4 ms·

As a baseline, I'm in favor of a lot of immigration and think people have way too many hoops to jump through in general, but the H1B crowd in particular is a gr

As a baseline, I'm in favor of a lot of immigration and think people have way too many hoops to jump through in general, but the H1B crowd in particular is a group that matches even what most of those opposed to mass immigration claim to desire in immigrants. That said, i've noticed different "worlds" of H1B worlds, with different impacts upon other workers. I did a govt job on the US East Coast (Richmond, VA) that had a lot of H1B contract workers, likely from one of these body shops. They were good people, and adequate if unimpressive coders. They were earning decent US wages and were painfully aware that losing or leaving a job left them no guarantee there'd be another for them in the US soon. Management abused the heck out of these people, establishing practices, expectations, and treatment of coders that were terrible. They put up with it, but but it lowered the quality of the workplace for everyone, and the employees and US citizens (naturalized or born) working there also suffered, and tended to leave when they could. I was one of them, which put me in Seattle on the West Coast... ...Where I found an entirely different world of H1B workers. These were not contractors, not through a body shop, and were definitely impressive in their fields (devs, architects, and QA/Test eng, along with a handful of PMs and Team Leads). Here there was no reduction of workplace quality - these workers had lots of extra annoyances I didn't have to worry about (example: apparently changing your job title during one period of time when applying for a green card restarts the multi-year process, so I knew of people that declined or postponed promotions!) but they could definitely find work elsewhere easily enough - should workplace be unbearable they'd bounce like the rest of us could. Whenever the H1-B debate comes up, I reflect on the different impact the workers had on these offices, and the impact the H1-B rules had on those workers. Everytime one of my friends debated if it was worth pursuing a green card or naturalization, I saw the seeming idiotic result of the US chasing away workers that it said it needed, that had proven themselves, and that american companies had spent time and money in training and getting experience to.

davidw 7y ago
The 'root cause' problem in the 1st case is the leverage the employee has over the person. The workers are just trying to better their lot in life, like many of our own ancestors who came to the US. I don't hold any illusions that whoever it was that came over from Ireland in my family was some kind of exceptional talent. Probably just an ordinary person willing to take some risks and work hard.
nerdponx 7y ago
I don't even understand the point of H-1B being tied to a specific employer or job title.
- Terr_ 7y ago
  I imagine it's to deter a certain kind of exploit. Hiring Quantum Rocket Surgeons and a week later they're Surface Hygiene Associates being paid much much less. Or vice-versa.
- opportune 7y ago
  It's to prevent a bait-and-switch on behalf of the employee and situations where a person is "employed" by a company only so they can immigrate and then do something else, on behalf of the employer. We can easily let people switch job titles and employers while addressing potential loopholes though.
- yazan94 7y ago
  I think the idea is that the H1B isnt a general 'work visa', it is given because there is a position at a company for a worker with a specific skillset. So it makes sense in that framework. I'm not arguing that this is the right way, just what the reason probably is.
  - satya71 7y ago
    You have to see how laws are made in the US. They are written by lobbyists/corporate lawyers (the lawmakers have stopped pretending otherwise these days). For the company, it totally makes sense. They spent something upfront (H-1B fees and uncertainties are non-trivial), so they want a guarantee that this person cannot change jobs easily. That the lock-in is for 6-years is just pure power-play.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  The declared intended purpose of H-1B is not for the benefit of the worker but for the benefit of US economy - the visa is intended so that the US employer can fill that particular job position that requires special skills. If that position ceases to exist or gets filled by a local worker, then the visa loses its purpose, the employee apparently isn't needed anymore by US and can be discarded.
privateSFacct 7y ago
Exactly. The first group are basically being exploited by a body shop that puts in 10X the number of applications vs spots that they need, but always still gets lots of awards. They then are able to leverage the fact they flooded the pool to carry out visa arbitrage - they have something employees want, and leverage that, even though that things is really public government property (visa) and so shouldn't be a privately leveraged. Almost all the H1B horror stories are from these shops (often they have related outsource arms) - "I had to train my replacement and they sent my job overseas using H1B visas". You can see how trump got elected when dems were defending this as good for US workers. The second group are folks who really really need employees. They are and will hire absolutely any US worker who meets their criteria (it's a lot easier - fewer hoops to jump through) and are willing to hire an H1B eligible employee if they run out of pipeline on US based folks. These tend to be truly higher skill jobs. The US is taking the cream of other countries investments in education etc etc with the folks - I can't imagine this is bad for the US in any way. What is frustrating from one perspective though is that the reactionary defense of H1B means that lots of group 1 are still allowed to play their games. Seriously, crack down big time on group one. Keep same number of folks coming, and loosen up on group 2 - Level 2+ wages, masters degree US should be first in line.
stbernardlove 7y ago
Very simple to fix - ban H1B for contracted staff. I.e. each recipient works for his org and only for this org. None of this 3rd party placement crap.

davidw 7y ago

The 'root cause' problem in the 1st case is the leverage the employee has over the person. The workers are just trying to better their lot in life, like many of our own ancestors who came to the US. I don't hold any illusions that whoever it was that came over from Ireland in my family was some kind of exceptional talent. Probably just an ordinary person willing to take some risks and work hard.

nerdponx 7y ago

I don't even understand the point of H-1B being tied to a specific employer or job title.

Terr_ 7y ago
I imagine it's to deter a certain kind of exploit. Hiring Quantum Rocket Surgeons and a week later they're Surface Hygiene Associates being paid much much less. Or vice-versa.
opportune 7y ago
It's to prevent a bait-and-switch on behalf of the employee and situations where a person is "employed" by a company only so they can immigrate and then do something else, on behalf of the employer. We can easily let people switch job titles and employers while addressing potential loopholes though.
yazan94 7y ago
I think the idea is that the H1B isnt a general 'work visa', it is given because there is a position at a company for a worker with a specific skillset. So it makes sense in that framework. I'm not arguing that this is the right way, just what the reason probably is.
- satya71 7y ago
  You have to see how laws are made in the US. They are written by lobbyists/corporate lawyers (the lawmakers have stopped pretending otherwise these days). For the company, it totally makes sense. They spent something upfront (H-1B fees and uncertainties are non-trivial), so they want a guarantee that this person cannot change jobs easily. That the lock-in is for 6-years is just pure power-play.
PeterisP 7y ago
The declared intended purpose of H-1B is not for the benefit of the worker but for the benefit of US economy - the visa is intended so that the US employer can fill that particular job position that requires special skills. If that position ceases to exist or gets filled by a local worker, then the visa loses its purpose, the employee apparently isn't needed anymore by US and can be discarded.

privateSFacct 7y ago

Exactly. The first group are basically being exploited by a body shop that puts in 10X the number of applications vs spots that they need, but always still gets lots of awards. They then are able to leverage the fact they flooded the pool to carry out visa arbitrage - they have something employees want, and leverage that, even though that things is really public government property (visa) and so shouldn't be a privately leveraged. Almost all the H1B horror stories are from these shops (often they have related outsource arms) - "I had to train my replacement and they sent my job overseas using H1B visas". You can see how trump got elected when dems were defending this as good for US workers. The second group are folks who really really need employees. They are and will hire absolutely any US worker who meets their criteria (it's a lot easier - fewer hoops to jump through) and are willing to hire an H1B eligible employee if they run out of pipeline on US based folks. These tend to be truly higher skill jobs. The US is taking the cream of other countries investments in education etc etc with the folks - I can't imagine this is bad for the US in any way. What is frustrating from one perspective though is that the reactionary defense of H1B means that lots of group 1 are still allowed to play their games. Seriously, crack down big time on group one. Keep same number of folks coming, and loosen up on group 2 - Level 2+ wages, masters degree US should be first in line.

stbernardlove 7y ago

Very simple to fix - ban H1B for contracted staff. I.e. each recipient works for his org and only for this org. None of this 3rd party placement crap.