9 ms·

H1B is terrible for the employees, and for those who work alongside them. Companies try to slow down green cards, and use H1Bs as virtual indentured servants.

H1B is terrible for the employees, and for those who work alongside them. Companies try to slow down green cards, and use H1Bs as virtual indentured servants. They also fake looking for Americans- in practice, many of the jobs are earmarked for a specific person, and you are wasting your time applying for it. Losing your job as an h1b requires you to leave almost immediately, which isn't great for anyone. Hopefully they'll reform the process to focus on bringing talent into the country without chaining it to a specific company

btilly 6y ago
The "without chaining it to a specific company" is critical. When the employee is chained to a company, the company has every incentive to lie then treat the employee poorly. When the employee is not chained to the company, the company has incentives to tell the truth then treat the employee well.
- evgen 6y ago
  Unfortunately the reality is that there is absolutely no one who is interested in pushing a visa scheme like this. Employers are not interested in going through effort and paperwork for an employee who can jump ship for a better offer down the street once they are in the country. Other employees are not interested in increasing the supply of similar labor that will drive down their market value. The only ones who are interested in a visa like this would be foreign-born skilled workers looking to immigrate, and they are going to lose the fight over who gets the visas with people who have no specific skills but family in country since that family can vote. There is no constituency for such a visa, so it is never going to happen.
  - dclowd9901 6y ago
    They would be if the employee was genuinely worth the hassle. Plus you can imagine most companies would put someone on a contractual basis if the “chaining” wasn’t implicitly part of the visa, which may, in itself, render such an idea moot.
  - acdha 6y ago
    > Other employees are not interested in increasing the supply of similar labor that will drive down their market value. I’m not sure it’s that simple: lots of workers know they’re competing at their current employer with H1-B’s who are underpaid and mistreated. If they’re paid more that dynamic softens a lot and there’s still a cap on the total number.
  - hedora 6y ago
    I’d rather not give my employer the ability to abuse my H-1B coworkers. Why should they hire someone who can walk to a competitor at the drop of a hat when they can hire someone that will probably be deported if they step out of line or demand market-rate compensation? (Also, many of my friends have/had H-1B’s...)
    - srean 6y ago
      > Why should they hire someone who can walk to a competitor at the drop of a hat Because free markets are better ? or so has been the message by US towards other countries
      - stainforth 6y ago
        Free market for me, not for thee
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    American immigrant to Canada here. Canada has skilled worker permanent residence visas that, in many cases (and ignoring temporary pandemic-related delays), take half a year or less from start to finish. Mine was slower but still faster than a lot of immigrant experiences to the US, and I did it from outside Canada and without an employer involved at all. The skilled worker visas don't need family in country, though it can be a minor help in the points systems they use. My CS degree and work experience mattered far more. As to why it's hard in the US, I'd attribute that more to attitudes among the population and media than to the inherent nature of having to make policy that appeals to voters: Canada is (at least) as much of a democracy as the US, and even the Conservative Party of Canada isn't proposing to eliminate fast skilled worker processing - they're in fact the party that introduced the quick program I alluded to above. Certainly the other two major national parties are even more friendly to immigration. There are xenophobes in Canada, but firmly in the minority when examined at the national level. Canada also has fast sponsorship programs for spouses and kids.
    - digianarchist 6y ago
      Like I said in another comment though - Canada's immigration system does not focus on family reunification like the United States. 63% of Green Cards are awarded based on family connection [0] not employment based sponsorship vs 26% in Canada [1]. The US is an outlier in this regard. Not many countries allow you to sponsor a sibling for Permanent Residency. [0] https://www.boundless.com/blog/dhs-data-2018/ https://www.boundless.com/blog/dhs-data-2018/ [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2017.html#sec1_1 https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...
      - jkaplowitz 6y ago
        Canada does make it pretty easy to sponsor a spouse, common-law partner, or single children under age 22 for permanent residence. In fact it's far easier and faster than the US equivalent. You're right about the relative percentages between the countries, but that's simply because the US makes even skilled economic immigration far more difficult than Canada. All common kinds of immigration are easier in Canada, though neither country makes it truly easy as was true more than a century ago. You're right that there are only very narrow cases where Canada allows sponsoring siblings, unlike the US. But those kinds of differences go both ways: for example, Canada allows common-law partner sponsorship after 1 year of cohabitation without requiring marriage, whereas the US doesn't. (I am not referring to what the US calls "common-law marriage" but to a type of relationship that continues not to be treated the same as marriage under Canadian law, except where specifically indicated.)
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Sure there is: anyone who wants to increase the availability of cheap skilled labour. Maybe it's true that companies want lock-in, but do you really need that if you can just increase the size of the pool instead? Also consider that increasing the amount of cheap skilled labour would increase the speed of economic growth, therefore giving better returns on the investments of America's wealthiest. Why wouldn't they want that?
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
    It would have to be pitched as a shift to a points based immigration system in order to get buy-in, probably by a McCain-esque Republican. You'd create a fast track green card program that prioritizes immigrants who were educated in U.S. universities, people with advanced degrees, and people who have been working legally via H1Bs in the U.S. for a few years. Then, to get support from the right, you'd have to pair it with some cutbacks in other types of immigration, or maybe crackdowns on employers who hire illegal immigrants, or deportations for immigrants (legal or otherwise) who run afoul of the law, etc. I usually lean hard left, and I know I'd personally support a proposal that cut back on granting 1 unskilled visa per year, in exchange for fast-tracking 3 skilled visa-holders to getting their green card, and I have conservative-leaning friends who would support such a deal as well. What's the right ratio, though? They've been trying to strike a major immigration reform deal since the 90s, but neither side has been willing to make concessions, so we've just been just stuck with a broken system and its ill effects.
gibolt 6y ago
I would fully support reform. Do you think there is a meaningful chance that is the current plan?
- vsskanth 6y ago
  not really. Most H1B rules are written in law. You cannot make significant changes without going through Congress. Otherwise they will be defeated in courts.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think that's a realistic hope. A free-floating pool of nonresident employees would be, wrongly but inevitably, seen as a scheme to reduce American employment.
padiyar83 6y ago
This will fuel the "remote anywhere" trend that's already underway. If a H1b engineer in US suppresses wage growth, wait until the same engineer can do the work for 1/3rd the cost from his own country, especially when everyone in the team is remote.
- dclowd9901 6y ago
  You say this like it’s that easy. We have remotes working in Singapore and Australia, and it is a far cry from “easy” to work with these people either due to timing constraints, language barriers or other aspects that disrupt fluid communication.
  - padiyar83 6y ago
    I agree that is a concern with a US centric team. Imagine a globally distributed team - 3 engineers are in Asia pacific region, 2 in Europe and 2 in US. Everyone in the team is equally affected by timing constraints and language barriers, so it becomes more palatable. And in such a world even the notion of coming to US and working on an H1B visa does not exist.
  - hedora 6y ago
    Timezones are the biggest issue from what I’ve seen. People can learn English, and get used to video calls / written communication. I wonder why more companies don’t outsource to Canada and South America (or the Midwest, for that matter.)
    - kache_ 6y ago
      They do. I've been seeing a lot of remote companies hire aggressively within Canada.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > language barriers Americans couldn't comprehend the perfect English spoken in these countries? (Sorry - couldn't resist!) Edit: In case people don't get it, it used to be a common joke that Americans had poorer English than well educated foreigners. Definitely for written, but even occasionally spoken English. I've worked with at least 3 people who were either from Singapore or from Malaysia but educated in Singapore. All had great English, and with 2 of them you'd never know you weren't speaking to a native English speaker - you'd think you were speaking to a British person.
thatfrenchguy 6y ago
Most companies play the game and apply for your green-card right away though.
deegles 6y ago
It's hard to convey to a citizen how demoralizing being on an H1B is. If you get laid off, you have at best 30 days to find a new job and transfer your visa (from what I remember), otherwise you have to leave the country. H1B does not allow moonlighting. You can't start a startup by yourself. You can't take significant time off between jobs unless you transfer your visa and negotiate it. Your spouse likely won't be able to work (it's not trivial). You can't protest unfair working conditions to the extent a citizen can, because getting fired is effectively exile. Calling it indentured servitude is accurate. I'm sure most people understand that it's a transactional relationship, I.e. you get to live in the country while you work and that's it, but if you live in a city for several years and settle in, form friendships, hobbies, and maybe relationships, it's very difficult to put all of that at risk for any reason.
- quicklime 6y ago
  > If you get laid off, you have at best 30 days to find a new job and transfer your visa (from what I remember), otherwise you have to leave the country I agree the terms are not good, but isn’t it 60 days? https://cilawgroup.com/news/2017/02/24/uscis-creates-60-day-grace-period-following-termination-of-employment-for-h-1bs-and-others/ https://cilawgroup.com/news/2017/02/24/uscis-creates-60-day-...
  - deegles 6y ago
    Ah, I was on H1B until 2015, so it was still 30 days for me. Glad it's been increased.
- ip26 6y ago
  if you live in a city for several years and settle in, form friendships, hobbies, and maybe relationships I suddenly find myself wondering if the path to reform for H1B could be short duration combine with some kind of fast-track naturalization. Does it even make sense for the transactional H1B to be so long term? If the H1B led to rapid naturalization, it would naturally curtail use of H1B over time, as the US population of individuals suited for the job would be growing ipso facto.
epistasis 6y ago
This executive order has nothing at all to do with reform or the concerns you are stating. The only point is to make life more difficult for people that need a J1, H1-B, or anything else to continue their career plans now. It's also to make it seem like these positions are taking jobs away from current US residents, and stoke anti-immigrant sentiment. There are undoubtedly flaws with the H1-B process, but this move makes it less likely for reform to happen, not more.
mathattack 6y ago
I’ve talked to several H1-B recipients who resent being second class citizens, and have to endure abuse from their vendors. The complaints have universally come from the large IT services teams, who have a form of legal non-competes in the Visa.
ideals 6y ago
> without chaining it to a specific company This affects everyone who works with H1B employees. As others have noted it puts them in a very unfair side of the negotiations on employment (as in you don't get a voice). If your residency is hinged on your job, then it's you vs everyone else there. This drives unnatural competition between teams and coworkers under the same manager. It's bad for work relations. It leads people to be bad actors and make immoral judgements. H1B needs serious reform to give people an actual voice at the table.
sharadov 6y ago
This is a complex issue, and the only way to make it fair is no tie the immigration policy to a company but make it skill and points based as they have in Canada. Companies have found loopholes if not wholesale abused the system. The biggest offenders are the body shopping companies from India - Wipro, Infosys, TCS. Most American companies in my opinion are fair and for all the talk about indentured labor, there are plenty of tech jobs for the skilled and you can leave at will, the transfer process is simple, although the last year the Trump administration has put hurdles.
georgeburdell 6y ago
When I was a new grad, I interviewed at Qualcomm for an embedded software job. I studied hardware, and was very up-front with the hiring manager in the phone screen, and he responded “not to worry about it”. I was flown out to do an on-site interview, and the first thing that struck me, sitting in the lobby for 20 minutes while my first interviewer arrived, was that 100% of the employees who walked through the front door were Indian. The interviewers were all Indian (except HR, who was white) and several of them mentioned they were H1B’s. Anyway, I apparently failed the interview, mostly theoretical CS, so horribly that they cut the day short and dismissed me after lunch. I wonder sometimes if the hiring manager was incompetent or was just using me as justification that no Americans could do the job
- mighty_mighty 6y ago
  This is over the board racist comment! Re-read your comment by replacing "Indian" with "Black" and see how you feel about it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't think that's an equivalent substitution. Indian Americans are by a huge margin the richest demographic group in the country, and black Americans are by a significant margin the poorest.
    - mighty_mighty 6y ago
      so being racist against Indians is right because they are a rich demography ? I applaud your logic here.
  - jmpman 6y ago
    If employment was a representative percentage of the US, then you’d expect 1.3% of the employees to be Indian. He’s identifying that Indians are over represented by almost 76x. Let’s say that the company is made up of 100 engineers. In order to get 100 Indian engineers randomly, the odds are much worse than 3720 to 1. It implies immense discrimination by the employers which is systemic.
fchu 6y ago
While this is true and H1B can be reformed, it's still a better option than having your dreams crushed because now you're stuck in your home country where job perspectives aren't great.
arunkd13 6y ago
I think the point of H1B being tied to an employer is that a H1B entry needs to be temporary and not long term immigration. If you don't like your employer, or your employer is shafting you, then return back to your country and look for another job. If it happens to be another job in US with H1B visa, good for you. Start another temporary stint.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I think the point of H1B being tied to an employer is that a H1B entry needs to be temporary and not long term immigration. If it needs to be temporary response to a shortage, it should be tied to a job category in which the shortage is certified to exist, not an employer. There should be no special restriction within the category within which the shortage is certified to exist, so long as it exists, since employer restrictions within that category will obviously exacerbate a real shortage, though they benefit the particular employer. But H-1B doesn't exist to deal with real shortages, it exists to leverage the pretext of contrived shortages to mitigate wage pressure in highly skilled industries via captive labor.
fredfoobar 6y ago
> They also fake looking for Americans- in practice, many of the jobs are earmarked for a specific person, and you are wasting your time applying for it. Disagree with this, agree with the rest. I've hired (and fired) folks for teams and this is not true at all. The wages in SV are very competitive. At one point we were desperate to get ANYONE who could pass the interview, including dropping the bar for the interview. H1B employees are technically more expensive for us, because the overhead for H1B fees/lawyers etc. edit: I forgot to mention that H1Bs routinely negotiate their pay to be higher, since they get multiple offers as well.
- throwaway987897 6y ago
  I've been involved with fake interviews. (Hence throwaway account.) The context where fake interviews are required is when your firm has hired someone who is on H1B visa but is seeking a green card. To support the green card application it is required to show that the position cannot be filled by an American who is similarly qualified and will accept a similar salary as the immigrant. In my case the context was my firm had done a true search for filling the position, where the H1B holder was found as the best available applicant. But then we had to do another fake job search for that already-filled position for the purposes of getting our employee a green card. The hallmarks of a fake job posting, from that experience: (1) there will be only basic advertising of the role, with a strict "no recruiters" rule (2) there will be only one round of phone interview, focusing on a checklist of specific knowledge and experience points and acceptable salary levels
  - fredfoobar 6y ago
    I get what you're saying, but the "fake job search" never yields any qualified hits, I haven't had to "fake reject" anyone so far. I'm being totally honest with you. I'm sure I could wait a year and finally find an American born candidate who will pass the interview, but that would mean my projects and timelines are hosed. We've tried to go the intern route and hire American undergrads as interns and then convert them to full time by offering them, the conversion rate isn't as good as you think, and they have a LOT of options in the valley. Let me assure you, the biggest problem faced by any company, startup or otherwise is talent, it's extremely hard to find good talent, We could tweak our tech-stacks to be most open to a wide range of people and bring the bar down. But the bottleneck is still talent.

btilly 6y ago

The "without chaining it to a specific company" is critical. When the employee is chained to a company, the company has every incentive to lie then treat the employee poorly. When the employee is not chained to the company, the company has incentives to tell the truth then treat the employee well.

evgen 6y ago
Unfortunately the reality is that there is absolutely no one who is interested in pushing a visa scheme like this. Employers are not interested in going through effort and paperwork for an employee who can jump ship for a better offer down the street once they are in the country. Other employees are not interested in increasing the supply of similar labor that will drive down their market value. The only ones who are interested in a visa like this would be foreign-born skilled workers looking to immigrate, and they are going to lose the fight over who gets the visas with people who have no specific skills but family in country since that family can vote. There is no constituency for such a visa, so it is never going to happen.
- dclowd9901 6y ago
  They would be if the employee was genuinely worth the hassle. Plus you can imagine most companies would put someone on a contractual basis if the “chaining” wasn’t implicitly part of the visa, which may, in itself, render such an idea moot.
- acdha 6y ago
  > Other employees are not interested in increasing the supply of similar labor that will drive down their market value. I’m not sure it’s that simple: lots of workers know they’re competing at their current employer with H1-B’s who are underpaid and mistreated. If they’re paid more that dynamic softens a lot and there’s still a cap on the total number.
- hedora 6y ago
  I’d rather not give my employer the ability to abuse my H-1B coworkers. Why should they hire someone who can walk to a competitor at the drop of a hat when they can hire someone that will probably be deported if they step out of line or demand market-rate compensation? (Also, many of my friends have/had H-1B’s...)
  - srean 6y ago
    > Why should they hire someone who can walk to a competitor at the drop of a hat Because free markets are better ? or so has been the message by US towards other countries
    - stainforth 6y ago
      Free market for me, not for thee
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  American immigrant to Canada here. Canada has skilled worker permanent residence visas that, in many cases (and ignoring temporary pandemic-related delays), take half a year or less from start to finish. Mine was slower but still faster than a lot of immigrant experiences to the US, and I did it from outside Canada and without an employer involved at all. The skilled worker visas don't need family in country, though it can be a minor help in the points systems they use. My CS degree and work experience mattered far more. As to why it's hard in the US, I'd attribute that more to attitudes among the population and media than to the inherent nature of having to make policy that appeals to voters: Canada is (at least) as much of a democracy as the US, and even the Conservative Party of Canada isn't proposing to eliminate fast skilled worker processing - they're in fact the party that introduced the quick program I alluded to above. Certainly the other two major national parties are even more friendly to immigration. There are xenophobes in Canada, but firmly in the minority when examined at the national level. Canada also has fast sponsorship programs for spouses and kids.
  - digianarchist 6y ago
    Like I said in another comment though - Canada's immigration system does not focus on family reunification like the United States. 63% of Green Cards are awarded based on family connection [0] not employment based sponsorship vs 26% in Canada [1]. The US is an outlier in this regard. Not many countries allow you to sponsor a sibling for Permanent Residency. [0] https://www.boundless.com/blog/dhs-data-2018/ https://www.boundless.com/blog/dhs-data-2018/ [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2017.html#sec1_1 https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      Canada does make it pretty easy to sponsor a spouse, common-law partner, or single children under age 22 for permanent residence. In fact it's far easier and faster than the US equivalent. You're right about the relative percentages between the countries, but that's simply because the US makes even skilled economic immigration far more difficult than Canada. All common kinds of immigration are easier in Canada, though neither country makes it truly easy as was true more than a century ago. You're right that there are only very narrow cases where Canada allows sponsoring siblings, unlike the US. But those kinds of differences go both ways: for example, Canada allows common-law partner sponsorship after 1 year of cohabitation without requiring marriage, whereas the US doesn't. (I am not referring to what the US calls "common-law marriage" but to a type of relationship that continues not to be treated the same as marriage under Canadian law, except where specifically indicated.)
- shawnz 6y ago
  Sure there is: anyone who wants to increase the availability of cheap skilled labour. Maybe it's true that companies want lock-in, but do you really need that if you can just increase the size of the pool instead? Also consider that increasing the amount of cheap skilled labour would increase the speed of economic growth, therefore giving better returns on the investments of America's wealthiest. Why wouldn't they want that?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  It would have to be pitched as a shift to a points based immigration system in order to get buy-in, probably by a McCain-esque Republican. You'd create a fast track green card program that prioritizes immigrants who were educated in U.S. universities, people with advanced degrees, and people who have been working legally via H1Bs in the U.S. for a few years. Then, to get support from the right, you'd have to pair it with some cutbacks in other types of immigration, or maybe crackdowns on employers who hire illegal immigrants, or deportations for immigrants (legal or otherwise) who run afoul of the law, etc. I usually lean hard left, and I know I'd personally support a proposal that cut back on granting 1 unskilled visa per year, in exchange for fast-tracking 3 skilled visa-holders to getting their green card, and I have conservative-leaning friends who would support such a deal as well. What's the right ratio, though? They've been trying to strike a major immigration reform deal since the 90s, but neither side has been willing to make concessions, so we've just been just stuck with a broken system and its ill effects.

gibolt 6y ago

I would fully support reform. Do you think there is a meaningful chance that is the current plan?

vsskanth 6y ago
not really. Most H1B rules are written in law. You cannot make significant changes without going through Congress. Otherwise they will be defeated in courts.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I don't think that's a realistic hope. A free-floating pool of nonresident employees would be, wrongly but inevitably, seen as a scheme to reduce American employment.

padiyar83 6y ago

This will fuel the "remote anywhere" trend that's already underway. If a H1b engineer in US suppresses wage growth, wait until the same engineer can do the work for 1/3rd the cost from his own country, especially when everyone in the team is remote.

dclowd9901 6y ago
You say this like it’s that easy. We have remotes working in Singapore and Australia, and it is a far cry from “easy” to work with these people either due to timing constraints, language barriers or other aspects that disrupt fluid communication.
- padiyar83 6y ago
  I agree that is a concern with a US centric team. Imagine a globally distributed team - 3 engineers are in Asia pacific region, 2 in Europe and 2 in US. Everyone in the team is equally affected by timing constraints and language barriers, so it becomes more palatable. And in such a world even the notion of coming to US and working on an H1B visa does not exist.
- hedora 6y ago
  Timezones are the biggest issue from what I’ve seen. People can learn English, and get used to video calls / written communication. I wonder why more companies don’t outsource to Canada and South America (or the Midwest, for that matter.)
  - kache_ 6y ago
    They do. I've been seeing a lot of remote companies hire aggressively within Canada.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > language barriers Americans couldn't comprehend the perfect English spoken in these countries? (Sorry - couldn't resist!) Edit: In case people don't get it, it used to be a common joke that Americans had poorer English than well educated foreigners. Definitely for written, but even occasionally spoken English. I've worked with at least 3 people who were either from Singapore or from Malaysia but educated in Singapore. All had great English, and with 2 of them you'd never know you weren't speaking to a native English speaker - you'd think you were speaking to a British person.

thatfrenchguy 6y ago

Most companies play the game and apply for your green-card right away though.

deegles 6y ago

It's hard to convey to a citizen how demoralizing being on an H1B is. If you get laid off, you have at best 30 days to find a new job and transfer your visa (from what I remember), otherwise you have to leave the country. H1B does not allow moonlighting. You can't start a startup by yourself. You can't take significant time off between jobs unless you transfer your visa and negotiate it. Your spouse likely won't be able to work (it's not trivial). You can't protest unfair working conditions to the extent a citizen can, because getting fired is effectively exile. Calling it indentured servitude is accurate. I'm sure most people understand that it's a transactional relationship, I.e. you get to live in the country while you work and that's it, but if you live in a city for several years and settle in, form friendships, hobbies, and maybe relationships, it's very difficult to put all of that at risk for any reason.

quicklime 6y ago
> If you get laid off, you have at best 30 days to find a new job and transfer your visa (from what I remember), otherwise you have to leave the country I agree the terms are not good, but isn’t it 60 days? https://cilawgroup.com/news/2017/02/24/uscis-creates-60-day-grace-period-following-termination-of-employment-for-h-1bs-and-others/ https://cilawgroup.com/news/2017/02/24/uscis-creates-60-day-...
- deegles 6y ago
  Ah, I was on H1B until 2015, so it was still 30 days for me. Glad it's been increased.
ip26 6y ago
if you live in a city for several years and settle in, form friendships, hobbies, and maybe relationships I suddenly find myself wondering if the path to reform for H1B could be short duration combine with some kind of fast-track naturalization. Does it even make sense for the transactional H1B to be so long term? If the H1B led to rapid naturalization, it would naturally curtail use of H1B over time, as the US population of individuals suited for the job would be growing ipso facto.

epistasis 6y ago

This executive order has nothing at all to do with reform or the concerns you are stating. The only point is to make life more difficult for people that need a J1, H1-B, or anything else to continue their career plans now. It's also to make it seem like these positions are taking jobs away from current US residents, and stoke anti-immigrant sentiment. There are undoubtedly flaws with the H1-B process, but this move makes it less likely for reform to happen, not more.

mathattack 6y ago

I’ve talked to several H1-B recipients who resent being second class citizens, and have to endure abuse from their vendors. The complaints have universally come from the large IT services teams, who have a form of legal non-competes in the Visa.

ideals 6y ago

> without chaining it to a specific company This affects everyone who works with H1B employees. As others have noted it puts them in a very unfair side of the negotiations on employment (as in you don't get a voice). If your residency is hinged on your job, then it's you vs everyone else there. This drives unnatural competition between teams and coworkers under the same manager. It's bad for work relations. It leads people to be bad actors and make immoral judgements. H1B needs serious reform to give people an actual voice at the table.

sharadov 6y ago

This is a complex issue, and the only way to make it fair is no tie the immigration policy to a company but make it skill and points based as they have in Canada. Companies have found loopholes if not wholesale abused the system. The biggest offenders are the body shopping companies from India - Wipro, Infosys, TCS. Most American companies in my opinion are fair and for all the talk about indentured labor, there are plenty of tech jobs for the skilled and you can leave at will, the transfer process is simple, although the last year the Trump administration has put hurdles.

georgeburdell 6y ago

When I was a new grad, I interviewed at Qualcomm for an embedded software job. I studied hardware, and was very up-front with the hiring manager in the phone screen, and he responded “not to worry about it”. I was flown out to do an on-site interview, and the first thing that struck me, sitting in the lobby for 20 minutes while my first interviewer arrived, was that 100% of the employees who walked through the front door were Indian. The interviewers were all Indian (except HR, who was white) and several of them mentioned they were H1B’s. Anyway, I apparently failed the interview, mostly theoretical CS, so horribly that they cut the day short and dismissed me after lunch. I wonder sometimes if the hiring manager was incompetent or was just using me as justification that no Americans could do the job

mighty_mighty 6y ago
This is over the board racist comment! Re-read your comment by replacing "Indian" with "Black" and see how you feel about it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't think that's an equivalent substitution. Indian Americans are by a huge margin the richest demographic group in the country, and black Americans are by a significant margin the poorest.
  - mighty_mighty 6y ago
    so being racist against Indians is right because they are a rich demography ? I applaud your logic here.
- jmpman 6y ago
  If employment was a representative percentage of the US, then you’d expect 1.3% of the employees to be Indian. He’s identifying that Indians are over represented by almost 76x. Let’s say that the company is made up of 100 engineers. In order to get 100 Indian engineers randomly, the odds are much worse than 3720 to 1. It implies immense discrimination by the employers which is systemic.

fchu 6y ago

While this is true and H1B can be reformed, it's still a better option than having your dreams crushed because now you're stuck in your home country where job perspectives aren't great.

arunkd13 6y ago

I think the point of H1B being tied to an employer is that a H1B entry needs to be temporary and not long term immigration. If you don't like your employer, or your employer is shafting you, then return back to your country and look for another job. If it happens to be another job in US with H1B visa, good for you. Start another temporary stint.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I think the point of H1B being tied to an employer is that a H1B entry needs to be temporary and not long term immigration. If it needs to be temporary response to a shortage, it should be tied to a job category in which the shortage is certified to exist, not an employer. There should be no special restriction within the category within which the shortage is certified to exist, so long as it exists, since employer restrictions within that category will obviously exacerbate a real shortage, though they benefit the particular employer. But H-1B doesn't exist to deal with real shortages, it exists to leverage the pretext of contrived shortages to mitigate wage pressure in highly skilled industries via captive labor.

fredfoobar 6y ago

> They also fake looking for Americans- in practice, many of the jobs are earmarked for a specific person, and you are wasting your time applying for it. Disagree with this, agree with the rest. I've hired (and fired) folks for teams and this is not true at all. The wages in SV are very competitive. At one point we were desperate to get ANYONE who could pass the interview, including dropping the bar for the interview. H1B employees are technically more expensive for us, because the overhead for H1B fees/lawyers etc. edit: I forgot to mention that H1Bs routinely negotiate their pay to be higher, since they get multiple offers as well.

throwaway987897 6y ago
I've been involved with fake interviews. (Hence throwaway account.) The context where fake interviews are required is when your firm has hired someone who is on H1B visa but is seeking a green card. To support the green card application it is required to show that the position cannot be filled by an American who is similarly qualified and will accept a similar salary as the immigrant. In my case the context was my firm had done a true search for filling the position, where the H1B holder was found as the best available applicant. But then we had to do another fake job search for that already-filled position for the purposes of getting our employee a green card. The hallmarks of a fake job posting, from that experience: (1) there will be only basic advertising of the role, with a strict "no recruiters" rule (2) there will be only one round of phone interview, focusing on a checklist of specific knowledge and experience points and acceptable salary levels
- fredfoobar 6y ago
  I get what you're saying, but the "fake job search" never yields any qualified hits, I haven't had to "fake reject" anyone so far. I'm being totally honest with you. I'm sure I could wait a year and finally find an American born candidate who will pass the interview, but that would mean my projects and timelines are hosed. We've tried to go the intern route and hire American undergrads as interns and then convert them to full time by offering them, the conversion rate isn't as good as you think, and they have a LOT of options in the valley. Let me assure you, the biggest problem faced by any company, startup or otherwise is talent, it's extremely hard to find good talent, We could tweak our tech-stacks to be most open to a wide range of people and bring the bar down. But the bottleneck is still talent.