3 ms·

The lack is established by a good faith recruitment process, not an exhaustive search. This is intentionally vague because it's a non-sensical requirement that

The lack is established by a good faith recruitment process, not an exhaustive search. This is intentionally vague because it's a non-sensical requirement that is hard to prove one way or the other and was only added as a political compromise. The company is free to tailor the minimum requirements to its liking. Recall that this is a free capitalistic country. So you can establish that you can't fill the req. locally and hence are hiring a foreigner. The reason I'm pointing this out is because you have picked some type of textual or literal interpretation of things ("this is what EB is for"), and companies have lawyers who are good at following the text.

pandaman 1y ago
The company is free to tailor the minimum requirements to its liking however it must be able to persuade the government that the job cannot be done without these requirements and a foreigner meets them. If you could just require a Nobel Prize in Physics and 50 years of experience for your PM or JS-jockey job then we would not be seeing articles like this. So I don't see why would you be pointing it out. >and companies have lawyers who are good at following the text Apparently not very good lawyers at Apple: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/ier-apple_settlement_agreement_signed_2023-11-08_fully_executed.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/ier-apple_settlement_agre... Or Meta: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements-facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-depart... Just a couple of recent high-profile busts. The problem is not "good lawyers" but the fact that the only punishment for breaking the law is a pittance of a settlement.
- bubblethink 1y ago
  The "busts" are more theater than anything else. The DOJ also sued companies for not hiring enough immigrants (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...) . >The problem is not "good lawyers" but the fact that the only punishment for breaking the law is a pittance of a settlement. That's how settlements go. The government gets to do its theater, the constituents believe that the government is fighting for them, and companies write this off as the cost of doing business.
  - pandaman 1y ago
    It doesn't matter how you evaluate these busts, what matters is that they contradict your claim.
    - bubblethink 1y ago
      I don't see the contradiction here. The game is as follows: Company has to make a good faith recruitment effort. Not an exhaustive search, not beyond reasonable doubt. Just good faith which follows the preponderance of evidence standard. This is by design. The government doesn't believe that it can win on the merits, and hence they settle. The settlement gives everyone what they want.
      - pandaman 1y ago
        > Company has to make a good faith recruitment effort. Yes. And as the topical article and countless other ones state - they don't. They actively obfuscate their job openings so they do know they act against the law. And it's so easy to observe that their "good lawyers" cannot help here. >The government doesn't believe that it can win on the merits, and hence they settle. That's just, like, your opinion, dude.
        bubblethink 1y ago
        >That's just, like, your opinion, dude. That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants. A settlement is not admission of guilt - the opposite actually. What are we even debating here ? > "good lawyers" cannot help here A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer.
        pandaman 1y ago
        >That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants. If it has been an official opinion it would have been published and you had a link to it, would not you? Settlement is not an admission of guilt nor is it admission that the case can't be won on merit. >A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer. Different lawyer handle DOJ prosecution and immigration (immigration lawyers are usually not even members of BAR). The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit. If there had been a modicum of will to go after lawbreakers, these cases would try themselves - tons of witnesses, tons of evidence zero traces of "good faith".

pandaman 1y ago

The company is free to tailor the minimum requirements to its liking however it must be able to persuade the government that the job cannot be done without these requirements and a foreigner meets them. If you could just require a Nobel Prize in Physics and 50 years of experience for your PM or JS-jockey job then we would not be seeing articles like this. So I don't see why would you be pointing it out. >and companies have lawyers who are good at following the text Apparently not very good lawyers at Apple: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/ier-apple_settlement_agreement_signed_2023-11-08_fully_executed.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/ier-apple_settlement_agre... Or Meta: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements-facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-depart... Just a couple of recent high-profile busts. The problem is not "good lawyers" but the fact that the only punishment for breaking the law is a pittance of a settlement.

bubblethink 1y ago
The "busts" are more theater than anything else. The DOJ also sued companies for not hiring enough immigrants (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...) . >The problem is not "good lawyers" but the fact that the only punishment for breaking the law is a pittance of a settlement. That's how settlements go. The government gets to do its theater, the constituents believe that the government is fighting for them, and companies write this off as the cost of doing business.
- pandaman 1y ago
  It doesn't matter how you evaluate these busts, what matters is that they contradict your claim.
  - bubblethink 1y ago
    I don't see the contradiction here. The game is as follows: Company has to make a good faith recruitment effort. Not an exhaustive search, not beyond reasonable doubt. Just good faith which follows the preponderance of evidence standard. This is by design. The government doesn't believe that it can win on the merits, and hence they settle. The settlement gives everyone what they want.
    - pandaman 1y ago
      > Company has to make a good faith recruitment effort. Yes. And as the topical article and countless other ones state - they don't. They actively obfuscate their job openings so they do know they act against the law. And it's so easy to observe that their "good lawyers" cannot help here. >The government doesn't believe that it can win on the merits, and hence they settle. That's just, like, your opinion, dude.
      - bubblethink 1y ago
        >That's just, like, your opinion, dude. That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants. A settlement is not admission of guilt - the opposite actually. What are we even debating here ? > "good lawyers" cannot help here A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer.
        pandaman 1y ago
        >That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants. If it has been an official opinion it would have been published and you had a link to it, would not you? Settlement is not an admission of guilt nor is it admission that the case can't be won on merit. >A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer. Different lawyer handle DOJ prosecution and immigration (immigration lawyers are usually not even members of BAR). The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit. If there had been a modicum of will to go after lawbreakers, these cases would try themselves - tons of witnesses, tons of evidence zero traces of "good faith".