4 ms·

It absolutely, positively hurts local labor - naturalized citizens - etc. Without a doubt. I disagree with this statement. I am on an H1 and know several other

by thrwy10 12y ago

It absolutely, positively hurts local labor - naturalized citizens - etc. Without a doubt. I disagree with this statement. I am on an H1 and know several other people who are on H1s and can testify that this is a generalization. There are many ways to end up on an H1, overseas body shops is one avenue and American grad schools are another. Most H1s I know, myself included, graduated from good schools, have worked hard within the framework of their visas, have absorbed local culture and have invested almost 100% of what they made back into the local economy, not to mention the out-of-state fees they paid their institutions. From what I see and understand, they are pretty well paid, in some cases better than the local populace and have succeeded solely because they are talented. The hardships that their spouses on H4s go through is an entirely different matter! That said, I can understand where you are coming from and know that there is abuse within the system. Truly, fake resumes are rampant among H1 consultancies. And although the visa itself is severely constrained, these people thrive due to lack of enforcement. That should change. Edit: For people who say H1 is indentured servitude. H1 is not quite indentured servitude, and you can switch employers. Although there is quite a bit of uncertainity associated with it, its still not the worst part. What bothers me, is the DOLs PERM process which is the first step to obtain a green card. This one step in itself is what can be said to make H1s bonded laborers. First, the company makes you sign a statment saying you can't leave until after 2 years upon getting your Green Card - else you'll be billed for it (approx 25K). Second, the DOL takes its own sweet time adjudicating these applications - currently 6 months (or 1.5-2 years if your application is audited, which 30-40% chance). And while you are free to switch employers, this process takes a hard reset and you've to go back to the end of the line. Unless, you stick with the shitty job, and wait out the approval and file your I-140. At this point, the H1 can be renewed indefinitely in terms of 3 years as long as each new company goes through the above process or you get your Green Card. Hopefully, the recent executive order will make this better, but only time can tell. Personally, the reset button has been hit twice for me.

ep103 12y ago
>I disagree with this statement Most studies find that you are wrong though. I am sure that you and the people you know are very skilled, and worked hard to get to your current position for that reason. But overall, H1 employees are paid significantly less, and many, many firms specifically refuse to hire local talent in order to fill positions through this program. If the visa was given to the employee, not the company, then it would be a good program. But your paragraph about how difficult / chancy it can be to switch companies is exactly why it is a failed, exploitative program.
- thrwy10 12y ago
  > Most studies find that you are wrong though. Could you paste a link to those studies (unbiased or bipartisan) to support my wrongness. I've read opinions and emotional outbursts but am yet to find concrete evidence to support it. Until then I go by my own experience. Yes, there are firms that get blanket visas. Yes, there are some people who deliberately abuse this sytem. But that is a generalization of few examples.Yes, giving visas to the employee rather than employer is better (Canadian, Australian systems is are an example). DOL's PERM process is what makes it more exploitative than not and is rampant with abuse. That needs to change, the H1 on its own is not indentured servitude.
thedufer 12y ago
I don't think the point you take issue with is really debatable. The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting. You didn't touch on this at all, so I'm not really sure what your point is. I think you're debating a strawman.
- thrwy10 12y ago
  > The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting. Does that mean being a citizen entitles one to a job regardless of qualification? Also, does that mean 100% of the US should be employed before bringing in foreign workers? I think such generalizations are far fetched. The conspiracy theory that claims that H1s are all low paid workers falls flat when examined closely.
  - thedufer 12y ago
    Note that there's no value judgment being made here. Nor am I claiming that H1s are low paid. You're still arguing against the same strawman. To reword: if an H1 gets a job, a qualified citizen is not getting that job. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this hurts said citizen, and by extension the labor pool of people who could be substituted in for said citizen.
    - thrwy10 12y ago
      You didn't specify 'qualified' in the original post. If it was implied and I didn't get it, I'm sorry. I agree that if there is a qualified local, they should get these jobs before bringing in foreign labor. Although, my argument isn't a straw man.
      - thedufer 12y ago
        I thought that "local labor market" implicitly only contained people who were local and could do the requisite labor, but that might not be the agreed-upon meaning. Sorry for the confusion. Strawman-ness is contextual. You were arguing against an argument that is, in fact, used. However, you did so after quoting something that was not making that argument, but instead a weaker one, and one which your response didn't really respond to.
LordHumungous 12y ago
As a critic oh H1B's, I should be careful to point out that I have nothing against the holders of H1B's, many of whom are outstanding people. My problem has to do with a system that artificially limits the bargaining ability of one sector of labor. The solution is better treatment of H1B immigrants, not xenophobic responses.

by thrwy10 12y ago

ep103 12y ago

>I disagree with this statement Most studies find that you are wrong though. I am sure that you and the people you know are very skilled, and worked hard to get to your current position for that reason. But overall, H1 employees are paid significantly less, and many, many firms specifically refuse to hire local talent in order to fill positions through this program. If the visa was given to the employee, not the company, then it would be a good program. But your paragraph about how difficult / chancy it can be to switch companies is exactly why it is a failed, exploitative program.

thrwy10 12y ago
> Most studies find that you are wrong though. Could you paste a link to those studies (unbiased or bipartisan) to support my wrongness. I've read opinions and emotional outbursts but am yet to find concrete evidence to support it. Until then I go by my own experience. Yes, there are firms that get blanket visas. Yes, there are some people who deliberately abuse this sytem. But that is a generalization of few examples.Yes, giving visas to the employee rather than employer is better (Canadian, Australian systems is are an example). DOL's PERM process is what makes it more exploitative than not and is rampant with abuse. That needs to change, the H1 on its own is not indentured servitude.

thedufer 12y ago

I don't think the point you take issue with is really debatable. The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting. You didn't touch on this at all, so I'm not really sure what your point is. I think you're debating a strawman.

thrwy10 12y ago
> The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting. Does that mean being a citizen entitles one to a job regardless of qualification? Also, does that mean 100% of the US should be employed before bringing in foreign workers? I think such generalizations are far fetched. The conspiracy theory that claims that H1s are all low paid workers falls flat when examined closely.
- thedufer 12y ago
  Note that there's no value judgment being made here. Nor am I claiming that H1s are low paid. You're still arguing against the same strawman. To reword: if an H1 gets a job, a qualified citizen is not getting that job. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this hurts said citizen, and by extension the labor pool of people who could be substituted in for said citizen.
  - thrwy10 12y ago
    You didn't specify 'qualified' in the original post. If it was implied and I didn't get it, I'm sorry. I agree that if there is a qualified local, they should get these jobs before bringing in foreign labor. Although, my argument isn't a straw man.
    - thedufer 12y ago
      I thought that "local labor market" implicitly only contained people who were local and could do the requisite labor, but that might not be the agreed-upon meaning. Sorry for the confusion. Strawman-ness is contextual. You were arguing against an argument that is, in fact, used. However, you did so after quoting something that was not making that argument, but instead a weaker one, and one which your response didn't really respond to.

LordHumungous 12y ago

As a critic oh H1B's, I should be careful to point out that I have nothing against the holders of H1B's, many of whom are outstanding people. My problem has to do with a system that artificially limits the bargaining ability of one sector of labor. The solution is better treatment of H1B immigrants, not xenophobic responses.