5 ms·

You'd have to include some form of protection for the employer on the expenses associated with H1B process, otherwise it's not really worth the risk - imagine i

You'd have to include some form of protection for the employer on the expenses associated with H1B process, otherwise it's not really worth the risk - imagine if you paid say $15k for the filing and waited 6 months. Then the person you hired comes in and asks for a 20% raise or he/she walks on day 1.

DamnYuppie 13y ago
Why are we giving protection to the employer? Have employers in this country shown they care about employees except for sound bites?
- jacalata 13y ago
  If you gave the employers some kind of protection for training outlays, they might bother to train locals instead of hold out for unicorns to land in the factory fully trained.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    So now the government needs to protect incompetent HR managers and management because they have unrealistic expectations towards hiring?
    - jacalata 13y ago
      No, they need to provide incentives to people who are able to make a difference and currently aren't. Like they give tax credits for hiring veterans, and other similar programs to manipulate the behaviour of employers for the benefit of potential employees.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> You'd have to include some form of protection for the employer on the expenses associated with H1B process, otherwise it's not really worth the risk I thought increasing the risk in the H-1B process (and thus making not choosing that over spending resources retraining domestic workers) was exactly the point of the suggestion.
tn13 13y ago
No. Employer should not get any protection at all. That is the whole point. Consider the scenario. 1. You hire a person for 100k, file H1B for her. On the first day of her job she asks for 20% raise. 2. You say "you are fired" to her. There are two cases here: - She walks out searching for a job. She does not find a job which pays here more than 100k, she comes back to you and beg to be taken back. (Remember that she is likely to know her self worth and hence will not leave the job in first place if she knows that no one else can pay her more than 100k). - She walks out searching for a job, she finds a job that pays 120k. This means you hired her because you found her "cheaper" than American counterparts. So you are penalized. Hence next time you wont hire a employee worth $120k for $100k. You will prefer a $120k American girl over $100k Indian girl.
- sologoub 13y ago
  Well, if you want to kill the H1B program completely, sure. However, if the idea is to have it survive and, dare I say it, be used for the beneficial purpose of bringing vital new blood to the country's workforce instead of being a cheap source of labor, then employers need strong incentive to spend the money needed to get someone into US without fear that they will simply walk off. It's not what I want as a US employee (my self-interest is to have as few people of the same skill as possible in order to command highest salary), but it is something that would be needed in order to get some sort of a chance at having such rules pass.

DamnYuppie 13y ago

Why are we giving protection to the employer? Have employers in this country shown they care about employees except for sound bites?

jacalata 13y ago
If you gave the employers some kind of protection for training outlays, they might bother to train locals instead of hold out for unicorns to land in the factory fully trained.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  So now the government needs to protect incompetent HR managers and management because they have unrealistic expectations towards hiring?
  - jacalata 13y ago
    No, they need to provide incentives to people who are able to make a difference and currently aren't. Like they give tax credits for hiring veterans, and other similar programs to manipulate the behaviour of employers for the benefit of potential employees.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> You'd have to include some form of protection for the employer on the expenses associated with H1B process, otherwise it's not really worth the risk I thought increasing the risk in the H-1B process (and thus making not choosing that over spending resources retraining domestic workers) was exactly the point of the suggestion.

tn13 13y ago

No. Employer should not get any protection at all. That is the whole point. Consider the scenario. 1. You hire a person for 100k, file H1B for her. On the first day of her job she asks for 20% raise. 2. You say "you are fired" to her. There are two cases here: - She walks out searching for a job. She does not find a job which pays here more than 100k, she comes back to you and beg to be taken back. (Remember that she is likely to know her self worth and hence will not leave the job in first place if she knows that no one else can pay her more than 100k). - She walks out searching for a job, she finds a job that pays 120k. This means you hired her because you found her "cheaper" than American counterparts. So you are penalized. Hence next time you wont hire a employee worth $120k for $100k. You will prefer a $120k American girl over $100k Indian girl.

sologoub 13y ago
Well, if you want to kill the H1B program completely, sure. However, if the idea is to have it survive and, dare I say it, be used for the beneficial purpose of bringing vital new blood to the country's workforce instead of being a cheap source of labor, then employers need strong incentive to spend the money needed to get someone into US without fear that they will simply walk off. It's not what I want as a US employee (my self-interest is to have as few people of the same skill as possible in order to command highest salary), but it is something that would be needed in order to get some sort of a chance at having such rules pass.