It seems like a good solution to H1B abuse is to get rid of the lottery and move towards a bid system, but the "bid" is the foreign worker's salary. This will solve the wage suppression issue, and will grant access to talent to companies that are willing and able to pay for it.
Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
51–60 of 279 posts
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the company falls under US jurisdiction, it's incumbent upon policy makers to put Americans first
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
If you think H1B leads to that outcome, you are either unaware of the issues surrounding it or intentionally misframing the problem.
You have no idea what these people go through, my heart breaks every time I see one with a family and the thousand yard stare they have because they’re clearly being exploited.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the company falls under US jurisdiction, it's incumbent upon policy makers to put Americans first
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
Sure but then let's make that happen in every major economy. Doing this unilaterally is foolish and will be taken advantage of.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants). Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully). Edit: My apologies for rei…
So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example? Because companies can move, and have done so many times in the past 30 years. That is basically what such restrictions lead to.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the company falls under US jurisdiction, it's incumbent upon policy makers to put Americans first
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
@toomuchtodo: no, at scale, they don't. And in tech, a country has very little to offer unless it possesses something you can't get elsewhere, which the USA doesn't.
Why do you think there is so much 'business' going on between larger enterprises and government at many levels? It's all to keep them around, not because it's the best fit. Take Amazon, they want to build an office, so all states and counties and whatever else you have in local government bends over backwards to try and reel them in.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#56This is an open secret in tech. Visa holders have less job offers to negotiate with, less job mobility, and consequently get paid less. Companies preferentially hire them over Americans. Further, the recent actions making harder for "body shops" like Infosys are actually helping big tech companies win more visa lotteries. This means the recent action that was supposed to help American workers, is actually causing the…
Attracting the most talented immigrants is exactly what this country needs to grow its economy. There are nearly no unemployed top talent, and talent (including immigrants) grows demand. Look how many startups are spawned from the top tech company veterans. Taking in brilliant immmigrants is a defenst against the whole industry shifting the balance of power to a different country.
This is my exact argument against h1b, but something tells me you didn't mean it that way.
The fact is if we want to truly attract the best and brightest we need to give them citizenship and pay them for their superior skills.
As it is now we aren't attracting the best and brightest but the slightly skilled and willing to take a gamble and endure the cruelty of our immigration system. These are typically young people which exacerbates the agism problem in tech.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#57Almost ironic that this article is from Bloomberg. Recently interviewed with them for a software engineer role and the only american I talked to out of 6 people, was the recruiter.
How do you know that? Did you ask everyone their citizenship /immigration status during the interview?
You are right. I jumped to conclusions. I just assumed they were h1b's because of their thick/strong accents and unamericanized names.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants). Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully). Edit: My apologies for rei…
The companies will be happy to relocate, there is nothing keeping them in a specific spot (unless it's a mining company or a company serving a very local market -- both are not the type of tech we are talking about)
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants). Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully). Edit: My apologies for rei…
So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example? Because companies can move, and have done so many times in the past 30 years. That is basically what such restrictions lead to.
I am, and I am fine with tariffing their products if they do so, or going so far as to invalidate their patents or IP (as India does with some pharmaceuticals). China just plain ol shuts you out of their market entirely!
A company only exists because a nation state allows it. That formation can be revoked at any time.
Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downside is that they have no bargaining power because their continued stay in the US is at the whim of their employer. That good for the employer, not good for workers.
That is still better for the workers than not having such opportunities and working in their home countries. Isnt that a Win-Win situation?
[deleted]