3 ms·

Accenture literally buses people over national and state borders, so yes, its possible. Somehow I don't think that's much more legal though.

by ep103 10y ago

trhway 10y ago
lets say a person sent to work on a 3-4 month project in CA, another such project in WA, and another such in NY while officially living with the other 30 like him in a little house on the prairie. What government can do here? Specifically how it can be clearly identified as illegal? It is like with various other technical loopholes (like say taxes of many rich people, like that one American President who was able to show a loss of $1B once and write it down for many years after that - interesting that his opponents had practically mental breakdown over that absolutely legal write-off while missing the point of how one can show such a big loss, i mean actually losing $1B is obviously the least preferable way of doing it (especially considering the hard requirement that one has to be at least $1B wealthy to do it that way) while various technically interesting plays with valuations and transfers of various classes of assets can possibly get you there too :)
- ep103 10y ago
  I am not a lawyer. But I'd be willing to guess that the difference is that you're a US citizen, attempting to get work wherever you can find it. While you're in that state, you abide by the laws of that state (you pay taxes to that state for income earned there, for example), while also following the laws of your home state (you also file tax there). And while I imagine accenture's argument will be similar to yours, though much more nuanced, the argument against Accenture will be that those individuals were chosen and use specifically with the intent to bypass local wage laws. In short, trying to find loopholes in the law, while knowingly violating the purpose of a law, does not result in innocence. Whatever Hollywood says. I imagine the argument would be along the lines of: Accenture - Yes, we frequently bus Mexican developers throughout the American southwest. This is because accenture uses many Mexican development shops, and occasionally our clients are interested in having our developers work on site to promote synergy, for small periods of time. Legal Team - You bussed over a team of 50 devs to Client X, every day, for 2 years. They live in hotels, start on Monday, and end on Friday. This is not a case of the occasional developer meeting with a client as part of a business trip. This is an organized conspiracy to replace the American workforce. Accenture - While we do run weekly bus services over the border, you will find that in your example, the same individuals do not go every week. Instead, a different 50 were located at Client A on a monthly basis. If there are 200 people working on the project, each 50 will meet for a month. That's four months of busing across the border, while the majority of the time, the team is actually operating from Mexico. We do this to promote synergy across the entire team, not just a select few individuals. Legal Team - Your honor, we have testimony that when those individuals are in Mexico, their time is split between 20 other projects. When they are in the US, their time is dedicated solely to the client. In short, their claim that they have not somehow intentionally replaced jobs, because they continuously hire and fire different people for the position is patently absurd.. ... But it doesn't matter, because none of those developers are going to bring the suit, at least avanade doesn't hire US developers anymore, and the last few administrations simply haven't been prosecuting US businesses for labor infractions at a historic rate, so I somehow doubt this case would ever occur.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    You are winning an argument against strawman. Accenture will not claim "occasionally our clients are interested in having our developers work on site". Their business is outsourcing and their clients always want their consultants 100% on-site. If on-site presence is not required, why acquire an H1-B and cover travel expenses instead of just sending the project details directly to India (as I'm sure Accenture does for projects that do not require direct on-site involvement).

Accenture literally buses people over national and state borders, so yes, its possible. Somehow I don't think that's much more legal though.

by ep103 10y ago

Accenture literally buses people over national and state borders, so yes, its possible. Somehow I don't think that's much more legal though.

trhway 10y ago

lets say a person sent to work on a 3-4 month project in CA, another such project in WA, and another such in NY while officially living with the other 30 like him in a little house on the prairie. What government can do here? Specifically how it can be clearly identified as illegal? It is like with various other technical loopholes (like say taxes of many rich people, like that one American President who was able to show a loss of $1B once and write it down for many years after that - interesting that his opponents had practically mental breakdown over that absolutely legal write-off while missing the point of how one can show such a big loss, i mean actually losing $1B is obviously the least preferable way of doing it (especially considering the hard requirement that one has to be at least $1B wealthy to do it that way) while various technically interesting plays with valuations and transfers of various classes of assets can possibly get you there too :)

ep103 10y ago
I am not a lawyer. But I'd be willing to guess that the difference is that you're a US citizen, attempting to get work wherever you can find it. While you're in that state, you abide by the laws of that state (you pay taxes to that state for income earned there, for example), while also following the laws of your home state (you also file tax there). And while I imagine accenture's argument will be similar to yours, though much more nuanced, the argument against Accenture will be that those individuals were chosen and use specifically with the intent to bypass local wage laws. In short, trying to find loopholes in the law, while knowingly violating the purpose of a law, does not result in innocence. Whatever Hollywood says. I imagine the argument would be along the lines of: Accenture - Yes, we frequently bus Mexican developers throughout the American southwest. This is because accenture uses many Mexican development shops, and occasionally our clients are interested in having our developers work on site to promote synergy, for small periods of time. Legal Team - You bussed over a team of 50 devs to Client X, every day, for 2 years. They live in hotels, start on Monday, and end on Friday. This is not a case of the occasional developer meeting with a client as part of a business trip. This is an organized conspiracy to replace the American workforce. Accenture - While we do run weekly bus services over the border, you will find that in your example, the same individuals do not go every week. Instead, a different 50 were located at Client A on a monthly basis. If there are 200 people working on the project, each 50 will meet for a month. That's four months of busing across the border, while the majority of the time, the team is actually operating from Mexico. We do this to promote synergy across the entire team, not just a select few individuals. Legal Team - Your honor, we have testimony that when those individuals are in Mexico, their time is split between 20 other projects. When they are in the US, their time is dedicated solely to the client. In short, their claim that they have not somehow intentionally replaced jobs, because they continuously hire and fire different people for the position is patently absurd.. ... But it doesn't matter, because none of those developers are going to bring the suit, at least avanade doesn't hire US developers anymore, and the last few administrations simply haven't been prosecuting US businesses for labor infractions at a historic rate, so I somehow doubt this case would ever occur.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  You are winning an argument against strawman. Accenture will not claim "occasionally our clients are interested in having our developers work on site". Their business is outsourcing and their clients always want their consultants 100% on-site. If on-site presence is not required, why acquire an H1-B and cover travel expenses instead of just sending the project details directly to India (as I'm sure Accenture does for projects that do not require direct on-site involvement).