4 ms·

It's hard to understand why people are blaming the companies for playing by the rules of a system that is clearly dysfunctional. The current system clearly does

by whack 10y ago

It's hard to understand why people are blaming the companies for playing by the rules of a system that is clearly dysfunctional. The current system clearly doesn't reward applicants who are smart and talented. In fact, the current system doesn't even recognise smarts and talent as valid considerations. It sets an extremely low bar, and when deluged by a large number of applicants, simply selects winners through an idiotic random lottery. Given the way the system is set up, of course consulting companies are going to file applications for an extremely large number of mediocre applicants, and not a small number of supremely qualified applicants. This isn't even a loophole, it's simply exercising an intended feature of the system. Everyone has known for years that the system is broken, but no one in government has the courage to pass meaningful immigration reform. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame your representatives in Washington.

venture_lol 10y ago
The system needs to address 2 issues: 1. Real advance skilled labor, not menial skills 2. Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  I'm curious, why fair distribution? Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges. Arguably, the most effective justification is that experts in X are compensated higher, therefore they must extract more value for the US economy, than experts in Y. A simple sort on minimum-guaranteed-salary seems best. However, this stops being the case if we have no cap. But a limitless H1B systems is not a likely reality.
  - erikig 10y ago
    "A simple sort on minimum-guaranteed-salary seems best." How would do you handle crucial skilled jobs that don't pay a lot or where there isn't a lot of competition?
    - joelwilliamson 10y ago
      If it actually crucial, they can pay enough to guaranteee they get the visa.
      - Eyas 10y ago
        You're assuming a certain profitability and cost profile for industries and businesses where this is not the case. Take the arts and music for example. Example: Sound designers and sound mixers typically do not make a six figure salary in the US. The industry is essential to many fields, including advertising, theater, television, etc. Supply/Demand is also a function of how much the employer has to pay.
        whack 10y ago
        I believe the H1B regulations already have lower requirements for non-profit employers, and I'm all in favor of this continuing. Conversely, if a for-profit company claims that they are "essential to the economy", but make so little profits that they can't afford H1B visas, I'd be extremely skeptical of such claims. It undermines the entire premise of a free-market economy.
        yazaddaruvala 10y ago
        :) you're being facetious correct? advertising, has no money? television, has no money? But more importantly, you haven't then answered my question. > Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges.
    - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  - venture_lol 10y ago
    You missed the follow on statement (quoted below). We would not want 1 or 2 companies to hog the visas, right? ==== Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits reply
    - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
      Im not sure I understand. You're suggesting that "if only one company can afford experts, that would be unfair"? This sounds like you have an issue with "free market" economics. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of an idealist, not a pragmatist. I'm a pragmatist. Sadly, I'm not sure our conversation would amount to anything constructive.
MichaelGG 10y ago
You can hate the player and the game.
- ta_1704231 10y ago
  They are asking you to hate the people who make the rules. The players are incidental.
  - nthcolumn 10y ago
    I hate players who are continually falling over in the penalty area like they were shot at the slightest touch from the defender when it probably would have been easier to stay on their feet and have a fair go. They are ruining the game for everyone.
    - whack 10y ago
      As a football fan myself, this was one of the things that really annoyed me about the game's rules. A) The consequences for committing a very light foul just inside the penalty box is way too high, compared to the penalty for committing a light foul just outside. For the former, you get an almost-guaranteed goal. For the latter, you get a free kick which comes to nothing most of the time. There needs to be some better middle ground here. B) The ref only ever calls penalty kicks if the striker takes a fall. If the striker gets fouled, but still make a brave effort to continue playing, the ref simply lets the game continue. If players were not penalized for staying on their feet, I'm sure you'll see a lot more people doing so.
Amezarak 10y ago
> It's hard to understand why people are blaming the companies for playing by the rules of a system that is clearly dysfunctional. They weren't playing by the rules, that's the point. The problem is no agency really had the authority to do anything about it (i.e., the rules were mostly in practice unenforceable.) It was essentially one of the many, many "good faith" type of laws we have in the US, where the government simply assumes that, because laws and rules exist, they will be followed, and there's a very high bar for action to be taken against lawbreakers. Whether you ascribe that to malice or incompetence on the part of our lawmakers is up to you. From the GAO report on H1Bs: > Under the law, in certifying employers’ initial requests for H-1B workers, Labor is limited to ensuring that the employer’s application form has no obvious errors or omissions. It does not have the authority to verify whether information provided by employers on labor conditions, such as wages to be paid, is correct. Moreover, some of this same information is reviewed again by INS during its assessment of employer requests for workers. Further, Labor has limited authority to ensure that employers are actually complying with the law’s requirements after the H-1B workers are employed in the United States. Unlike under other labor laws it enforces, Labor generally cannot initiate enforcement actions (such as conducting investigations and subpoenaing employer records), even if it believes employers are violating the law. [2] Keep this in mind when people tell you there's no such thing as H1B abuse because the rules say they're required to pay the prevailing wage, or that they have to try to hire Americans first. For decades there have been virtually no consequences for flagrantly violating the rules. If it was especially egregious then you might face a lawsuit...but since you're a corporation with deep pockets and then people suing you are generally laid-off employees, that's a small risk, and you probably end up settling. [1] Keep in mind that no matter how much people cheerlead H1B, this [3] is the day-to-day reality: Americans being fired and their work being contracted out to these massive H1B firms on the cheap. I'm not against a visa allowing companies to hire talent they really can't get in the US, but that is not at all the reality of the H1B program as it exists today, and thousands of people have suffered for it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/lawsuit-claims-disney-colluded-to-replace-us-workers-with-immigrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/lawsuit-claims-disney-... [2] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00157.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00157.pdf [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150222-column.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-201502...
supercanuck 10y ago
because it is kind of like cutting in line, just because there is no explicit rule and someone isn't punching you in the face for doing it, doesn't make it okay.

by whack 10y ago

venture_lol 10y ago

The system needs to address 2 issues: 1. Real advance skilled labor, not menial skills 2. Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits

yazaddaruvala 10y ago
I'm curious, why fair distribution? Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges. Arguably, the most effective justification is that experts in X are compensated higher, therefore they must extract more value for the US economy, than experts in Y. A simple sort on minimum-guaranteed-salary seems best. However, this stops being the case if we have no cap. But a limitless H1B systems is not a likely reality.
- erikig 10y ago
  "A simple sort on minimum-guaranteed-salary seems best." How would do you handle crucial skilled jobs that don't pay a lot or where there isn't a lot of competition?
  - joelwilliamson 10y ago
    If it actually crucial, they can pay enough to guaranteee they get the visa.
    - Eyas 10y ago
      You're assuming a certain profitability and cost profile for industries and businesses where this is not the case. Take the arts and music for example. Example: Sound designers and sound mixers typically do not make a six figure salary in the US. The industry is essential to many fields, including advertising, theater, television, etc. Supply/Demand is also a function of how much the employer has to pay.
      - whack 10y ago
        I believe the H1B regulations already have lower requirements for non-profit employers, and I'm all in favor of this continuing. Conversely, if a for-profit company claims that they are "essential to the economy", but make so little profits that they can't afford H1B visas, I'd be extremely skeptical of such claims. It undermines the entire premise of a free-market economy.
      - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
        :) you're being facetious correct? advertising, has no money? television, has no money? But more importantly, you haven't then answered my question. > Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges.
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
- venture_lol 10y ago
  You missed the follow on statement (quoted below). We would not want 1 or 2 companies to hog the visas, right? ==== Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits reply
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    Im not sure I understand. You're suggesting that "if only one company can afford experts, that would be unfair"? This sounds like you have an issue with "free market" economics. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of an idealist, not a pragmatist. I'm a pragmatist. Sadly, I'm not sure our conversation would amount to anything constructive.

MichaelGG 10y ago

You can hate the player and the game.

ta_1704231 10y ago
They are asking you to hate the people who make the rules. The players are incidental.
- nthcolumn 10y ago
  I hate players who are continually falling over in the penalty area like they were shot at the slightest touch from the defender when it probably would have been easier to stay on their feet and have a fair go. They are ruining the game for everyone.
  - whack 10y ago
    As a football fan myself, this was one of the things that really annoyed me about the game's rules. A) The consequences for committing a very light foul just inside the penalty box is way too high, compared to the penalty for committing a light foul just outside. For the former, you get an almost-guaranteed goal. For the latter, you get a free kick which comes to nothing most of the time. There needs to be some better middle ground here. B) The ref only ever calls penalty kicks if the striker takes a fall. If the striker gets fouled, but still make a brave effort to continue playing, the ref simply lets the game continue. If players were not penalized for staying on their feet, I'm sure you'll see a lot more people doing so.

Amezarak 10y ago

> It's hard to understand why people are blaming the companies for playing by the rules of a system that is clearly dysfunctional. They weren't playing by the rules, that's the point. The problem is no agency really had the authority to do anything about it (i.e., the rules were mostly in practice unenforceable.) It was essentially one of the many, many "good faith" type of laws we have in the US, where the government simply assumes that, because laws and rules exist, they will be followed, and there's a very high bar for action to be taken against lawbreakers. Whether you ascribe that to malice or incompetence on the part of our lawmakers is up to you. From the GAO report on H1Bs: > Under the law, in certifying employers’ initial requests for H-1B workers, Labor is limited to ensuring that the employer’s application form has no obvious errors or omissions. It does not have the authority to verify whether information provided by employers on labor conditions, such as wages to be paid, is correct. Moreover, some of this same information is reviewed again by INS during its assessment of employer requests for workers. Further, Labor has limited authority to ensure that employers are actually complying with the law’s requirements after the H-1B workers are employed in the United States. Unlike under other labor laws it enforces, Labor generally cannot initiate enforcement actions (such as conducting investigations and subpoenaing employer records), even if it believes employers are violating the law. [2] Keep this in mind when people tell you there's no such thing as H1B abuse because the rules say they're required to pay the prevailing wage, or that they have to try to hire Americans first. For decades there have been virtually no consequences for flagrantly violating the rules. If it was especially egregious then you might face a lawsuit...but since you're a corporation with deep pockets and then people suing you are generally laid-off employees, that's a small risk, and you probably end up settling. [1] Keep in mind that no matter how much people cheerlead H1B, this [3] is the day-to-day reality: Americans being fired and their work being contracted out to these massive H1B firms on the cheap. I'm not against a visa allowing companies to hire talent they really can't get in the US, but that is not at all the reality of the H1B program as it exists today, and thousands of people have suffered for it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/lawsuit-claims-disney-colluded-to-replace-us-workers-with-immigrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/lawsuit-claims-disney-... [2] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00157.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00157.pdf [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150222-column.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-201502...

supercanuck 10y ago

because it is kind of like cutting in line, just because there is no explicit rule and someone isn't punching you in the face for doing it, doesn't make it okay.