4 ms·

This is also part of the procedure for sponsoring an existing employee for their permanent residency (aka green card). A case must be made that there were no el

This is also part of the procedure for sponsoring an existing employee for their permanent residency (aka green card). A case must be made that there were no eligible domestic candidates to replace them. Just the fact that this is necessary is absurd to me. So it's not something that either the company or employee does wilingly

User23 4y ago
What the company is not doing willingly is raising wages, which is the actual intent of the law.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  > What the company is not doing willingly is raising wages, which is the actual intent of the law. That may be the intent of the law but it is so badly implemented that it takes 1 year to get a DOL certification that the wages are ok, then 3 months to prepare for a job opening and advertisements, 1 month to interview candidates and then file a PERM application with DOL again which takes another 9 months. These timeframes are ridiculous. The tech industry changes much faster than the above timeframes. So employers are left with no choice but to "game" the system to retain their employees. Until the US government figures out how to make the immigration process more efficient, there is no stopping the gaming. People don't live so long, companies don't survive so long. Employees don't stay at the company so long. Then, the only option left for these companies is to hire outside the US.
  - jmholla 4y ago
    I think the parent comment was making the case that if these companies raised wages, they could hire US permanent residents which wouldn't require these timelines you've mentioned. Making the immigration process less onerous would have the opposite effect.
    - nine_zeros 4y ago
      > I think the parent comment was making the case that if these companies raised wages, they could hire US permanent residents which wouldn't require these timelines you've mentioned. Making the immigration process less onerous would have the opposite effect. Like I said, the companies are more likely to open offices and hire in other countries than to keep raising wages in America. By arbitrarily preventing the smartest from coming to America, we are encouraging American companies to go elsewhere. But why don't they just raise wages? Because that's how American capitalism works. One could argue that American capitalism needs to change but by the time that happens, the smart people have built a competing service in another place. See: Tiktok
      - jmholla 4y ago
        > Like I said, the companies are more likely to open offices and hire in other countries than to keep raising wages in America. By arbitrarily preventing the smartest from coming to America, we are encouraging American companies to go elsewhere. I see. I think your previous comment could have been clearer because I don't think you actually said that, and I didn't see anyone else include that avenue as a part of this conversation. This is a fair point, but I don't see how it ties into incentives to create ghost job postings. (Whereas with the H1B angle, ghost job postings would seemingly allow you to skip the timeframe where you have to say you tried to find someone.)

User23 4y ago

What the company is not doing willingly is raising wages, which is the actual intent of the law.

nine_zeros 4y ago
> What the company is not doing willingly is raising wages, which is the actual intent of the law. That may be the intent of the law but it is so badly implemented that it takes 1 year to get a DOL certification that the wages are ok, then 3 months to prepare for a job opening and advertisements, 1 month to interview candidates and then file a PERM application with DOL again which takes another 9 months. These timeframes are ridiculous. The tech industry changes much faster than the above timeframes. So employers are left with no choice but to "game" the system to retain their employees. Until the US government figures out how to make the immigration process more efficient, there is no stopping the gaming. People don't live so long, companies don't survive so long. Employees don't stay at the company so long. Then, the only option left for these companies is to hire outside the US.
- jmholla 4y ago
  I think the parent comment was making the case that if these companies raised wages, they could hire US permanent residents which wouldn't require these timelines you've mentioned. Making the immigration process less onerous would have the opposite effect.
  - nine_zeros 4y ago
    > I think the parent comment was making the case that if these companies raised wages, they could hire US permanent residents which wouldn't require these timelines you've mentioned. Making the immigration process less onerous would have the opposite effect. Like I said, the companies are more likely to open offices and hire in other countries than to keep raising wages in America. By arbitrarily preventing the smartest from coming to America, we are encouraging American companies to go elsewhere. But why don't they just raise wages? Because that's how American capitalism works. One could argue that American capitalism needs to change but by the time that happens, the smart people have built a competing service in another place. See: Tiktok
    - jmholla 4y ago
      > Like I said, the companies are more likely to open offices and hire in other countries than to keep raising wages in America. By arbitrarily preventing the smartest from coming to America, we are encouraging American companies to go elsewhere. I see. I think your previous comment could have been clearer because I don't think you actually said that, and I didn't see anyone else include that avenue as a part of this conversation. This is a fair point, but I don't see how it ties into incentives to create ghost job postings. (Whereas with the H1B angle, ghost job postings would seemingly allow you to skip the timeframe where you have to say you tried to find someone.)