the employees with low wage American workers. Visa laws seem orthagonal to the main problem here.
- r00fus 11y ago
  So then we replace those with even lower wage immigrants and repeat the cycle?
jmspring 11y ago
There used to be an implied contract between employee and company back in the day -- the company would provide growth opportunities and training for an employee, and the employee would stay with the company for years. That hasn't been the case for many many years, but the memory lingers and some employees feel beholden to companies. Many large public corporations these days look for maximizing "share holder value", which translates into "what can we do right now to maximize revenue". That being said, those short term actions will have long term effects. Cringely has done well to document the case of IBM. My graduate advisor was old school IBM and was still getting money from a time when (i don't know the exact specifics) where if an employee made a significant impact that saved the company money, they company would provide some renumeration in kind. His patents, etc. still brought him money from his time at IBM. This is going to be a gross over simplification, but it is based on personal experience at two companies -- both startups. There are certain nationalities, maybe it is due to national ties, sometimes it seems due to prior business relationships and potential kickbacks, where an individual in power puts significant pressure on the company to hire a particular out sourcing firm or sponsor an H1-B for a particular individual. Just like the numerous debates around "women in tech", there are factors at play and decisions made where hiring isn't always about "what's right for the company", but more about a "cultural" or "ethnic" fit. Skill and merit should be at the forefront (a pipe dream, but we like to think it is there). Any work place where there is a significant dominance of one culture over another (unless, say a whole team was brought in as a whole) speaks to a diversity and cultural problem. Unfortunately, a lot of these can also be coupled to Visas like the H1-B.
bloomingfractal 11y ago
People, remember how many successful companies have been founded by immigrants (Sergey Brin comes to mind). This is not a zero-sum game, if innovation doesn't happen here in this country it will happen eventually elsewhere. The US is actually very lucky of having hard-working qualified people wanting to immigrate and contribute to the local economy. Recall that crime rates in the US among immigrants are lower than in the general population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_S... That being said, the H1-B system is broken and needs urgent reform, I suggest looking at the point-system used in Canada.
geebee 11y ago
While I'm glad to see the NYTimes covering this issue, I am disappointed with the headline. The US takes over 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. These new free and full citizens pursue educations and careers in response to their personal life interests and market signals. You know, that whole pesky freedom thing that corporations often despise in their workforce. Some enter high tech, some don't, and this article has absolutely nothing to do with this kind of immigration, at all. This is about high tech companies lobbying congress for a special temporary guest worker visa (that allows for a dual intent to remain in the US), held and controlled by a corporation, where the guest worker resides in the US at the pleasure of the corporate "sponsor", on the grounds that there is such a shortage of critical tech employees that we need to empower corporations to bestow the right to live and work in the US on non-citizen who possess these skills. Some of these corporations have then turned around and fired US Citizens, some of whom are in fact immigrants, in order to replace them with workers brought in on this program. While there is plenty of debate here on HN on the extent to which the new workers are "captive" in their jobs, I think we can all agree that the H1B workers absolutely are not free and full citizens, free to choose their own path in life, decide where they will live, what they will work on, what career they will pursue, and so forth. Even if they can change jobs, they need to find a new corporate sponsor who bestows the right to live in the US on them. This kind of corporate power over individuals, on a massive scale, really bothers me. You can object deeply this while celebrating immigration that preserves the freedom and autonomy of the individual, and supporting general immigration (or even a more general version of skilled immigration).
- dcre 11y ago
  Very well said. I would add that "corporate power over individuals" applies to the fired employees just as well to the fired employees as to the H1B workers. Indeed, their power over the former depends fundamentally on their power over the latter.
  - davidw 11y ago
    It applies in different quantities though: the fired US people can apply for unemployment and look for a new job, or maybe take some time off and go surfing, or move elsewhere, or pursue a degree. The fired H1B people need to book a flight home. That implies a lot more power over the latter.
at5 11y ago
Guessing you're a fan of the white man's burden by kipling?
- tptacek 11y ago
  This is an over-the-top uncivil comment. It's also dumb: Rayiner isn't white.
  - at5 11y ago
    Sentiment expressed by westerners towards others stand. Still possible for him/her to be racist towards arabs. You would do well to recognize its patronising tone. Read the poem perhaps. Iraqis arent children and don't need anyones approval before voting. Unreal
- dang 11y ago
  This comment breaks the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, especially when someone is wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970417 and marked it off-topic.

180 points by nhstanley 11y ago

I've watched this story unfold more and more as a friend was laid off by Disney and not rehired. Money talks in these situations, without a public backlash against Disney it'll be cheaper for them to keep doing this.

DINKDINK 11y ago

Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?

gorbachev 11y ago
There are certain benefits to making sure your citizens are gainfully employed. Also citizens vote, foreigners don't.
larrik 11y ago
I'm not sure I would consider laws that favor a country's citizens over foreign nationals "xenophobia". They CAN be, of course, but they can also be solid policy that most or all nations do.
strictnein 11y ago
Because New York and California are part of the same country? And it's not "certain types" of people. It's all non-Americans.
seibelj 11y ago
"Certain types of people", you mean non-citizens? The H1B lets non-US citizens into the country, ostensibly to fill a supposed skills gap. In reality, most H1B's issued are to replace high paid citizens with lower paid, low benefits immigrants. Whether you think this is good or bad, it isn't xenophobia or racism, it's a dollars and cents issue.
- outworlder 11y ago
  > In reality, most H1B's issued That's a pretty bold claim! That would imply widespread fraud. I don't think all companies do that, not even most of them. I think the bodyshops heavily skew the perception, though.
untog 11y ago
I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair. The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.
- davidw 11y ago
  > So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though. Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
  - untog 11y ago
    At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.
    - davidw 11y ago
      Plenty of skilled immigrants have skills that unemployed locals do not have. Even the 'cut rate labor' people love to hate.
- Legogris 11y ago
  This seems more like an argument in favor of employing these people, not having artificial barriers to employment.
searine 11y ago
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.
- dafas32 11y ago
  And not only sinks wages, it also wrecks social trust.
rayiner 11y ago
It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
- DINKDINK 11y ago
  Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments. Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California? There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization. The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.
diogenescynic 11y ago
>artificial barriers Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top. How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent? >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.
- aianus 11y ago
  > All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone What about the guys on H1B's who are now earning 4x more than they were back in India? Are they not people too?
  - diogenescynic 11y ago
    Of course they are people, but I think the US government should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens (voters), not the international community. The US government has an obligation to protect its own citizens above all others.
    - davidw 11y ago
      The best way to ensure that no immigrants take urrr jawbs is to have a shitty economy. It worked great in reducing Mexican immigration during the recent recession. Of course, it caused a lot of damage for many people in the US, too. Perhaps the best answer for everyone is to worry about growing the pie, rather than keeping people out.
jowiar 11y ago
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? The world (or humanity) as a whole? Not really. US Citizens presumably want employers in the US to employ them over, well, people who aren't US Citizens. The US Gov't is elected by US Citizens. Hence the existence of legal barriers. If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because states don't have the power to enact those restrictions. US Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.
jmspring 11y ago
If a company wants to cut labor costs and move, open the new facility and train the people in the new location. Do not bring them in on a visa meant for skilled labor, make someone train their replacement and then fire them. Personally, I would like to see the H1-B system go away/become unavailable to large body shops and consulting firms. All they are doing is the scenario outlined above. Some companies are good, some, like IBM which are attempting to cater to the daily whims of Wall Street, not so much.
electricblue 11y ago
It's generally better for your whole country if your citizens are employed doing high wage, productive labor rather than having their jobs poached by foreigners who get paid very little send much of their wealth back to their home country. This in practice benefits a very small minority of very wealthy people and doesn't do much for your overall country. It is also better on a state level as well, to (for example) keep Apple in California rather than have them and their jobs leave for Texas, as well as the highly educated citizens you have leaving California for jobs in Texas.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain. Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people? >If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government. If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries. >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?
outworlder 11y ago
What they are trying to protect is US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting lesser wages) due to a sudden availability of cheaper labor. So, the supply is restricted. It's not exactly xenophobia, it is market control. I bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority. Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place. The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.
whybroke 11y ago
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Would you be in favor of increasing the general US immigration cap by 65000 and abolishing H1B completely? Because I would. If you are not in favor of that then perhaps there is a motive to your concern other than racial harmony.
- davidw 11y ago
  There is no 'general US immigration cap', because most immigrants are family members who pretty much get to come as long as they pass some checks. Source: my Italian wife and I went through that process when we moved here from Italy.

is_it_worth_it_ 11y ago

This is the future of the technology industry. There is no fighting it, you cannot fight with the forces of the free market. The salary differential between US based tech workers and foreign workers is too high. If the products you are working on require no innovation or real skill, as is likely with these disney positions, they will be outsourced.

dustinchilson 11y ago
They've done a ton of innovation. http://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/ http://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/
- is_it_worth_it_ 11y ago
  Right, but its likely the people replaced here wrote ETL jobs and corporate web pages.
- dangerboysteve 11y ago
  how is RFID use innovative?
  - darkarmani 11y ago
    It's hard to see if you don't actually read the article.

davidw 11y ago

The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs. That way they're not beholden to some low-wage job, and companies that bring people in merely for low wages will face high rates of churn.

untog 11y ago
The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs When I was on an H1B visa I changed jobs multiple times, very easily. Part of the problem is that people (including potential employers) aren't aware how easy it is.
- calvinbhai 11y ago
  I think he meant, change jobs without needing to file for an H1b transfer or any documentation. Once a high skilled immigrant is in US, instead of giving work permit to a specific employer, make it so that its a work permit, with a time limit. 3 years, immigrant can work anywhere, any number of employers. Guess how many illicit h1b employers will be interested in bringing an immigrant, if they are not guaranteed that the immigrant will stay with them?
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    The transfer documentation is not that onerous, to be honest. Allegedly it's a gatekeeper against H1 program turning into a spout for unqualified immigration where "an employer" hires you for extremely high salary, and you quit on day 2 to start an exciting career in dishwashing.
    - bsder 11y ago
      The simplest way is to convert to a green card after being employed for 12 months. Employer is responsible for all legal fees, background check fees, etc. over the course of your employment. If you quit at day 2, the employer is still on the hook for all the fees. It can be gamed, but if you make the fees something like 30-40K, genuine employers will simply shrug as they'll amortize that over 3-4 years. Sweatshops, however, will lose bad.

bruceb 11y ago

they should not be raising the fee on transferring between employers: "and another $4,000 to move an H-1B immigrant who is already in the country to a new employer." This is a give away to the outsourcing firms. Helping them having a bit more control over their employee.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fidget 11y ago
Didn't realise this was an editorial

crapolasplatter 11y ago

Wait A second something doesn't make sense here. I thought the main reason for H1-B visas was because there aren't enough American workers? So why would they get rid of American workers they already had ,that have been doing the job? Surely it couldn't be because they lower pay of the H1-B workers?

electricblue 11y ago
Surely not, heaven forfend.
protomyth 11y ago
Why yes, http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm states: 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 by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States. Sadly, the top H1-B visa sponsors are: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx You'll not that list is pretty heavy on the "body shop" side.
- serge2k 11y ago
  top 10 are all consulting, wow.
outworlder 11y ago
Is, it is the main reason, and the purpose of the visa. It doesn't mean that all companies use it for that purpose, despite what they say. Note that, according to the article, the laid off people seem to be (relatively speaking) older, with multiple years in the company. It is likely that their salaries are higher than what management would like them to be. My theory makes the prediction that the H1 holders are young. If so, they'll take lower salaries, specially if they aren't aware of living costs. Until they actually move, whatever offer they got must have seemed like a crapton of cash.
- 11y ago

Fat_Rat 11y ago

I'm not against immigration, but the most egregious offense here was having the replacement workers trained by current employees as a stipulation of their severance. Here's the article that was posted here a little over half a year ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-... It's nice to see some closure.

logfromblammo 11y ago
The intent of the H1B is supposedly to provide foreign workers for labor categories where no American national can be found to perform the work. If there is any training going on there at all, that is proof of fraud. If the ones doing the training are American nationals, that just makes it more egregious. Hadean justice would alter the H1B visa category such that the guest worker could perform no function for the company other than to train American nationals to perform adequately in the labor category that required the imported foreign worker. Clearly, if it is advantageous to import a skill, it would be more advantageous to replicate it during the limited time that it is available.
- tyre 11y ago
  > If there is any training going on there at all, that is proof of fraud. This is not true. Let's say you need someone with expertise in a very specific category, like embedding javascript into Postgres. You find the one person in the world who does that and hire them using an H1B. Your whole company uses Macs and she is used to Windows. Is training that new employee to provision an OS X machine fraud? No.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    If it is a job requirement to use Mac OS, and the guest worker does not know Mac OS, they are not qualified for the job. If they can meet the requirements by being trained in Mac OS, a local could also meet the requirements by being trained in javascript and Postgres. Either the company is being deceptive by making the job requirements much narrower than is reasonable, or in claiming that no local could meet them. Realistically, there are probably at least 18000 people worldwide (top 0.1% of software pros) who could hear that you want javascript embedded in Postgres, and--without any training from you whatsoever--be able to do that two weeks later, and at least 3500 of them are currently authorized to work in the US for any employer. But the people you can get without a visa will want at least $150k a year to do that for you, because they know they are elite software professionals in the US, whereas the person you import may only expect $90k. Please note that the requirements you mentioned as an example are experience based requirements, not aptitude based requirement. Many of us on HN, given a sufficient lead time, can meet any aptitude based requirement that a company might care to advertise. But none of us can have 5 years of experience with a specific technology tool in less than 5 years. The sort of requirements that might non-fraudulently require an H1B worker would include fluency in a natural language other than English, or knowledge of certain areas of computing, such as artificial vision, natural language processing, distributed network architecture, custom hardware interfaces, cryptography, and the like. When you need a cryptographer, you ask for someone with a proven aptitude in cryptography, not someone with 5 years of experience in AES, X.509, and "Bitcoin hacking". Structuring requirements that way is a means to intentionally disqualify everyone but the pre-selected applicant. And it is not limited to gaming the immigration system, either, but as a means to discriminate against protected classes. Someone with 30 years of C experience is undoubtedly an experienced software professional, but requiring five years of experience in Node.js is a great way to weed out that applicant for being too old, rather than being unable to do the job.

utternerd 11y ago

If that replacement can serve the same purpose, and give approximately the same value to the company, why should the native and/or higher-waged person expect to have priority?

wfo 11y ago
Because you can always truck in a slew of desperate people willing to work for lower and lower wages until we descend into de facto slavery (not even being hyperbolic, that's essentially what many sweatshops are in some countries, look at hypercapitalist Dubai where companies retain control of 'employee's passports and refuse to return them so employees cannot escape the country/near-fatal working conditions). We've compromised as a society and said sure slave labor will exist but not in the US, if a company wants to benefit from the infrastructure and educated workforce and culture and benefits that American society has developed they have to be decent corporate citizens and treat workers with a modicum of respect. You're suggesting bringing slave labor here, I'd suggest rather we sprint in the opposite direction and ban it everywhere through e.g. making the import of goods made through slave labor a criminal offense.
- davidw 11y ago
  IT jobs are pretty easy to export, too, so if there's a big disparity, sooner or later, the jobs can go the other direction, if the people can't come in this (towards the US) direction.
  - DannoHung 11y ago
    It's easy to say, "IT jobs are pretty easy to export". In practice, this depends on a number of factors being aligned correctly and an organization being tuned to the idea of remote work. Especially if the deliverable of the IT job in question is part of the core function of the organization.
    - davidw 11y ago
      Sure, it's complex. But if the disparity is great enough, people will find a way to make it happen.

markdown 11y ago

Just as an FYI: People all over the world also get the short end of the stick when expats are favoured over locals. The third world is full of high-paying positions held by white westerners doing jobs that locals can do.

pharrington 11y ago

The obvious next step after preventing corporations from replacing current employees with low wage immigrant workers is to replace the employees with low wage American workers. Visa laws seem orthagonal to the main problem here.

r00fus 11y ago
So then we replace those with even lower wage immigrants and repeat the cycle?

jmspring 11y ago

There used to be an implied contract between employee and company back in the day -- the company would provide growth opportunities and training for an employee, and the employee would stay with the company for years. That hasn't been the case for many many years, but the memory lingers and some employees feel beholden to companies. Many large public corporations these days look for maximizing "share holder value", which translates into "what can we do right now to maximize revenue". That being said, those short term actions will have long term effects. Cringely has done well to document the case of IBM. My graduate advisor was old school IBM and was still getting money from a time when (i don't know the exact specifics) where if an employee made a significant impact that saved the company money, they company would provide some renumeration in kind. His patents, etc. still brought him money from his time at IBM. This is going to be a gross over simplification, but it is based on personal experience at two companies -- both startups. There are certain nationalities, maybe it is due to national ties, sometimes it seems due to prior business relationships and potential kickbacks, where an individual in power puts significant pressure on the company to hire a particular out sourcing firm or sponsor an H1-B for a particular individual. Just like the numerous debates around "women in tech", there are factors at play and decisions made where hiring isn't always about "what's right for the company", but more about a "cultural" or "ethnic" fit. Skill and merit should be at the forefront (a pipe dream, but we like to think it is there). Any work place where there is a significant dominance of one culture over another (unless, say a whole team was brought in as a whole) speaks to a diversity and cultural problem. Unfortunately, a lot of these can also be coupled to Visas like the H1-B.

bloomingfractal 11y ago

People, remember how many successful companies have been founded by immigrants (Sergey Brin comes to mind). This is not a zero-sum game, if innovation doesn't happen here in this country it will happen eventually elsewhere. The US is actually very lucky of having hard-working qualified people wanting to immigrate and contribute to the local economy. Recall that crime rates in the US among immigrants are lower than in the general population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_S... That being said, the H1-B system is broken and needs urgent reform, I suggest looking at the point-system used in Canada.

geebee 11y ago

While I'm glad to see the NYTimes covering this issue, I am disappointed with the headline. The US takes over 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. These new free and full citizens pursue educations and careers in response to their personal life interests and market signals. You know, that whole pesky freedom thing that corporations often despise in their workforce. Some enter high tech, some don't, and this article has absolutely nothing to do with this kind of immigration, at all. This is about high tech companies lobbying congress for a special temporary guest worker visa (that allows for a dual intent to remain in the US), held and controlled by a corporation, where the guest worker resides in the US at the pleasure of the corporate "sponsor", on the grounds that there is such a shortage of critical tech employees that we need to empower corporations to bestow the right to live and work in the US on non-citizen who possess these skills. Some of these corporations have then turned around and fired US Citizens, some of whom are in fact immigrants, in order to replace them with workers brought in on this program. While there is plenty of debate here on HN on the extent to which the new workers are "captive" in their jobs, I think we can all agree that the H1B workers absolutely are not free and full citizens, free to choose their own path in life, decide where they will live, what they will work on, what career they will pursue, and so forth. Even if they can change jobs, they need to find a new corporate sponsor who bestows the right to live in the US on them. This kind of corporate power over individuals, on a massive scale, really bothers me. You can object deeply this while celebrating immigration that preserves the freedom and autonomy of the individual, and supporting general immigration (or even a more general version of skilled immigration).

dcre 11y ago
Very well said. I would add that "corporate power over individuals" applies to the fired employees just as well to the fired employees as to the H1B workers. Indeed, their power over the former depends fundamentally on their power over the latter.
- davidw 11y ago
  It applies in different quantities though: the fired US people can apply for unemployment and look for a new job, or maybe take some time off and go surfing, or move elsewhere, or pursue a degree. The fired H1B people need to book a flight home. That implies a lot more power over the latter.

at5 11y ago

Guessing you're a fan of the white man's burden by kipling?

tptacek 11y ago
This is an over-the-top uncivil comment. It's also dumb: Rayiner isn't white.
- at5 11y ago
  Sentiment expressed by westerners towards others stand. Still possible for him/her to be racist towards arabs. You would do well to recognize its patronising tone. Read the poem perhaps. Iraqis arent children and don't need anyones approval before voting. Unreal
dang 11y ago
This comment breaks the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, especially when someone is wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970417 and marked it off-topic.