5 ms·

Of course, doing this would almost entirely eliminate the economic incentive for companies to bring in foreign workers since they would be free to negotiate bet

by sverige 10y ago

Of course, doing this would almost entirely eliminate the economic incentive for companies to bring in foreign workers since they would be free to negotiate better deals once here, which would rapidly reduce the demand for H-1B visas by US companies and the number of foreign workers who come to the US under that program.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Simple solution from signing-bonus land. Sponsoring company offers to pay your visa fees. If you quit before X months you owe it back. X is defined by regulation, and should be linked to costs and value added, not the term of the visa.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  No. No employee should be in dept to thier employer. If you want them to stay with you, treat and pay them well. It is a fine line between paying visa fees and debt bondage. Everyone should be free to walk away from a bad employer.
  - hirsin 10y ago
    Walking away from a bad employer is exactly what this allows. Today that's very difficult and can result in losing the visa entirely, while in the visa fee scenario you're just out some money (which is exactly the same as in the signing bonus example). Would it be more palatable if the employer did not pay the visa fees but did have a signing bonus equal to the visa fees?
    - kagamine 10y ago
      It's slippery slope territory to start putting employees in a debt situation. Even if there is a cap on the fee, say the paid fee plus a max $50 admin fee, many companies will claim ignorance, start charging more than the $50 fee, then call in a debt collection agency, pile on interest and more fees, then campaign for a rule change, then claim ignorance of the law and so on and so forth. And for people who are often vulnerable and in a foreign country who aren't aware of the rules/laws and have no representation. It's a slippery slope best avoided.
    - davrosthedalek 10y ago
      And sooner or later, we have the same system as in soccer, where millions change hands when a player changes employer. Do we then also get a fantasy league to bet on teams? Oh, wait, that's what the stock market is for.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    How about not having such crazy visa fees to begin with? I got a visa here in Japan, the only fee was $30 to have my residency card issued.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  This is the way things work today. Employer pays but can seek compensation of those fees if employee transfers out before agreed-upon date. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-foreign-applicant-pay-the-h-1b-filing-fees.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-foreign-appli...
dionidium 10y ago
Which is exactly the desired outcome if you take seriously that the law explicitly requires companies to pay the prevailing wage to all H1-B visa holders.
sundaeofshock 10y ago
Yes, and? If the primary reason is to get cheap labor then the program needs to be revamped.
sologoub 10y ago
That's completely not true - the programs goal is to bring in skills that are not available in the market. The fact that it's being used to reduce the cost of the skills is arguably an unintended consequence (though my personal opinion is the lobby that helped make H1-B a reality fully intended this consequence). A much better use for these visas would be to bring in workers we need at competitive US salaries. There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. (Speaking from personal experience trying to find certain skill sets in LA.)
- x0x0 10y ago
  If you can't fill it, you are (almost by definition!) not paying market. Unless you claim there's no-one in LA or the US able to do the job.
  - aianus 10y ago
    If I have some work that is profitable at a cost of labour of $100k/year and no American wants to work for less than $120k then I can either hire an H1B for $100k or abandon the project. It doesn't benefit anyone to have the latter outcome occur.
    - intrasight 10y ago
      Economists would disagree.
      - aianus 10y ago
        I don't think they do -- it's pretty basic economics that price fixing and/or supply shocks can result in smaller net economic output. For a thought experiment: imagine if the price of a haircut was fixed by law at $500 (or that 99% of barbers suddenly died and the price naturally surged to $500). Enough people would start cutting their own hair at home that the entire haircut GDP and employment of the nation would go down. Even though the lucky few who still have jobs have excellent wages and there is still a steady supply of haircuts to rich people willing to pay $500 a pop.
bdcravens 10y ago
The H-1B is for filling skill gaps, not economic incentive.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lostboys67 10y ago
  In Theory in practice not so much most h1b's are not experienced professionals from world class organisations.
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    Of course. That's what the changes to the H1B is trying to address.
chetanahuja 10y ago
> Of course, doing this would almost entirely eliminate the economic incentive for companies to bring in foreign workers since they would be free to negotiate better deals once here This is ignorant ranting at it's worst. Changing companies for H-1B visa holders is one of the easiest operations in otherwise byzantine world of US immigration. The only restrictions are that the new job should be in same or similar area of expertise which is usually not a problem at all (except in case the person is drastically changing career fields) and should pay at least prevalent wages etc. H-1B holders can and do use these opportunities to find better jobs (usually with higher pay) all the time.

by sverige 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Simple solution from signing-bonus land. Sponsoring company offers to pay your visa fees. If you quit before X months you owe it back. X is defined by regulation, and should be linked to costs and value added, not the term of the visa.

sandworm101 10y ago
No. No employee should be in dept to thier employer. If you want them to stay with you, treat and pay them well. It is a fine line between paying visa fees and debt bondage. Everyone should be free to walk away from a bad employer.
- hirsin 10y ago
  Walking away from a bad employer is exactly what this allows. Today that's very difficult and can result in losing the visa entirely, while in the visa fee scenario you're just out some money (which is exactly the same as in the signing bonus example). Would it be more palatable if the employer did not pay the visa fees but did have a signing bonus equal to the visa fees?
  - kagamine 10y ago
    It's slippery slope territory to start putting employees in a debt situation. Even if there is a cap on the fee, say the paid fee plus a max $50 admin fee, many companies will claim ignorance, start charging more than the $50 fee, then call in a debt collection agency, pile on interest and more fees, then campaign for a rule change, then claim ignorance of the law and so on and so forth. And for people who are often vulnerable and in a foreign country who aren't aware of the rules/laws and have no representation. It's a slippery slope best avoided.
  - davrosthedalek 10y ago
    And sooner or later, we have the same system as in soccer, where millions change hands when a player changes employer. Do we then also get a fantasy league to bet on teams? Oh, wait, that's what the stock market is for.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  How about not having such crazy visa fees to begin with? I got a visa here in Japan, the only fee was $30 to have my residency card issued.
prostoalex 10y ago
This is the way things work today. Employer pays but can seek compensation of those fees if employee transfers out before agreed-upon date. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-foreign-applicant-pay-the-h-1b-filing-fees.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-foreign-appli...

dionidium 10y ago

Which is exactly the desired outcome if you take seriously that the law explicitly requires companies to pay the prevailing wage to all H1-B visa holders.

sundaeofshock 10y ago

Yes, and? If the primary reason is to get cheap labor then the program needs to be revamped.

sologoub 10y ago

That's completely not true - the programs goal is to bring in skills that are not available in the market. The fact that it's being used to reduce the cost of the skills is arguably an unintended consequence (though my personal opinion is the lobby that helped make H1-B a reality fully intended this consequence). A much better use for these visas would be to bring in workers we need at competitive US salaries. There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. (Speaking from personal experience trying to find certain skill sets in LA.)

x0x0 10y ago
If you can't fill it, you are (almost by definition!) not paying market. Unless you claim there's no-one in LA or the US able to do the job.
- aianus 10y ago
  If I have some work that is profitable at a cost of labour of $100k/year and no American wants to work for less than $120k then I can either hire an H1B for $100k or abandon the project. It doesn't benefit anyone to have the latter outcome occur.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    Economists would disagree.
    - aianus 10y ago
      I don't think they do -- it's pretty basic economics that price fixing and/or supply shocks can result in smaller net economic output. For a thought experiment: imagine if the price of a haircut was fixed by law at $500 (or that 99% of barbers suddenly died and the price naturally surged to $500). Enough people would start cutting their own hair at home that the entire haircut GDP and employment of the nation would go down. Even though the lucky few who still have jobs have excellent wages and there is still a steady supply of haircuts to rich people willing to pay $500 a pop.

bdcravens 10y ago

The H-1B is for filling skill gaps, not economic incentive.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lostboys67 10y ago
In Theory in practice not so much most h1b's are not experienced professionals from world class organisations.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  Of course. That's what the changes to the H1B is trying to address.

chetanahuja 10y ago

> Of course, doing this would almost entirely eliminate the economic incentive for companies to bring in foreign workers since they would be free to negotiate better deals once here This is ignorant ranting at it's worst. Changing companies for H-1B visa holders is one of the easiest operations in otherwise byzantine world of US immigration. The only restrictions are that the new job should be in same or similar area of expertise which is usually not a problem at all (except in case the person is drastically changing career fields) and should pay at least prevalent wages etc. H-1B holders can and do use these opportunities to find better jobs (usually with higher pay) all the time.