3 ms·

I only have one proposal. If a company has a layoff in number of thousands, then the company should be barred from h1-b for a certain number of years.

avidiax 3y ago
If a sector has increasing unemployment or sub-inflationary total comp growth, no H1-B's for that sector.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 3y ago
  These are both wonderful proposals. Happy to see people starting to talk this way. Hopefully we'll see a change soon.
vishalontheline 3y ago
This is an interesting proposal. Unfortunately, the way around this is a "business solutions" company, whose main solution is providing H1-B'd temps to large companies. There are tons of those around: local companies hire people on H1-B. Foreign companies send people over on L1.
- karakot 3y ago
  Yeah, thank you for reminding that the most of simple solutions are wrong usually.
psychlops 3y ago
That sounds like a huge push for outsourcing.
- karakot 3y ago
  Everything is a push for outsourcing. Workers rights is a push (looking at you Boeing, moving from WA to SC). Ecological rules - looking at all toxic production which had been moved to the places with less accountabilities instead of fixing it. I'm pretty sure there're more examples.
  - psychlops 2y ago
    Debasing the currency is not a push for outsourcing and, in fact, encourages exports.
darth_avocado 3y ago
Sounds good in theory, but not at all practical. Apple just laid off 600 employees working on their electric car initiative, they moved employees internally where skills were transferable, but the rest were let go. But in your proposal, they would now not be able to hire for ANY job function on H1B.
- jdhzzz 3y ago
  Would a 1 year ban for H1B for Apple be that big of a problem after a "significant" layoff? Or maybe can only apply for up to a maximum of some (10%? 15%? 25%) percentage of the last year's layoffs?
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    I think 1 year is a lot of time in the industry for a blanket ban. If apple wants to get out of building a car but pivot into building AI (which is what they’re doing) or if a different company wants to reduce its sales and marketing footprint while increasing its dev efforts (a lot of tech companies are doing this), then these blanket bans are unreasonable and detrimental to everyone (customers, existing employees, shareholders including people’s retirement funds), including citizens. However, say Apple fires 600 car engineers and then files for 400 H1Bs for 400 car engineering positions after 6 months, then they need to be held accountable. Which to a certain extent already happens. USCIS will often deny H1B petitions in such cases and green card processing (PERM certification part) is usually paused at a company level after significant layoffs. As of today Facebook and other tech companies that had significant layoffs last year, are not filing PERM applications for their current employees and they won’t for at least a year after the layoffs.
    - karakot 3y ago
      so the actual workers [s]are harmed[/s]held responsible, not the companies.

avidiax 3y ago

If a sector has increasing unemployment or sub-inflationary total comp growth, no H1-B's for that sector.

ahmeneeroe-v2 3y ago
These are both wonderful proposals. Happy to see people starting to talk this way. Hopefully we'll see a change soon.

vishalontheline 3y ago

This is an interesting proposal. Unfortunately, the way around this is a "business solutions" company, whose main solution is providing H1-B'd temps to large companies. There are tons of those around: local companies hire people on H1-B. Foreign companies send people over on L1.

karakot 3y ago
Yeah, thank you for reminding that the most of simple solutions are wrong usually.

psychlops 3y ago

That sounds like a huge push for outsourcing.

karakot 3y ago
Everything is a push for outsourcing. Workers rights is a push (looking at you Boeing, moving from WA to SC). Ecological rules - looking at all toxic production which had been moved to the places with less accountabilities instead of fixing it. I'm pretty sure there're more examples.
- psychlops 2y ago
  Debasing the currency is not a push for outsourcing and, in fact, encourages exports.

darth_avocado 3y ago

Sounds good in theory, but not at all practical. Apple just laid off 600 employees working on their electric car initiative, they moved employees internally where skills were transferable, but the rest were let go. But in your proposal, they would now not be able to hire for ANY job function on H1B.

jdhzzz 3y ago
Would a 1 year ban for H1B for Apple be that big of a problem after a "significant" layoff? Or maybe can only apply for up to a maximum of some (10%? 15%? 25%) percentage of the last year's layoffs?
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  I think 1 year is a lot of time in the industry for a blanket ban. If apple wants to get out of building a car but pivot into building AI (which is what they’re doing) or if a different company wants to reduce its sales and marketing footprint while increasing its dev efforts (a lot of tech companies are doing this), then these blanket bans are unreasonable and detrimental to everyone (customers, existing employees, shareholders including people’s retirement funds), including citizens. However, say Apple fires 600 car engineers and then files for 400 H1Bs for 400 car engineering positions after 6 months, then they need to be held accountable. Which to a certain extent already happens. USCIS will often deny H1B petitions in such cases and green card processing (PERM certification part) is usually paused at a company level after significant layoffs. As of today Facebook and other tech companies that had significant layoffs last year, are not filing PERM applications for their current employees and they won’t for at least a year after the layoffs.
  - karakot 3y ago
    so the actual workers [s]are harmed[/s]held responsible, not the companies.