3 ms·

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-d

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".
        bubblethink 1y ago
        > The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit. The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier. >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". That's just like, your opinion, dude.
        pandaman 1y ago
        >The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier. Yeah, a completely different case by a different organization means this case is also political... I don't really know what to say at this point. You seem to be arguing on random tangents without touching the issue of this HN item: companies obfuscating job adverts for the positions involved in PERM. For all I know you might not even know what does "good faith" mean and truly think it's a good faith behavior so you are more interested in discussing random stuff. I am sorry that I am not.

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".
      - bubblethink 1y ago
        > The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit. The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier. >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". That's just like, your opinion, dude.
        pandaman 1y ago
        >The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier. Yeah, a completely different case by a different organization means this case is also political... I don't really know what to say at this point. You seem to be arguing on random tangents without touching the issue of this HN item: companies obfuscating job adverts for the positions involved in PERM. For all I know you might not even know what does "good faith" mean and truly think it's a good faith behavior so you are more interested in discussing random stuff. I am sorry that I am not.