7 ms·

When I graduated from colllege I started working at a top tech company on a contract to hire. The company was paid 50/hr fore and I was paid 20 an hour. When I

by gxs 12y ago

When I graduated from colllege I started working at a top tech company on a contract to hire. The company was paid 50/hr fore and I was paid 20 an hour. When I asked for more, the indian-born Indian CEO of the company went apeshit on me. No real story only that almost everyone is scum. It's not just the companies. When I told the director of my org what I was getting paid she hired me full time right away at a competitive salary. And I was just lucky that she happened to like me. Other people who complained simply got let go. I sense there is something else at play here IT work isn't that hard, yet for some reason instead of increasing awareness that there is huge demand for these jobs, we fly people in from india. We pay 150 bucks an hour for them, when an eager college kid can do and would do the same job with a bit of training for a fraction of the cost. Something else is going on here.

induscreep 12y ago
Isn't the "something else" just money? The employer gets an employee who is afraid to ask for a raise, since that might mean losing immigration status and returning to a (not as comfortable) life in their home country. With the green card process taking a few good years, the employer has an indentured servant. Indian born CEO or American born, money is money to them. Immigration reform is essential. If someone on a temporary visa asks "for more" like you did, they might just get fired and replaced with another temporary visa worker. So, they don't end up asking for raises, which means that the labor rate is artificially depressed. If H1Bs were not tied to employers, then this would not happen. BUT this is not in the employer's interest, so I don't think this has a chance of changing.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Isn't the "something else" just money? No. Frequently it is more expensive to outsource and this is well known beforehand by management. There are plenty of companies out there who choose the outsourcing/H1B route in spite of the higher cost, not out of sheer stupidity, but because they feel better able to control their workers and are willing to sacrifice margin for that. Anybody who has seen incredulously watched an outsourcing project come to fruition despite knowing that it would never end up being worth it should recognize this. It happens all the time.
  - induscreep 12y ago
    So there's a high initial cost involved, but then the company can wage suppress the employee over the next 5-6 years, and in the end turn a profit? Wow.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      Individual wages are always lower, but the following can and often do end up ballooning the overall cost of the venture: * Lower quality net result (& higher support costs). * Additional headcount * Higher coordination costs (e.g. paying these bloodsuckers) The point is that it goes ahead even when it makes no financial sense even 5-6 years out because management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce.
      - induscreep 12y ago
        > management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?
        fpgeek 12y ago
        Who said a docile workforce is lucrative for the companies? There are many reasons they may not be. However, in most cases, "the company" doesn't make these decisions - managers do. And plenty of managers prefer a docile workforce whether or not it's good for the bottom line.
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        >what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies It is not just about the money. It is about the power, too. It is peculiar naivete unique to our dominant school of economics to think that the bottom line is at the heart of every decision made by C level executives.
        12y ago
- winter_blue 12y ago
  > If H1Bs were not tied to employers I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit repeated over and over again. Let me say this once: H1B workers are not tied down to a particular employer. It used to be the case that the were, but in 2000, Congress passed a law (known as "AC21") which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again.
  - induscreep 12y ago
    EDIT: AC21 is for those who are applying for a green card (I-485 pending). How the heck is AC21 even connected to H1B? Source/link please? EDIT2: H1B transfer does not seem to involve AC21. All that happens is that the new employer will need to apply for a H1B petition all over again. So you are simply tied to the new employer, instead of your old employer. http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html AC21 is not free, there are legal fees and processing times involved. There is a non-zero cost involved. If this cost did not exist, if an employee could just switch jobs WITHOUT needing the receiving company to do anything, then obviously there would be no wage suppression. Employee can ask for a raise, and simply leave if refused.
    - desdiv 12y ago
      From Wikipedia article on H-1B visa: >The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[33] >Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers' incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs. >However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules.
rdtsc 12y ago
The college kid presumably could also keep looking for jobs and if bullied to work 60, 70 hours per week would go look for another one. Someone wrapped up in the H1B visa paperwork will be put up with a lot more abuse. So perhaps it is "pay same amount but get more guaranteed work out of it" deal?
usernamepc 12y ago
There are two reasons (both sort of hard to fix) for why contracting is screwed up. 1. Co-employment- Large companies like Google or Apple would love to hire contractors directly but are very scared of being sued by contractors that can claim they were actually employees-not contractors because of the unclear rules around who is/is not an employee. So they introduce a staffing agency in between to become the 'employer of record' and offset the risk. Things like hiring and paying contractors directly, giving them laptops, keeping them for long terms, training them, etc. actually makes a stronger case for contractors that might want to sue them, which is why you see the weird ways these companies treat contractors (not allowing them into morale events, restricting how long they can work, etc.) How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers. New labor marketplaces like Taskrabbit, Homejoy, Workmarket, etc. will push lawmakers into doing something soon, but this is going to be tough given how strongly labor unions are against this. 2. Non-transparency. Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. They instead give their open jobs to staffing agencies, who are not allowed to disclose the client name when they advertise the job on job boards. The staffing agencies are incentivized to provide the lowest cost engineer that meets the minimum bar and these are usually the engineers on visas that need to find a project soon or leave the country. How to Fix- If large companies publicly share all their current contract job openings (reqs) just like they do their full-time jobs. If that happens, anyone can apply to those jobs and even nominate the staffing agencies they'd be willing to work through. They already have Vendor Management Systems (VMS) that they use to share their reqs with staffing agencies, so its just a matter of will. In the meantime, we (http://www.oncontracting.com http://www.oncontracting.com) are trying to solve this non-transparency by crowd-sourcing the list of preferred staffing agencies for the Fortune 1000 companies. Contractors can avoid bad labor brokers and instead discover who the preferred staffing agencies for any Fortune 1000 company are and approach them directly.
- drewrv 12y ago
  > Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. Do you know the reason for this?
  - 12y ago

by gxs 12y ago

induscreep 12y ago

Isn't the "something else" just money? The employer gets an employee who is afraid to ask for a raise, since that might mean losing immigration status and returning to a (not as comfortable) life in their home country. With the green card process taking a few good years, the employer has an indentured servant. Indian born CEO or American born, money is money to them. Immigration reform is essential. If someone on a temporary visa asks "for more" like you did, they might just get fired and replaced with another temporary visa worker. So, they don't end up asking for raises, which means that the labor rate is artificially depressed. If H1Bs were not tied to employers, then this would not happen. BUT this is not in the employer's interest, so I don't think this has a chance of changing.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Isn't the "something else" just money? No. Frequently it is more expensive to outsource and this is well known beforehand by management. There are plenty of companies out there who choose the outsourcing/H1B route in spite of the higher cost, not out of sheer stupidity, but because they feel better able to control their workers and are willing to sacrifice margin for that. Anybody who has seen incredulously watched an outsourcing project come to fruition despite knowing that it would never end up being worth it should recognize this. It happens all the time.
- induscreep 12y ago
  So there's a high initial cost involved, but then the company can wage suppress the employee over the next 5-6 years, and in the end turn a profit? Wow.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    Individual wages are always lower, but the following can and often do end up ballooning the overall cost of the venture: * Lower quality net result (& higher support costs). * Additional headcount * Higher coordination costs (e.g. paying these bloodsuckers) The point is that it goes ahead even when it makes no financial sense even 5-6 years out because management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce.
    - induscreep 12y ago
      > management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?
      - fpgeek 12y ago
        Who said a docile workforce is lucrative for the companies? There are many reasons they may not be. However, in most cases, "the company" doesn't make these decisions - managers do. And plenty of managers prefer a docile workforce whether or not it's good for the bottom line.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        >what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies It is not just about the money. It is about the power, too. It is peculiar naivete unique to our dominant school of economics to think that the bottom line is at the heart of every decision made by C level executives.
      - 12y ago
winter_blue 12y ago
> If H1Bs were not tied to employers I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit repeated over and over again. Let me say this once: H1B workers are not tied down to a particular employer. It used to be the case that the were, but in 2000, Congress passed a law (known as "AC21") which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again.
- induscreep 12y ago
  EDIT: AC21 is for those who are applying for a green card (I-485 pending). How the heck is AC21 even connected to H1B? Source/link please? EDIT2: H1B transfer does not seem to involve AC21. All that happens is that the new employer will need to apply for a H1B petition all over again. So you are simply tied to the new employer, instead of your old employer. http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html AC21 is not free, there are legal fees and processing times involved. There is a non-zero cost involved. If this cost did not exist, if an employee could just switch jobs WITHOUT needing the receiving company to do anything, then obviously there would be no wage suppression. Employee can ask for a raise, and simply leave if refused.
  - desdiv 12y ago
    From Wikipedia article on H-1B visa: >The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[33] >Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers' incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs. >However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules.

rdtsc 12y ago

The college kid presumably could also keep looking for jobs and if bullied to work 60, 70 hours per week would go look for another one. Someone wrapped up in the H1B visa paperwork will be put up with a lot more abuse. So perhaps it is "pay same amount but get more guaranteed work out of it" deal?

usernamepc 12y ago

There are two reasons (both sort of hard to fix) for why contracting is screwed up. 1. Co-employment- Large companies like Google or Apple would love to hire contractors directly but are very scared of being sued by contractors that can claim they were actually employees-not contractors because of the unclear rules around who is/is not an employee. So they introduce a staffing agency in between to become the 'employer of record' and offset the risk. Things like hiring and paying contractors directly, giving them laptops, keeping them for long terms, training them, etc. actually makes a stronger case for contractors that might want to sue them, which is why you see the weird ways these companies treat contractors (not allowing them into morale events, restricting how long they can work, etc.) How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers. New labor marketplaces like Taskrabbit, Homejoy, Workmarket, etc. will push lawmakers into doing something soon, but this is going to be tough given how strongly labor unions are against this. 2. Non-transparency. Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. They instead give their open jobs to staffing agencies, who are not allowed to disclose the client name when they advertise the job on job boards. The staffing agencies are incentivized to provide the lowest cost engineer that meets the minimum bar and these are usually the engineers on visas that need to find a project soon or leave the country. How to Fix- If large companies publicly share all their current contract job openings (reqs) just like they do their full-time jobs. If that happens, anyone can apply to those jobs and even nominate the staffing agencies they'd be willing to work through. They already have Vendor Management Systems (VMS) that they use to share their reqs with staffing agencies, so its just a matter of will. In the meantime, we (http://www.oncontracting.com http://www.oncontracting.com) are trying to solve this non-transparency by crowd-sourcing the list of preferred staffing agencies for the Fortune 1000 companies. Contractors can avoid bad labor brokers and instead discover who the preferred staffing agencies for any Fortune 1000 company are and approach them directly.

drewrv 12y ago
> Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. Do you know the reason for this?
- 12y ago