41–50 of 190 posts
1. "Shackling workers to their jobs is such an entrenched business practice that it has even spread to US nationals" - such US arrogance.
2. Almost all names of people affected seem to be from the state of Tamil Nadu in India.
Is penalising early exit through contractual terms illegal? If not, then isn't this just a case of who has more leverage when negotiating the employment contract? That, and the fact that Indians are so desperate to go to the US that they're willing to sign any contract. PS: I'm an Indian working in India.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If H1Bs were not tied to employers I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit repeated over and over again. Let me say this once: H1B workers are not tied down to a particular employer. It used to be the case that the were , but in 2000, Congress passed a law (known as "AC21") which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happene…
EDIT: AC21 is for those who are applying for a green card (I-485 pending). How the heck is AC21 even connected to H1B? Source/link please? EDIT2: H1B transfer does not seem to involve AC21. All that happens is that the new employer will need to apply for a H1B petition all over again. So you are simply tied to the new employer, instead of your old employer. http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html AC21 is n…
>The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[33]
>Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers' incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs.
>However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules.
I think it is terrible that companies are taking advantage of foreigners, but I also keep seeing this $20,000 number thrown around a lot. That's how much it costs for a company to apply for an H1B. The companies should not be using that to prevent people from quitting, but it is a very real, large expense to getting workers from out of the US. The flip side of the argument isn't great either. If Softcorp or whatever…
There's no lease. An H1B worker can switch companies freely with little hassle. It's the L-1 visa that has a lease. Congress passed a law in 2000 called 'AC21' which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again. Please have the sense to do some basic research before forming your opinions. Lastly the cost to t…
When I graduated from colllege I started working at a top tech company on a contract to hire. The company was paid 50/hr fore and I was paid 20 an hour. When I asked for more, the indian-born Indian CEO of the company went apeshit on me. No real story only that almost everyone is scum. It's not just the companies. When I told the director of my org what I was getting paid she hired me full time right away at a compet…
1. Co-employment- Large companies like Google or Apple would love to hire contractors directly but are very scared of being sued by contractors that can claim they were actually employees-not contractors because of the unclear rules around who is/is not an employee. So they introduce a staffing agency in between to become the 'employer of record' and offset the risk.
Things like hiring and paying contractors directly, giving them laptops, keeping them for long terms, training them, etc. actually makes a stronger case for contractors that might want to sue them, which is why you see the weird ways these companies treat contractors (not allowing them into morale events, restricting how long they can work, etc.)
How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers. New labor marketplaces like Taskrabbit, Homejoy, Workmarket, etc. will push lawmakers into doing something soon, but this is going to be tough given how strongly labor unions are against this.
2. Non-transparency. Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. They instead give their open jobs to staffing agencies, who are not allowed to disclose the client name when they advertise the job on job boards. The staffing agencies are incentivized to provide the lowest cost engineer that meets the minimum bar and these are usually the engineers on visas that need to find a project soon or leave the country.
How to Fix- If large companies publicly share all their current contract job openings (reqs) just like they do their full-time jobs. If that happens, anyone can apply to those jobs and even nominate the staffing agencies they'd be willing to work through. They already have Vendor Management Systems (VMS) that they use to share their reqs with staffing agencies, so its just a matter of will.
In the meantime, we (http://www.oncontracting.com) are trying to solve this non-transparency by crowd-sourcing the list of preferred staffing agencies for the Fortune 1000 companies. Contractors can avoid bad labor brokers and instead discover who the preferred staffing agencies for any Fortune 1000 company are and approach them directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: AC21 is for those who are applying for a green card (I-485 pending). How the heck is AC21 even connected to H1B? Source/link please? EDIT2: H1B transfer does not seem to involve AC21. All that happens is that the new employer will need to apply for a H1B petition all over again. So you are simply tied to the new employer, instead of your old employer. http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html AC21 is n…
From Wikipedia article on H-1B visa: >The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[33] >Because of AC21, the H-1B…
That is related to a green card. And yes, employers typically try to file your I-140 under EB-3. This means that you need to wait 10+ years before your priority date becomes current. Once the PD is current, you can file your I-485. After another 6 months elapse, ONLY THEN can you invoke AC21. In effect, the employee is tied to the employer for 10+ years since companies only file for your green card after you spend ~6 years on H1B. The decision of EB-3 vs EB-2 (about 5 years shorter) lies with the employer. These two categories of green card cannot be self petitioned, only an employer can do it.
EDIT: So to summarize, the employee usually is first locked in during the 6 years on H1B, with the hope that the employer will apply for a green card (i.e. file the I-140).
Then, the employee is locked in for another 10 years, waiting for the PD to become current. And then, after 6 more months, the employee is finally free to change employers.
I don't understand how this isn't indentured servitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Isn't the "something else" just money? No. Frequently it is more expensive to outsource and this is well known beforehand by management. There are plenty of companies out there who choose the outsourcing/H1B route in spite of the higher cost, not out of sheer stupidity, but because they feel better able to control their workers and are willing to sacrifice margin for that. Anybody who has seen incredulously watched…
So there's a high initial cost involved, but then the company can wage suppress the employee over the next 5-6 years, and in the end turn a profit? Wow.
* Lower quality net result (& higher support costs).
* Additional headcount
* Higher coordination costs (e.g. paying these bloodsuckers)
The point is that it goes ahead even when it makes no financial sense even 5-6 years out because management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce.
This bullying persists at the bottom of a complex system that supplies workers to some of America’s richest and most successful companies, such as Cisco Systems, Verizon and Apple. I find this extremely confusing, why companies like Facebook and Apple and others in SV, that're sitting on an unbelievable shitload of cash take filthy shortcuts like this, screw the very people that work for them so badly. I mean, seriou…
What actually happened in the story is Wipro Indian overpaid their employee and when they discovered the error the employee refused to return the money. There are some bad actors here but I found that particular anecdote unconvincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there's a high initial cost involved, but then the company can wage suppress the employee over the next 5-6 years, and in the end turn a profit? Wow.
Individual wages are always lower, but the following can and often do end up ballooning the overall cost of the venture: * Lower quality net result (& higher support costs). * Additional headcount * Higher coordination costs (e.g. paying these bloodsuckers) The point is that it goes ahead even when it makes no financial sense even 5-6 years out because management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce.
I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?