3 ms·
Keep in mind that preventing a wage increase is, over time, no different from undercutting wages. Typically, a shortage would spur an increase in wages - so all
by geebee 13y ago
Keep in mind that preventing a wage increase is, over time, no different from undercutting wages.
Typically, a shortage would spur an increase in wages - so allowing people to pay only the "prevailing" wage could still end up suppressing wage growth.
One way around this would be to set a higher pay standard for H1B hires (perhaps requiring pay at the 90ile%+ level for the position, or creating a "prevailing wage + 25%").
- bradleyjg 13y agoEmployers have to pay the industry prevailing wage or the wage actually paid to comparable US national employees. So the law already does what you are suggesting.
- geebee 13y agoI don't understand how this could be the case. If a company pays its employees the prevailing wage, why would it be obligated to pay an H1B hire at the 90%ile?
- bradleyjg 13y agoEither the prevailing wage paid by all companies in the area, or the actual wage paid to comparable employees in that actual company.
- geebee 13y agoUnfortunately, I still don't understand your argument. If a company currently pays 100K for a senior software engineer, the median for the position is 100K, and the 90%ile for the industy is 180, is the company obligated to pay 180K to an H1B for this role? My understanding is that it is not, that 100K would meet the prevailing wage requirements.
- bradleyjg 13y agoI'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your point. No, 100k would work. But if the industry median were 100k and but the company in question paid US workers in that title 150k, they'd have to pay 150k.