3 ms·

Okay, you're right, at least in 2022. I believe it was relaxed in this regard (well placed political "donations" at work) because I'm fairly certain there used

Okay, you're right, at least in 2022. I believe it was relaxed in this regard (well placed political "donations" at work) because I'm fairly certain there used to be requirements to recruit U.S. workers first. Today, it seems that only "willful violators" are legally required to recruit U.S. workers. So FAANG are merely violating the intent of the law, which is stated extremely clearly by the BOL: "The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce" There's nothing debatable or ambiguous about this direct statement of intent. So these corporations have successfully bribed the right people to make it legal to violate the intent of the law. Which shouldn't surprise anyone but changes nothing about the ethics of the situation. It's still a massive abuse and entirely used for the purpose of increasing corporate profits.

triceratops 4y ago
> I believe it was relaxed in this regard Source? > So FAANG are merely violating the intent of the law If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers. At that salary level there are unlikely to be loads of people uninterested in the job. It's not hard, dangerous manual labor.
- staunch 4y ago
  > Source? I don't have the interest in doing the legal research. I could be just wrong about the requirement. Or it could be that in practice HR lawyers advise companies to make a token effort of recruiting U.S. workers as a precaution. It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way. Either way, the loophole is absolutely massive and exploited at great scale. The intent of the law is extremely clear and it is being violated. Just read the statement of intent and then work for any U.S. tech company in a hiring role, and you'll soon know for yourself. > If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers. Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? In other words, it's a de facto subsidy for tech companies, to prevent them from having to increase wages. Text book wage suppression. It just doesn't make any logical sense why FAANG would have to use H-1Bs at all, except for a few roles where their may truly be a lack of candidates. How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all then, if FAANG is in good faith trying to recruit U.S. workers? I think I've explained the situation clearly, and don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended. I'm done with this thread now. Have a nice day.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way Yeah it does. The letter of the law isn't being violated at all. The spirit isn't being violated either at FAANG companies. The wages are in the top 5% nationally - they should have no difficulty attracting domestic workers, if they existed. The visa burden is so onerous. Why would any company go through that willingly? > How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all Usually by underpaying workers by promising equity that will be worth way more later, recruiting through a sense of mission, giving out higher titles, or simply hiring lower-caliber talent or less-experienced people who don't know their worth. I've experienced all of the above. > Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? How does that increase supply? Where are the large numbers of people who are otherwise interested in and capable of doing software engineering but $300k just isn't enough money? > don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended. I don't know what a "reasonable" judge is - I assume it's whoever agrees with you - so that's meaningless. However, no judge so far has agreed with your opinion, as far as it relates to the FAANG companies.

triceratops 4y ago

> I believe it was relaxed in this regard Source? > So FAANG are merely violating the intent of the law If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers. At that salary level there are unlikely to be loads of people uninterested in the job. It's not hard, dangerous manual labor.

staunch 4y ago
> Source? I don't have the interest in doing the legal research. I could be just wrong about the requirement. Or it could be that in practice HR lawyers advise companies to make a token effort of recruiting U.S. workers as a precaution. It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way. Either way, the loophole is absolutely massive and exploited at great scale. The intent of the law is extremely clear and it is being violated. Just read the statement of intent and then work for any U.S. tech company in a hiring role, and you'll soon know for yourself. > If someone can't hire enough domestic workers when offering $300k/year, I think it's safe to say there aren't enough domestic workers. Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? In other words, it's a de facto subsidy for tech companies, to prevent them from having to increase wages. Text book wage suppression. It just doesn't make any logical sense why FAANG would have to use H-1Bs at all, except for a few roles where their may truly be a lack of candidates. How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all then, if FAANG is in good faith trying to recruit U.S. workers? I think I've explained the situation clearly, and don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended. I'm done with this thread now. Have a nice day.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way Yeah it does. The letter of the law isn't being violated at all. The spirit isn't being violated either at FAANG companies. The wages are in the top 5% nationally - they should have no difficulty attracting domestic workers, if they existed. The visa burden is so onerous. Why would any company go through that willingly? > How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all Usually by underpaying workers by promising equity that will be worth way more later, recruiting through a sense of mission, giving out higher titles, or simply hiring lower-caliber talent or less-experienced people who don't know their worth. I've experienced all of the above. > Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? How does that increase supply? Where are the large numbers of people who are otherwise interested in and capable of doing software engineering but $300k just isn't enough money? > don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended. I don't know what a "reasonable" judge is - I assume it's whoever agrees with you - so that's meaningless. However, no judge so far has agreed with your opinion, as far as it relates to the FAANG companies.