9 ms·

> Immigration support: We will set the termination date for March 1, 2023, giving those with visa applications (and a desire to stay in the US) as much time as

by eddsh1994 4y ago

> Immigration support: We will set the termination date for March 1, 2023, giving those with visa applications (and a desire to stay in the US) as much time as possible to find a new job. That's really nice.

bgorman 4y ago
Doesn't this violate anti-discrimination laws? It seems like this discriminates against US citizens (discrimination by national origin).
- bhouser 4y ago
  How is it discrimination if they set the termination date for ALL employees to March 1, 2023?
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  By that logic is the existence of visa programs discrimination by national origin?
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    No, because the employer must prove their are no legal residents in the US that are eligible for the job.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      This is a common myth but is not true for H-1B visas. It is true for EB2 and EB3 green cards, however.
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        As part of the LCA the employer must attest there is no strike or lockout, that the salary of similarly employed workers is not affected, & that the job application must be provided to workers already at the company. So no, you can't just threaten to replace all your employees with H1-B visa holders.
        howinteresting 4y ago
        Right, but that's not "their [sic] are no legal residents in the US that are eligible for the job". That's the PERM process.
        sidewndr46 4y ago
        Damn you are dense. It is on the employer to prove they are not affecting the wages of US legal residents as part of the LCA. Bringing in foreign labor to a market implicitly lowers the wages of those workers. That is how markets work. Thus, there must be absolutely 0 residents already capable of performing the job. Otherwise the LCA is fraudulent. The only other possibility would be the employer is bringing in foreign labor to pay them a premium over legal residents. Which obviously no one does.
        dang 4y ago
        Breaking the site guidelines like that will get you banned here. Please don't do it again. Your account would be fine without that first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        renewiltord 4y ago
        This advice is incongruent with that of any lawyer I have consulted on the subject (both from the perspective of an employer and as an employee). To those interested in the subject, you'll have a more accurate picture of the current legal climate from a lawyer. In my experience, it will be very different from this user's legal determination of whether one must prove the existence of 0 US residents for the job. As an employer, USCIS has never required this proof from us for a H-1B.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    No. What is discrimination by national origin is the fact that employment-based green cards have a quota by country of birth, without any adjustment for the country's population. However, the American legal system accepts that kind of discrimination by national origin, because it doesn't fall under the Civil Rights Act.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  That question reminds me of those equality vs equity pictures. I'm not sure I even agree with those definitions, but it's a commonly spread explanation. https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/boards/general/equality_v._equity_04_05_2021.pdf https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/boards/general/... So one question is then, which view does a court take?
  - gizmo686 4y ago
    Notably, DoorDash is providing the benefit equally to all fired employees [0]. [0] At least those working within the US.
  - djur 4y ago
    This "benefit" is available to everyone laid off. It's not discriminatory just because some people don't need it. Otherwise offering free bicycle storage would be discriminatory to people who bus to work, and offering free bus passes would be discriminatory to cyclists.
    - pc86 4y ago
      We would be well served to be a little more discriminatory against cyclists.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- happygolucky_in 4y ago
  While US citizens can take their time and find another job while also receive unemployment benefits, someone on H1 visa has to technically leave the country as soon as possible.A laid off person on H1 cannot remain unemployed and continue to remain in the country. This is particularly hard on those with families, many living in this country for 10+ years, with school going kids. Many have been waiting for years to get a green card. This is a very kind gesture by the employer. Hope more employers do this.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  It appears this has been done for all employees. So no in this case.
- syzarian 4y ago
  Discrimination laws apply to protected classes. Visa holders are not a protected class.
- nsonha 4y ago
  I guess they should also kick US citizen employees out of the country by March 1?
- davewritescode 4y ago
  How? You get severance until March the only difference between US and non-US employees is the technically the date that employment ends. Everyone is paid through March anyway.
- schon 4y ago
  It doesn't mean they are paid until then... it just says your last day as an employee is that date, giving them time to look for other jobs. Don't confuse it with being paid to do nothing because that isn't the case.
- minhazm 4y ago
  It doesn't say the end date is only for visa holders. It's just saying that visa holders will particularly benefit from it.
paxys 4y ago
While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it, such an arrangement still puts you in violation of your visa status. If you aren't working full time and don't even have network access, you are out of H-1B eligibility, regardless of whether you are on someone's payroll or not.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Yeah, unless they're trying to get a specific person out and using it as an excuse, nobody is going to look any further than that end date.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I don’t know anything about this, so I bet you are right (and hope you are!) I do have to wonder if it would have been better to just not mention it, though. Could highlighting their (light, and well-intentioned) rule breaking invite enforcement?
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      I don't think agents are paid well enough to care this much about any particular company unless one of their higher ups told them to. And the higher ups aren't going to care about what will likely be less than 100 people, at least some of which will get jobs within 60 days, and who overall are not trying to game the system even if it's technically what they're doing. In other words, I'm pretty sure they all have better things to do.
- 22SAS 4y ago
  >While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it Pretty right. In the HFT world, we have people going on non-competes all the time. During that time, most firms do not pull their visa petition from USCIS, pay continues every two weeks and the employee is still technically an employee of the firm, just that they're on garden leave. This is done by firms so that the employees do not have to leave the US during their non-compete. They're not doing any work, so technically still counts as a visa status violation.
alberth 4y ago
> Pay + RSU vest: Anyone impacted will receive 17 weeks (13 weeks + 1 four-week lump sum severance pay) of compensation, as well as your February 2023 stock vest. So basically, DoorDash is setting the termination date to align with when severance pay ends.
- eddsh1994 4y ago
  Yep! No real difference to US citizens or the company but a huge thing for visa holders over Christmas :)

bgorman 4y ago

Doesn't this violate anti-discrimination laws? It seems like this discriminates against US citizens (discrimination by national origin).

bhouser 4y ago
How is it discrimination if they set the termination date for ALL employees to March 1, 2023?
teaearlgraycold 4y ago
By that logic is the existence of visa programs discrimination by national origin?
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  No, because the employer must prove their are no legal residents in the US that are eligible for the job.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    This is a common myth but is not true for H-1B visas. It is true for EB2 and EB3 green cards, however.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      As part of the LCA the employer must attest there is no strike or lockout, that the salary of similarly employed workers is not affected, & that the job application must be provided to workers already at the company. So no, you can't just threaten to replace all your employees with H1-B visa holders.
      - howinteresting 4y ago
        Right, but that's not "their [sic] are no legal residents in the US that are eligible for the job". That's the PERM process.
        sidewndr46 4y ago
        Damn you are dense. It is on the employer to prove they are not affecting the wages of US legal residents as part of the LCA. Bringing in foreign labor to a market implicitly lowers the wages of those workers. That is how markets work. Thus, there must be absolutely 0 residents already capable of performing the job. Otherwise the LCA is fraudulent. The only other possibility would be the employer is bringing in foreign labor to pay them a premium over legal residents. Which obviously no one does.
        dang 4y ago
        Breaking the site guidelines like that will get you banned here. Please don't do it again. Your account would be fine without that first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        renewiltord 4y ago
        This advice is incongruent with that of any lawyer I have consulted on the subject (both from the perspective of an employer and as an employee). To those interested in the subject, you'll have a more accurate picture of the current legal climate from a lawyer. In my experience, it will be very different from this user's legal determination of whether one must prove the existence of 0 US residents for the job. As an employer, USCIS has never required this proof from us for a H-1B.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  No. What is discrimination by national origin is the fact that employment-based green cards have a quota by country of birth, without any adjustment for the country's population. However, the American legal system accepts that kind of discrimination by national origin, because it doesn't fall under the Civil Rights Act.
kzrdude 4y ago
That question reminds me of those equality vs equity pictures. I'm not sure I even agree with those definitions, but it's a commonly spread explanation. https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/boards/general/equality_v._equity_04_05_2021.pdf https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/boards/general/... So one question is then, which view does a court take?
- gizmo686 4y ago
  Notably, DoorDash is providing the benefit equally to all fired employees [0]. [0] At least those working within the US.
- djur 4y ago
  This "benefit" is available to everyone laid off. It's not discriminatory just because some people don't need it. Otherwise offering free bicycle storage would be discriminatory to people who bus to work, and offering free bus passes would be discriminatory to cyclists.
  - pc86 4y ago
    We would be well served to be a little more discriminatory against cyclists.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
happygolucky_in 4y ago
While US citizens can take their time and find another job while also receive unemployment benefits, someone on H1 visa has to technically leave the country as soon as possible.A laid off person on H1 cannot remain unemployed and continue to remain in the country. This is particularly hard on those with families, many living in this country for 10+ years, with school going kids. Many have been waiting for years to get a green card. This is a very kind gesture by the employer. Hope more employers do this.
sidewndr46 4y ago
It appears this has been done for all employees. So no in this case.
syzarian 4y ago
Discrimination laws apply to protected classes. Visa holders are not a protected class.
nsonha 4y ago
I guess they should also kick US citizen employees out of the country by March 1?
davewritescode 4y ago
How? You get severance until March the only difference between US and non-US employees is the technically the date that employment ends. Everyone is paid through March anyway.
schon 4y ago
It doesn't mean they are paid until then... it just says your last day as an employee is that date, giving them time to look for other jobs. Don't confuse it with being paid to do nothing because that isn't the case.
minhazm 4y ago
It doesn't say the end date is only for visa holders. It's just saying that visa holders will particularly benefit from it.

paxys 4y ago

While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it, such an arrangement still puts you in violation of your visa status. If you aren't working full time and don't even have network access, you are out of H-1B eligibility, regardless of whether you are on someone's payroll or not.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
Yeah, unless they're trying to get a specific person out and using it as an excuse, nobody is going to look any further than that end date.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I don’t know anything about this, so I bet you are right (and hope you are!) I do have to wonder if it would have been better to just not mention it, though. Could highlighting their (light, and well-intentioned) rule breaking invite enforcement?
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    I don't think agents are paid well enough to care this much about any particular company unless one of their higher ups told them to. And the higher ups aren't going to care about what will likely be less than 100 people, at least some of which will get jobs within 60 days, and who overall are not trying to game the system even if it's technically what they're doing. In other words, I'm pretty sure they all have better things to do.
22SAS 4y ago
>While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it Pretty right. In the HFT world, we have people going on non-competes all the time. During that time, most firms do not pull their visa petition from USCIS, pay continues every two weeks and the employee is still technically an employee of the firm, just that they're on garden leave. This is done by firms so that the employees do not have to leave the US during their non-compete. They're not doing any work, so technically still counts as a visa status violation.

alberth 4y ago

> Pay + RSU vest: Anyone impacted will receive 17 weeks (13 weeks + 1 four-week lump sum severance pay) of compensation, as well as your February 2023 stock vest. So basically, DoorDash is setting the termination date to align with when severance pay ends.

eddsh1994 4y ago
Yep! No real difference to US citizens or the company but a huge thing for visa holders over Christmas :)