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

161–170 of 279 posts

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

#161

Post by baddox »

remarkEon wrote: post #121
baddox wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Citizenship is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government. The vast majority of citizens received their citizenship by being born in the country rather than by any effort or merit on their part. So the claim becomes "an American com…

>And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which me…

“American” is the demonym for the USA. Demonyms refer to natives and inhabitants of an area, or more broadly to characteristics of the area. The term is absolutely not used exclusively to refer to citizens, but I’m not interested in a semantic argument, so suffice it to say that my point is simply that citizenship is an arbitrary legal distinction, and in my opinion a horrible place to draw the line between inhabitants of the US that the government should protect and care about and other inhabitants that the government should not protect or care about.

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

#162

Post by clairamerican12 »

throwaway28473 wrote: post #115
clairamerican12 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the United States is a sovereign nation founded for the benefit of its citizens and their posterity, not an economic zone for the benefit of the profit of transnational corporations that only exist the way they do because of the legal system, civic institutions, international influence, and military power of the US.

In the long term, Cisco needs to be competitive in the global marketplace to survive. When you force companies like Cisco to pay above market rates, it benefits American workers in the short term but over time the company will lose to e.g. Huawei who are operating in a much more favourable regulatory environment. At that point, America loses in a big way.

Huawei's favorable regulatory environment has less to do with its ability to bring in foreign labor like Cisco and other US tech companies, and more to do with trade barriers set up by China for national security purposes (also, potentially other actions in violation of its membership in the WTO). The US claims Huawei as a national security threat, because the Chinese government could be using their devices to backdoor critical infrastructure. In the same manner, China claims Cisco as a national security threat [1]. The point here is that the spherical cow of all things being rootless, unbound, purely individual and rational economic transactions does not actually exist. Behaving as if it does is a loss for your group as other groups adopt more mercantile policy.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-25/cisco-chi...

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

#163

Post by baddox »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #114
baddox wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Because citizens can vote? Because citizens have some legal protections that don't apply to non-citizens? Doesn't that mean that non-citizens actually have more of a stake in the competence and behavior of the government because they have much more to lose from certain government actions?

I'm unsure how we can argue this any further. You're arguing "what supports the existence of the concept of citizenship and a sovereign nation". That is the legal framework (across nations) we've agreed upon.

I have no inherent problem with the concept of citizenship, I just point out that it is arbitrary, and more importantly, I don’t think it should be the threshold for the people the government should be expected to protect or support.

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

#164

Post by jlawer »

Aloha wrote: post #145
cc-d wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may work for tech, but I'm guessing there are quite a few other industries with low volumes of h1b applicants/workers which could utilize a "bidding system" to hire well below market rate due to decreased demand when compared to tech. $150k cap across the board ensures that all industries are kept honest. A bidding system can be added on top of that, if needed, but this extremely simple fix would ensure that the…

better idea - just make it 25-50% above prevailing wage for that kind of work.

Australian here, but had similar ideas about the visa situation in .au however I think you can't just do a +X% of "prevailing wage"

If the prevailing wage is calculated based on an average, you will find big business will get lower payed workers bundled in to the industry average (i.e. apple has retail staff, most companies have call centre staff, all have janitorial staff, etc) and the "prevailing wage" will be significantly lower then it should be.

If its based on job title you will just find every visa holder will have a "lower" job title (i.e. Junior rather then senior) that gives the companies a way to pay less.

Thats before factoring cost of living between various locations.

Special interests will ensure that the prevailing wage is drawn sufficiently lower then it should be.

I think it has to remain a static value (adjusted for inflation) that is quite high (e.g. $180k->$250k AUD for Australia), enough that anyone who a company will pay that much would almost certainly be a world class employee, and if someone is worth that much, then I can't see how they wouldn't be a benefit for both the country / economy, employee and the competitiveness of the company. I have no issue with this being an unlimited visa class, and should be able to be streamlined for a much quicker approval (i.e. has the company signed an agreement that they are paying $X per year?, if yes its approved pending health and security approval).

This allows companies to hire the best in the world, while not allowing them to drive down salaries with similarly skilled employees. Additionally if there is a shortage it will ensure there is some pressure to train / develop employees, innovate, automate, etc, but providing a pressure relief if needed (if supply and demand becomes unbalanced enough that people are willing to pay $180k for janitorial staff, then economically they are needed).

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

#165

Post by toomuchtodo »

baddox wrote: post #163
toomuchtodo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unsure how we can argue this any further. You're arguing "what supports the existence of the concept of citizenship and a sovereign nation". That is the legal framework (across nations) we've agreed upon.

I have no inherent problem with the concept of citizenship, I just point out that it is arbitrary, and more importantly, I don’t think it should be the threshold for the people the government should be expected to protect or support.

It is arbitrary, because you have to draw the line somewhere.

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

#166

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #157
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech The immigration debate suffers from overgeneralisation. Illegal immigration is a different problem from legal immigration. And short-term skilled migrants are unlike long-term skilled immigrants. Short-term migrants, i.e. those with no intention of staying in the U.S. long-term, probably depress American wages. Skilled imm…

I think there are differences. However over the last 20 years, most immigration, of both kinds, have been about one thing: reduced labor costs. At the risk of downvotes, I’m going to include something Steve Bannon said on MSNBC last night about legal immigration. He made this point that it makes no sense for America to keep letting the best and brightest of the world in / draining them from everywhere else. Why aren’…

> Why aren’t we refusing the really good immigrants if anything?

Steve Jobs' father was a Syrian immigrant [1]. It is doutbtful that Steve Jobs--or Elon Musk or Satya Nadella--would have been as successful in their original countries as they've been here. As a species, we all win from giving our best and brightest access to America's stable institutions and rich economy.

More to the point, I find it difficult to believe Steve Bannon suddenly cares about other countries. His line about the overabundance of brown-skinned executives in Silicon Valley is telling enough.

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

#167

Post by remarkEon »

baddox wrote: post #161
remarkEon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which me…

“American” is the demonym for the USA. Demonyms refer to natives and inhabitants of an area, or more broadly to characteristics of the area. The term is absolutely not used exclusively to refer to citizens, but I’m not interested in a semantic argument, so suffice it to say that my point is simply that citizenship is an arbitrary legal distinction, and in my opinion a horrible place to draw the line between inhabitan…

>The term is absolutely not used exclusively to refer to citizens, ...

It absolutely is used exclusively to refer to citizens by an overwhelming majority of people who would use that term. Attempting to split off "citizens" from "natives and inhabitants" is a naked attempt at trying to redefine a word that carries significant meaning to further a specific agenda.

>...citizenship is an arbitrary legal distinction

Says who? It certainly doesn't seem arbitrary to me. There are considerable responsibilities that come with being a citizen. Men have to register for the draft. You can be called for Jury duty. This isn't arbitrary.

>...and other inhabitants that the government should not protect or care about.

I don't think anyone here is arguing the (American) government "should not protect or care" about non-citizens, but that claiming they shouldn't put American citizens first is dubious at best.

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

#168

Post by baddox »

remarkEon wrote: post #167
baddox wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“American” is the demonym for the USA. Demonyms refer to natives and inhabitants of an area, or more broadly to characteristics of the area. The term is absolutely not used exclusively to refer to citizens, but I’m not interested in a semantic argument, so suffice it to say that my point is simply that citizenship is an arbitrary legal distinction, and in my opinion a horrible place to draw the line between inhabitan…

>The term is absolutely not used exclusively to refer to citizens, ... It absolutely is used exclusively to refer to citizens by an overwhelming majority of people who would use that term. Attempting to split off "citizens" from "natives and inhabitants" is a naked attempt at trying to redefine a word that carries significant meaning to further a specific agenda. >...citizenship is an arbitrary legal distinction Says…

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 protect and care about an inhabitant of its jurisdiction.

> claiming they shouldn’t put American citizens first is dubious at best

That’s precisely the claim that I’m saying is extremely dubious. How is it reasonable to say that people who fit the precise definition of citizenship in US law (usually through no choice or action they made) should be prioritized over other inhabitants of the same country? I agree that this is a common belief, and I’m challenging people to justify the belief.

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

#169

Post by bediger4000 »

throwaway28473 wrote: post #159
cc-d wrote: post #75

Cap minimum pay to the equivalent of $150k yearly and watch as the h1b visa program magically starts working as intended. The solution is not complicated. With the anti-immigrant rhetoric pouring from the current administration, I'm surprised that blatant h1b visa abuse is still rampant.

You’ll also be watching American businesses dying as they lose to global competitors who operate in a much more favourable regulatory environment, because their country doesn’t force them to pay 150k per engineer.

Where is this favorable-to-corporations regulatory environment? Europe? UK? Australia? Canada? I'm having trouble thinking of a single western democracy that has a looser regulatory environment than the US. But I'd love to be educated.

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

#170

Post by closeparen »

AlexB138 wrote: post #111
throwaway28473 wrote: post #16

Honest question: if immigrants are willing to do the same job for less money, why do US citizens deserve special treatment and higher wages? Why should companies be forced to not hire in an economically optimal way?

Because that is a race to the bottom for Americans. Americans enjoy a very high standard of living, and having to normalize your wage expectation with people from countries with significantly lower standards of living would destroy that. American companies operate according to American laws, and American laws should be setup in the interest of Americans, not as some charity for the world. As to "deserve", American ci…

Fresh college graduates have not paid taxes yet. Every legitimately employed worker pays taxes regardless of citizenship.
Post reply on HN