There is a simple solution, particularly in the context of congressional or other government investigations: subpoena them. Nondisparagement clauses don't & can't cover compelled testimony.
Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
41–50 of 210 posts
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting money in exchange for not disparaging someone is not a violation of free speech rights.
But traditional free speech rights are founded on the principle that truth is an affirmative defense against (for example) libel or slander cases.
Charging someone with libel or slander is fundamentally different than suing for breach of contract. For example, you don't need an anti-disparagement contract with someone to sue for slander, nor is disparagement necessarily slander.
Now, Congress could pass a law saying the anti-disparagement contracts are unenforceable. But would we really want that? Suppose you hire a nanny to watch your kids, and then she quits and writes a tell-all book about your private, embarrassing personal life? You can bet that nannies for high-profile people have anti-disparagement contracts, and are paid well as a consequence. Which seems quite reasonable to me.
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#43This causes some pretty strong mixed feelings for me. On the one hand, foreign workers are already disadvantaged compared with domestic workers and H1-B caps are absurdly low. I keep failing to see why we are all supposed to open world markets to the flow of every sort of capital and goods except labor, or why someone deserves a job for being born American, rather than Indian (Note that I feel the same way when Ameri…
The problem is it's one sided. The main issue is US employees are fortunate enough to have protections under the law, protections hard fought by unions, literally. Those protections cost money but are sensible, such as safety regulations, child labor laws, the right to not be discriminated against, minimum wage, no harassment, physical violence, etc. When using Indian labor offshore, or any underdeveloped economy rea…
Note that this is not really about offshoring. Offshoring falls under the "free movement of every form of capital and goods, except labor" that I mentioned and it is complicated for everyone involved. You get competition from labor without legal protections which can't move to places where they would have such protections, nor easily obtain them at home. We get companies that are pretty much untouchable by our legal systems. On the other hand, you/we get cheaper goods and a lot of people get better jobs than the alternative. Short of encoding better labor rights at the WTO/U.N. level, I don't see a fair long term solution for that one.
In the case of foreign workers in the U.S., labor protections and laws apply (except perhaps some employment mobility in some industries), and the employees involved pay taxes into the U.S. (without representation, I might add). So I don't see those as being the same situation, even if the final underlying cause (severe wealth disparity among nations due to historical reasons) is the same.
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trivially non-contradictory. Consider a hypothetical situation in which all the good skilled workers are on visa statuses that do not permit work and have missed the H-1B lottery. Both things are then true.
That would require that there are no local good skilled workers, so the argument they are being replaced doesn't hold.
The comment isn't talking about local workers. It is talking about (a) foreign workers who are skilled, (b) low-wage less-skilled foreign workers and how the H-1B fails to achieve its stated aim in two respects because it's easy for there to be unemployed (a) and employed (b).
The comment contains no argument that local workers are being replaced.
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would require that there are no local good skilled workers, so the argument they are being replaced doesn't hold.
The comment isn't talking about local workers. It is talking about (a) foreign workers who are skilled, (b) low-wage less-skilled foreign workers and how the H-1B fails to achieve its stated aim in two respects because it's easy for there to be unemployed (a) and employed (b). The comment contains no argument that local workers are being replaced.
> The comment isn't talking about local workers.
I think you and I are talking about different comments :-)
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
But traditional free speech rights are founded on the principle that truth is an affirmative defense against (for example) libel or slander cases.
Charging someone with libel or slander is fundamentally different than suing for breach of contract. For example, you don't need an anti-disparagement contract with someone to sue for slander, nor is disparagement necessarily slander. Now, Congress could pass a law saying the anti-disparagement contracts are unenforceable. But would we really want that? Suppose you hire a nanny to watch your kids, and then she quits…
It probably won't happen anyway. But I don't think this is a good argument for these non-disparagement contracts.
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> disposable foreign workers are brought over to get exploited "exploited" is a matter of perspective. To an onlooker who has lived their whole life in a first world country, seeing people work for $x - (less-significantlyLess) [where $x is what is "typical" for the job] can be seen as bad/wrong/sad etc... I have spent time working in very poor parts of Mexico and Manila. Crime is rampant, I feared for my life at tim…
I am an immigrant living in the united states. I still can't believe my luck that I get to live in this paradise on earth called USA. I also feel guilty that got this incredible opportunity while much of my extended family and friends rot in third world hell holes waiting for their lives to be over quickly so they can be put out of their misery. One of my uncle works as day laborer in dubai. He works 14 hr days of ha…
> I also feel guilty that got this incredible opportunity while much of my extended family and friends rot in third world hell holes waiting for their lives to be over quickly so they can be put out of their misery
Goodness - I know it's probably hyperbole, but what kind of fucked-up country do you come from?
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#48Sorry, I don't feel bad for any of these people. Even the poorest Americans have better material conditions than a lot of Indian workers. Why do you think the Indian workers are willing to work for less?
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charging someone with libel or slander is fundamentally different than suing for breach of contract. For example, you don't need an anti-disparagement contract with someone to sue for slander, nor is disparagement necessarily slander. Now, Congress could pass a law saying the anti-disparagement contracts are unenforceable. But would we really want that? Suppose you hire a nanny to watch your kids, and then she quits…
It probably won't happen anyway. But I don't think this is a good argument for these non-disparagement contracts.
You might feel different if you were a celebrity. I know one, and it's sad to see the curtains always drawn on the windows of the house, the paparazzi camped out in front, etc. I could see a nanny being hired and then threatening the celebrity with a tell-all book, or just cashing in on it anyway.
Re: Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I keep failing to see why we are all supposed to open world markets to the flow of every sort of capital and goods except labor, or why someone deserves a job for being born American, rather than Indian (Note that I feel the same way when Americans are disadvantaged elsewhere for similar reasons[1]). Neither of those conclusions are necessary in order to be against H1B abuse. Abusers of the program distort the labo…
A lot of this would be solved (or at least greatly improved) if H-1Bs were awarded via auction rather than lottery.
H1Bs allocated via a typical auction, would not do much good. Except mean that companies with the most money, could buy them and then under pay their employees.
The best approach I've heard is the stack rank based on "minimum yearly income"[1], the top X number of potential employees are awarded H1Bs.
At the end of the year, the immigration office checks with the IRS. If the employee was fired/quit or was not paid more than the "minimum yearly income" the sponsoring company is forced to pay the difference in fines. i.e. At the end of the year, that H1B has to have cost the company at least the disclosed "minimum yearly income".
[1] "minimum yearly income" is some value less than: base salary + cash bonus + stock awards