4 ms·

> To me, this doesn't look as horrible as the article makes it out to be. > Am I missing something in the numbers? Whether it's horrible or not, the point of t

by jodah 11y ago

> To me, this doesn't look as horrible as the article makes it out to be. > Am I missing something in the numbers? Whether it's horrible or not, the point of the article is that Disney (via it's subcontractor) is violating the H1B program by using it to directly replace workers at a lower wage.

jobu 11y ago
There was a bit of hyperbole in the beginning of the article about H1B workers, but at the bottom the author adds this: "But Disney directly employs fewer than 10 H-1B workers, executives said, and has not been prominent in visa lobbying."
- jodah 11y ago
  That's referencing the H1Bs that Disney employs directly. This article involves hiring a company to import replacement workers on Disney's behalf. They don't need to be prominent in Visa lobbying since they can just hire companies who are, and possibly skirt legal responsibility for their misuse of the H1B program in the process. It's a win for the corporation and a loss for their American workers.
  - jobu 11y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't caught that when I read through it the first time: "Many American companies use H-1B visas to bring in small numbers of foreigners for openings demanding specialized skills, according to official reports. But for years most top recipients of the visas have been outsourcing or consulting firms based in India, or their American subsidiaries, which import workers for large contracts to take over entire in-house technology units — and to cut costs. The immigrants are employees of the outsourcing companies." They don't really say how many H1B workers are employed through Disney's contractors, but it's definitely implied
- s73v3r 11y ago
  They're still 100% responsible for what happened here, and the H1-Bs that were brought in for them.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  Dang, lying and more lying. Lying to US govt about abusing H!B visa. And lying to news outlet. What do they think people are? Stupid?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
prostoalex 11y ago
The law says nothing about lower or higher wages, the law is specific about "prevailing" wages. If someone gets paid a $100,000 salary, but the prevailing wage is $75,000, paying $70,000 puts company within the realm of prevailing. The formula does not incorporate experience, education or cost of living.

by jodah 11y ago

jobu 11y ago

There was a bit of hyperbole in the beginning of the article about H1B workers, but at the bottom the author adds this: "But Disney directly employs fewer than 10 H-1B workers, executives said, and has not been prominent in visa lobbying."

jodah 11y ago
That's referencing the H1Bs that Disney employs directly. This article involves hiring a company to import replacement workers on Disney's behalf. They don't need to be prominent in Visa lobbying since they can just hire companies who are, and possibly skirt legal responsibility for their misuse of the H1B program in the process. It's a win for the corporation and a loss for their American workers.
- jobu 11y ago
  Interesting, I hadn't caught that when I read through it the first time: "Many American companies use H-1B visas to bring in small numbers of foreigners for openings demanding specialized skills, according to official reports. But for years most top recipients of the visas have been outsourcing or consulting firms based in India, or their American subsidiaries, which import workers for large contracts to take over entire in-house technology units — and to cut costs. The immigrants are employees of the outsourcing companies." They don't really say how many H1B workers are employed through Disney's contractors, but it's definitely implied
s73v3r 11y ago
They're still 100% responsible for what happened here, and the H1-Bs that were brought in for them.
dba7dba 11y ago
Dang, lying and more lying. Lying to US govt about abusing H!B visa. And lying to news outlet. What do they think people are? Stupid?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

prostoalex 11y ago

The law says nothing about lower or higher wages, the law is specific about "prevailing" wages. If someone gets paid a $100,000 salary, but the prevailing wage is $75,000, paying $70,000 puts company within the realm of prevailing. The formula does not incorporate experience, education or cost of living.