Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 279 posts

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#181

Post by throwaway28473 »

bediger4000 wrote: post #177
throwaway28473 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be a western democracy? Chinese companies are a good example - Cisco is rapidly losing market share to Huawei, who can employ skilled workers at a fraction of the price.

Huawei doesn't count. China has a heavily managed economy. If Huawei employs workers at a fraction of the cost, it's not because Indians, Vietnamese and Turkish tech workers are flocking to Shenzen instead of San Jose. It's because the Chinese government wants it that way.

Why does the reason matter? If Cisco isn’t competitive, they die. How do you propose they stay in business when Huawei is selling the same thing for half the price?

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#182

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #110
baddox wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> written by government for the benefit of its citizens But why, or perhaps more importantly, why should this be the case? Why should citizenship (which is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government) mean a person is more deserving of anything than non-citizen residents? It's not like naturalized citizens did anything to earn their citizenship.

Because citizens are stakeholders in their government. Everyone else is not. Naturalized citizens earn their citizenship through a well defined process [1]. [1] https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212 > The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of governme…

"Earning" citizenship has nothing to do with your own choices. It depends on your country of origin and the American public's openly racist opinions about the relative merit of people from your country. It's a given that any immigrant wants to become a US citizen, but quotas deny them that chance.

This is just like the NIMBYs. Work to deny people the opportunity to become "stakeholders," then use your success in doing so to claim their needs don't matter.

The birth lottery is a poor indicator of deservingness. This behavior, on the other hand, is bright-as-day proof of its absence.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#183

Post by Spooky23 »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #18
uissna wrote: post #10

This 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.

I agree — the typical path is the abusive H1 system, which is dangled as a carrot by outsourceds in India to retain talent in hopes of getting an assignment here.

It’s a form of indentured labor that should be forbidden.

My grandparents were all skilled blue collar workers who needed a sponsor and a medical exam to enter and eventually get citizenship in the 1940s. There’s no reason that skilled labor from anywhere should not be able to immigrate here on the same terms.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#184

Post by toomuchtodo »

closeparen wrote: post #174
toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier 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…

>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 Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."

It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities).

If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except under extenuating circumstances (ie political asylum)? You must be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#185

Post by rhexs »

Aloha wrote: post #144
fjsolwmv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the farms, even basic laws banning hiring illegal immigrants get immediately blocked by a coalition of pro-immigration activists and big companies in the industry.

Without illegal immigrants crops would literally rot in the fields. I don't like illegal immigration, I'd rather there be a easy legal program to allow temporary workers, but there isn't, and I like eating.

Just to be clear, you believe you would starve if immigration policy was changed in such a way that farmers received less subsidies and had to pay a fair wage to get work done?

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#186

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #184
closeparen wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."

It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities). If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except…

How about the US our ancestors immigrated to?

EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#187

Post by toomuchtodo »

closeparen wrote: post #186
toomuchtodo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities). If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except…

How about the US our ancestors immigrated to? EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.

That country and time no longer exist, and it’s disingenuous to make such a comparison.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#188

Post by baddox »

remarkEon wrote: post #175
baddox wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I am explicitly not making a semantic argument. I made my point about citizenship clear, and it does not depend on any particular definition of the word “American.” I am saying that the choice of legal definition of citizenship is arbitrary, not that it is poorly-defined. Legal definitions vary a lot from country to country. Again, I’m saying it’s a bad choice for the threshold at which a government should pro…

Because without some distinction of who has responsibilities and obligations to the Sovereign state then we can't have any sort of consistency at all in how we govern ourselves. This is a concept that has deep philosophical underpinnings, coming from Aristotle to Plato and elsewhere. To put in bluntly: Citizens have skin in the game in a way "inhabitants" don't. If the social fabric of a nation-state starts to break…

I don’t understand the “skin in the game” argument at all. How is it worse for a citizen than a non-citizen if the social fabric of the state breaks down? Besides, this seems like a bizarre argument for why citizens should have “first dibs” at jobs. What does that have anything to do with a doomsday scenario?

As for the necessity of making distinctions regarding obligations to the state, how is that relevant, particularly to job prioritization? Other than perhaps military conscription and some tax laws, I’m not aware of many significant differences in obligations between citizens and non-citizens, and especially of any with any relevance to job prioritization.

> Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from?

I haven’t expressed any such belief, nor do I hold it. I just see no good reason for a government to prioritize citizens above non-citizen inhabitants, especially for job availability.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#189

Post by phyller »

I've seen it stated several times here on hacker news that the visas should be available for the highest salaries. And that's it. No lottery. If you want them, pay them. That makes tons of sense to me on a lot of levels, it is going to naturally destroy abuse, recruit the best and brightest to come to the US, and not cause unfair discrimination against American workers.

1,600 visa workers for Cisco seems really low though. Anecdata, but my company hired a VP from Cisco and from that point until they left we made a lot of hires, but not a single American that I am aware of.

Re: Cisco Said to Be Cited for Bias Against U.S. Workers

#190

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #187
closeparen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the US our ancestors immigrated to? EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.

That country and time no longer exist, and it’s disingenuous to make such a comparison.

Shouldn't you be a little suspicious of a finding that it stopped being appropriate to share $thing after you got yours?

Of course that country still exists. We're all sitting here benefitting from it while we kick the ladder on everyone else.

Post reply on HN