American IT Workers Increasingly Alleging Discrimination 350
An anonymous reader writes: Some U.S. IT workers who have been replaced with H-1B contractors are alleging discrimination and are going to court. They are doing so in increasing numbers. There are at least seven IT workers at Disney who are pursuing, or plan to pursue, federal and state discrimination administrative complaints over their layoffs. Separately, there are ongoing court cases alleging discrimination against two of the largest India-based IT services firms, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services. There may also be federal interest in examining the issue.
Unionize (Score:4, Insightful)
Fighting this battle piecemeal is a losing proposition.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Interesting)
There needs to be sane rules on the conditions that must be satisfied before skilled foreign workers are sought. There needs to be a demonstration of prevailing wage. There needs to be demonstrates increases in base salary after posted positions remain unfilled. There needs to be a rule requiring equal pay and benefits for Guest Workers based on prevailing wage and the treatment of others in the company, such that there is no cost benefit to using Guest Workers.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.
We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.
We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screw
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
Also that the qualification is relevant, and that the visa applicant does have it. None of this 15 years on Java 9 with a black belt in origami crap.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them. Make the Corporations prove they actually need the workers before issuing a single H1B visa. Right now, they just say it, and it is so.
The problem isn't H1B visas, the problem is that we have record unemployment and are still importing workers from outside to take the jobs of those workers still trying to earn a living.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Informative)
What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them.
The problem is that one of the "qualifications" for being an employee is called "salary" and businesses don't like to pay high salaries. To employees. They don't seem to have a problem paying CEOs.
Re: (Score:3)
That is steadily happening and has already happened on a large scale where outsourcing to China resulted in Chinese companies being able to outcompete US ones. Dell versus ASUS is a good example, as is Lenovo - their CEOs are eating the lunch that the Dell CEO thought he had to himself.
high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT pay (Score:2)
high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT pay
have a minwage of say 80-100K + COL for HB1's to stop them saying we can't find some for $35K in the bay area to work and 40+ hour week.
Re:high HB1 minwage as well maybe even forced OT p (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a flat minimum wage, a relative one. AN H1B worker must have a salary equal inside the total compensation range of the top 10% of domestic workers- not just in category, but in the company. So you can get one, but you're going to pay for them. This will allow companies to hire high talent individuals from overseas while not creating an advantage for them doing so.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them. Make the Corporations prove they actually need the workers before issuing a single H1B visa. Right now, they just say it, and it is so.
The problem isn't H1B visas, the problem is that we have record unemployment and are still importing workers from outside to take the jobs of those workers still trying to earn a living.
The rules are in place. The problem is, they're given lip service by the corporations and Immigration. Basically, because Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and the heavy hitters all want more H1-B workers, the government says, "sure, whatever you want" and rolls over, because...American competitiveness, or some such reason.
The government has no reason to enforce the rules, and politicians have every reason not to encourage enforcement.
No elected official wants to be the one to yell that the Emperor has no clothes, as it were. If they do, then the corps will all outsource work to China or India and, along with no jobs, there'll be no tax collection either.
Re: (Score:2)
What we should do instead is limit the total pool of available H1B visas with the only way to get new applicants in is to have previous applicants become citizens (if we're going to have immigration, let's get highly qualified immigrants) or leave the country. Have open bidding
Re: (Score:3)
What we need are rule in place that if you are applying for H1B Visa workers, you have to prove you have done qualified job search for the positions and found NO workers to fill them.
That rule exists in many countries with such programs and it's completely worthless. I had a friend who was transferred to London which has some very strict immigration laws, the company had to prove it couldn't find local work so they advertised the job in some obscure but partially relevant magazine, listed some bullshit requirements the equivalent of "must have 35 years experience as a JAVA programmer and be willing to be paid in pats on the back", and then cried to the government that they couldn't fill
Re: (Score:3)
Amazingly simple solution: the H1b they bring in has to meet the same qualifications they listed. If they are willing to accept a lesser candidate, they have to re-list and go through their US applicants first with the lowered requirements before they can hire the H1b.
Re: (Score:3)
> Amazingly simple solution: the H1b they bring in has to meet the same qualifications they listed. If they are willing to accept a lesser candidate, they have to re-list and go through their US applicants first with the lowered requirements before they can hire the H1b.
You've apparently not been paying attention to just how the H1B's are hired. The wonderful presention in 2007 about how to hire a cheap H1B instead of an expensive American revealed a number of fascinating tricks, all still in use, used
Re: (Score:3)
Right now, IT is a black-hole in that sense. Anyone
Re: (Score:3)
However, when the ad is for 5 years experience in 3 year old technology, it shouldn't be that hard to nail them to the wall if they hire an H1-B for the position since he provably doesn't meet that requirement.
Re:Unionize (Score:4, Informative)
I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.
Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....
Thanks for calling recruiter from India...
Re: (Score:2)
I love those sorts of headhunters.
"So, person working for a major employer in a major city. Would you like to move to outer Mongolia for a 3 month contract?"
I got one from a "health care staffing executive" whose previous employment was at Medieval Times.
Re: (Score:2)
I had never thought of it that way, but this makes perfect sense. They are doing their minimal amount of due diligence in an "attempt" to fill the position.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Informative)
I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.
Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....
Thanks for calling recruiter from India...
That's OK, if you had pursued it you would have to fill out their application. One of the questions on the application is "What is your H1b Visa number?" If you do not fill it out, due to being a citizen, then your resume goes in the garbage. These companies openly discriminate against hiring United States citizens in favor of H1b Visa holding nationals of other countries. There are Indian consulting companies who have literally not a single United States citizens employed with them. and yet millions of other companies around the United States are able to find United States citizens to do the job. This should be firing off all kinds of alarm bells to anyone looking at these Indian consulting companies. They are breaking the law and need to be punished.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.
We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.
We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screwdriver for a living they are all well and good, but in IT where people work with their minds, it needs to be a creative, innovative, free environment.
You have absolutely no idea how unions for non-manual jobs work, do you?
Here's a hint: the professional associations for lawyers, doctors and so on are actually unions.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely. To your point:
https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/programmers-dont-need-a-union-we-need-a-profession/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not unions. They're licensing authorities and qualification review boards. I don't disagree that they're a good idea, but I disagree that they're unions.
IT workers don't need unions. We need either licensing/qualification organizations, or we need guilds.
These things are all slightly different for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a hint: the professional associations for lawyers, doctors and so on are actually unions.
Brilliant... it's not a Union, it is a Professional Association. If doctors and lawyers can do it, why can't IT?
(and no, I am not being sarcastic)
We cannot yet, because we lack the primary requisite for making it happening: licensing. Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and nurses, vets and plumbers need state-sanctioned licenses (where licenses are legal instruments.)
It is this requirement of a legal instrument that allows the creation of a professional association.
This would actually nuke the shit out of H1B visas. Not necessarily a good thing (because, when done right, H1B programs have their place). However, a software/IT professional as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are being screwed over due to years of propaganda that equated unions with commies, baby eaters or whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
I gather you are saying that IT workers are inherently corrupt, incompetent, ignorant and stupid and would be incapable of managing their union (a big ole screw you for that insult). Yep, that $100 dollars a year versus salary losses of tens of thousands of dollars a year (saving pennies to lose pounds is the appropriate term). Unionising will solve many problems and only create one real problem, corporations attempting to corrupt those unions (face it the coolaid sucks after decades of main stream media p
Re: (Score:3)
They have always been able to change jobs. The L1 program is basically slave labor - no need to pay prevailing wage, no provision to switch jobs. For an H1-B, your new employer just needs to sponsor you, but e.g. any large software house does that routinely. It's not free, and H1-B software devs tend to be paid less by about the amount the legal work costs. Getting a new H1-B for someone not on one is a huge pain - one lottery a year with about a 30% chance - but that's different.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Funny)
Before I join... (Score:3)
Before I join... I need to know what the suggest will be the official text editor of the IT Union.
useing contractors get's them around a lot of the (Score:2)
useing contractors get's them around a lot of the wage laws. The contractors say we have us works at the same wage or lower working for us. That pay rate is much lower then what Disney pays and they don't give out free park passing and can say there workers are lucky to get free parking as they can change them $15-$20 a day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My take on H1b abuse and how to solve it:
Require the job be independently categorized (prevents high end programmers listed as "janitorial staff") and the pay rate has to be set at 150% of the current median pay for the area for a US worker in that position.
And THEN they must list that job exactly as categorized for US workers to have the opportunity to apply for- reviewed by the H1b oversight to ensure if there are qualified applicants that they are made an offer at the 150% rate.
THEN- if there are really
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
Because union are sure to draw in the best and the brightest?
Unions have to figure out how to reward the top people you want working for you. So far the best they have come up with is those with the most time make the most etc. Till then it's just a way to force you to keep the underperformers.
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.
Re: (Score:2)
Na the H1B's are worse
Re: (Score:2)
All there needs to be is, as many other states do, laws in place demonstrating that there is no one qualified domestically for the job before you can get an H1B.
For whatever reason, the US doesn't have or enforce these laws in most circumstances. We need to protect our work force in sane ways that still preserve the incentive to work hard, perform, innovate, and compete for advancement based on merit.
Re: (Score:3)
All there needs to be is, as many other states do, laws in place demonstrating that there is no one qualified domestically for the job before you can get an H1B.
For whatever reason, the US doesn't have or enforce these laws in most circumstances. We need to protect our work force in sane ways that still preserve the incentive to work hard, perform, innovate, and compete for advancement based on merit.
I've seen this in action. They do the required search for qualified US applicants. If you don't know #### (insert highly specific tool, language and experience requirements here), you're not a qualified US candidate. However, if you *claim* to have graduated from University of East Farkistan with a PhD in #### (highly specific tool, language and experience), then "come on over"! And, by the way, we'll pay you 80% of what we would have had to pay a US candidate.
And you'll be writing crap PHP code or some
Re: (Score:3)
I work for a union shop in IT - and while the organization is under constant attack our contract has a section outlining the rules for hiring outside contractors. We actually have really qualified people working here. I think stability attracts those kinds of people even though we pay less than most places in town.
I've found enforcing the contract relies on catching management in the act, but at least there is a process lowly me can take that the upper upper upper executives take seriously - and if the viol
Re:Unionize (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.
The only thing worse would be never having had them. But now they're holding back progress because they are a specially protected class and their wages tend to be whole-number multiples of the minimum wage. Yes, that promotes campaigning for the minimum wage, but it also prevents campaigning for it to be a living wage, because they're not going to get their wages raised that high, thus they're not going to get the minimum wage raised that high. In education in particular it has led to executive salaries which rob money needed for education, and I personally have witnessed both educators (though only a couple) and support personnel (more of those) who desperately needed to be replaced for the good of the institution but who could not be removed because of their union status.
Unions were a wholly necessary step in securing rights for workers, but now they are interested primarily in padding their own pockets and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. Their answer is "why haven't you unionized yet" but not only is that not realistic for many disciplines but creating more bureaucracy only creates more waste and corruption. We shouldn't need more unions, we need rights for all workers. It's time to move beyond them, not backwards, but forwards.
Re:Unionize (Score:4, Interesting)
Unions increase the wages of all workers. The decline of unions has directly led to a decline in real wages across the board.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand. Unions increase the bargaining power of workers, and wages depend upon worker bargaining power.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, NAFTA drove it overseas. You think they would pass up on $2 a week labor if the unions hadn't existed? I'll have what you've been smoking, please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Words mean things," says the guy who apparently thinks the American South (where a lot of car factories are now located) is "overseas!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Consulting Companies Serve Similar Purpose (Score:2)
I have worked for a consulting company as a full time employee in the past, and that relationship was very similar to a union. Our business development department set the rates we charged clients, and the partners determined my pay purely based on my own performance.
IT Unions could work if they functioned essentially as a consulting company. Sometimes they may place a "contractor" with an employer for a decade or more, but the contracting company would handle all negotiations with the employer. These "union
Unionizing is never the answer in the long term (Score:3)
Fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
Normally, I poke fun at the "dey tuk ar jerbs" anti-H1-B crowd but if the feds want to beat up the body shops like Infosys, Tata, Wipro, and the rest that's just fine by me. The people they bring in are really barely one step above warm bodies.
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Feds,
Please to do the needful.
Re: (Score:3)
Apples-to-Llamas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Apples-to-Llamas (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean not all enterprise architects make $30k?
My experience with Infosys (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My experience with Infosys (Score:5, Informative)
My experience with Infosys was different.
For older technology they were highly competent. For newer technology they were not competent. They were always training on our time.
They always said yes to every project which managers loved until the projects failed. You need to learn that when infosys personnel people say "I'll do my best" an american would say, "We probably can't make that deadline even working overtime" and think "WTF!?!? Are you batshit crazy? That's impossible."
One BIG thing to learn when Infosys specifically is brought in to "help" you is that 90% of your staff is on the chopping block within 5 years.
When Infosys walks in the door, unless you are the lead in the area and have superior business side skills, you should be walking out the door. Today- not tomorrow-- unless you want a nice severance package.
But don't underestimate their competence with technology once it's about 3 years old. Unlike most U.S. companies they pay for continuous formal training and certification for their staff. They DO catch up.
And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.
And if all you need is "construction" coding by "code monkeys" combined with unit testing they fill that need as well as u.s. resources. If you are working for a company and you are a "code monkey"-- even a very good one- you need to think about a new job when they come onboard. Business analysts usually survive. But not programmers unless they are top 1% or have some very obscure specialty knowledge (and even then they are often hired by infosys for a year or two at best).
BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN YOUR COMPANY HIRES INFOSYS. YOUR JOB WITH THEM IS PROBABLY ENDING in 3 to 5 YEARS.
Re:My experience with Infosys (Score:5, Interesting)
But don't underestimate their competence with technology once it's about 3 years old. Unlike most U.S. companies they pay for continuous formal training and certification for their staff. They DO catch up.
And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.
My problem has rarely been Infosys's technical competence. Their staff is rarely as good as a quality senior developer, but they are usually as good as a generic mid-level developer.
My issue is with the companies that use Infosys as a core of their IT development staff, instead of just as staff augmentation. I have never witnessed a company whose core IT staff was contractors who ended up liking their IT systems 5 years down the road. They may like it on day 100 because they have new flashy websites and mobile apps, but then the technical debt starts creeping in.
I currently work at a company where about 30% of our IT staff is contractors, and it works out great. We can double our manpower on a project in under a month, and it allows our steering committees to make decisions based on the needs of the company instead of the capabilities of our IT staff. But our systems architects, lead developers, and most importantly our skilled project managers are all in house making sure these IT systems benefit our company instead of just fulfilling some poorly written SOWs.
Except for the contractors. (Score:3)
I currently work at a company where about 30% of our IT staff is contractors, and it works out great
Unless you're a contractor, where you're considered a second-tier person that has to please two masters.
It's not great to dehumanize. (Score:3)
And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.
Unless you're the resource, which experiences the worst of the benefit-dodging and the least stability of work with the expectations of a regular FTE.
It only shows the need for agency labor, much less Infosys types, to DIAF and to be nuked from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My experience with Infosys (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when management becomes penny wise and pound foolish.
They say "hey, we can save 20% here". They don't factor in the other costs, like increased downtime, longer times to get stuff done, or the sheer amount of time wasted "helping" them do their jobs.
I was in a situation not long ago in which an out-sourcing company was being brought in. In my opinion, they were largely incompetent.
You'd submit a request to get something installed on 4 machines ... they'd make a hash of it on one machine, and then send you the instructions to install it on your remaining 3 machines and ask you to do it. Sorry, your job is to do all of this, we don't own it. If you can't do it and you expect me to do it, what value do you bring? Once people started refusing to pick up their slack it became apparent they really couldn't do the job.
The problem is the people who make these decisions do not have visibility into how much the associated costs go up as people have to do their own job and the job of the outsourced people.
To then come back after several years and say "we're getting shitty service, can you do this as cheap as the people giving us shitty service" says they have no idea of how they caused their own problems. If you want shitty service, pay the shitty service rates.
The decision makers and accountants are removed from the actual ramifications of their own decisions. Which means they evaluate their own decisions on faulty and incomplete information, pat themselves on the back, and give themselves bonuses for saving money.
In fact what they've really done is fuck up things which worked, make the system work terribly, failed to account for all of the new problems, and then they act as if they've saved the world.
If your expensive staff all have to devote 35% more time to make up for the slack of the cheaper workers .. what the hell are you saving?
If you can't measure your own productivity and effectiveness, and the other costs created by hiring the incompetent out-sourcing people, you have no way of evaluating your own decision. The problem is management frequently has no way of evaluating their own decisions -- and I often suspect that is by design.
And the shortsightedness of this says people are incapable of realizing if you are sacking the cheaper company because they gave terrible service and poor results, you can't go back to the original vendor and expect them to give you good service for the new lower price.
That kind of stuff is at best wishful thinking, and at worst completely delusional.
But then again, many of us think that's what management is for.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the thing, they didn't pay for the "same contract," they paid for shit that failed to deliver. Of course, I can see how it could be hard to admit to upper management that your dumb ass got swindled...
Re: (Score:3)
You know, sometimes the problem is getting upper management to admit it was they who got their dumb asses swindled, and no matter how much they complain, they can't hire back the competent people for the same price as the incompetent people they themselves chose.
I've seen more cases of this being the management who chose this stuff in the first place and then being unable to fix it than I have of middle management doing it and realizing they chose poorly.
The guy loudly saying "we can save 25%" is seldom on
Age discrimination is obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat.
Over 40 in IT, hold on to the job you got because the next one won't hire anyone over 40.
Re:Age discrimination is obvious (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, that's a violation of federal law and you could (and should) file a complaint with the EEOC if the statute of limitations hasn't expired. It might also be a violation of state laws, depending on where you live/interviewed. You are NOT allowed to use a person's age as a qualification for a job unless there is some aspect of the job that requires it (i.e. you're doing a photo shoot for toddler clothing).
If more people started filing complaints about this kind of thing and more companies started getting slapped with fines and lawsuits filed by the EEOC and state counterparts (assuming your state even has its own version of the EEOC) things would start to change as it became cheaper for companies to ensure everyone with hiring authority was trained on what they can and cannot do.
Re: (Score:2)
It was indeed a violation of state and federal law - this was California, Silicon Valley. Even they way they mentioned my age and questions they asked about it were illegal. One interviewer asked me point blank, "Don't you think your age will be a problem working here?" I would have unloaded on him but I was so surprised he'd been that brazen about it I was just kind of shocked into saying a simple "No".
I considered filing a complaint but in Silicon Valley this type of discrimination is so wide spread and
Re: (Score:3)
I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat.
Over 40 in IT, hold on to the job you got because the next one won't hire anyone over 40.
I don't doubt the dynamic, but I'm surprised they would be so up front about engaging in illegal discrimination. Questions about your age are out-of-bounds AFAIK. Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.
The thing is, if your resume says you graduated with a BSc in 1992, it's pretty obvious you were born around 1970.
It's not what you look like that's the problem. Anywhere discriminating against older people almost certainly has an unwritten company code of "you have to devote yourself to the job, be single and available to work weekends or nights when we say so". Older people are (a) more likely to have family and other important outside interests and (b) won't put up with the same deluded shit that wan
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.
The thing is, if your resume says you graduated with a BSc in 1992, it's pretty obvious you were born around 1970.
It's not what you look like that's the problem. Anywhere discriminating against older people almost certainly has an unwritten company code of "you have to devote yourself to the job, be single and available to work weekends or nights when we say so". Older people are (a) more likely to have family and other important outside interests and (b) won't put up with the same deluded shit that wannabe hotshots will, as they've seen it all before.
Good point. That's why my graduation date is not on my resume. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
"I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat."
That's entirely illegal age discrimination. Age is not a legal bona-fide occupational qualifier for IT work.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Payday man. If they don't hire you then grab a lawyer on contingent. If you really want it to stick (and are in a single person notification state) see of you can get the recruiter to admit to it on tape.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck finding a lawyer. Most of them won't take cases they have no reasonable chance to win.
The circumstances around hiring are obscure enough that any marginally talented corporate shyster can talk rings around any argument your lawyer might make. And no recruiter will admit to that sort of thing out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
58 years old for me and just survived another downsizing, offshoring experience. zOS Systems Programmer, 20 years here, 36 total in the field.
Re: (Score:3)
Not surprising. Most companies don't do any sort of training except for managers as to what is legal or illegal to ask.
I once had to do a bunch of phone screenings for a position that had to deal with ITAR materials. My boss asked me to make sure they were citizens. But it turns out that you CANNOT ask that directly. You can list a set of requirements and ask if they meet them, but you cannot legally directly ask about citizenship or country of origin in an interview. There are a bunch of little ways l
Direct experience (Score:4, Interesting)
I've worked with at least two employers where an indian (sorry, not intended to be racist but they were both indian), person from an agency who was converted to perm was put in place in a hiring position and then every single hire afterwards was indian, and exclusively from the contract agency that placed the individual.
I am aware that there are also incentives for these individuals, and that their relationships with the contracting firms are ongoing.
It's so obvious that I can't imagine it's not a known quantity.
It's not really racial discrimination, it's just a moderately biased business practice.
Natural effects of a maturing field? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really like working in IT - it's good to have a job where you're using your brain every day instead of just churning out reports or something similar. The major complaints I have are:
- Age discrimination -- I haven't been looking for work lately, but I'm sure getting more paranoid about keeping a job when I see stories of people who are basically unhireable after 40. I just crossed that magic threshhold and although I have tons of experience and a solid reputation behind me, I do worry about companies just not even bothering to interview me because of a stupid set of unfounded beliefs.
- Work visa program abuses -- I have absolutely no problem with companies using H-1B, L-1 or other visas to bring in super-intelligent people who are providing a key service to the company. I have a big problem with Tata, Infosys, Accenture, IBM, HP, etc. using them to bring in a cheap run-of-the-mill developer, DBA or sysadmin who could easily have been sourced locally if the company would pay reasonable rates.
- Clueless employers -- This isn't something easy to solve, but outside of Silicon Valley and extremely high-tech or enlightened companies, IT is considered a janitorial-level service. This is why the Tatas and Infosys's of the world are called in. Everywhere I've worked that has done this has had IT productivity slow to a crawl because of change management paperwork, dealing with absolutely clueless remote employees and other factors.
The only long term solution I see is a guild system...heaven forbid you call it a union in front of Libertarian IT workers. If we want a career that continues to pay off and be enjoyable to work in, education has to be standardized in at least the fundamental level, and a career progression needs to be put in place. We need to fund some lobbyists to give Congress the brown paper bags full of money they need to pass limits on work visa programs, and most importantly it needs to be done as a group. Doctors have the AMA, and it keeps their salaries high by limiting the number of medical school graduates and lobbying for favorable insurance rules. Musicians, actors and writers have their guilds that ensure they don't get screwed by studios and keep getting royalties for their work. I just don't see why it's taking so long for people to realize they have no power against any of these forces we're seeing. No one is going to win an age discrimination suit against a corporation and their well-funded legal team. It's nice that people are trying, but it will never happen. At most they'll get a small payout and be blackballed from working in the industry ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Without some sort of protection, how precisely would a union hope to survive?
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely what a guild would have to focus on first. I don't know much about the lobbying process, but I do see that politicians are very well compensated by other sources of income than their legislative salaries. You don't see very many Congresspeople living simple lives. However wrong it is, it's time people admit that the only way to get something you want passed is to pay for it. Every other trade/industry group does this. I say form a guild, take up a massive collection, hire lobbyists and bas
Re: (Score:2)
Without government support in the form of guaranteeing collective bargaining and the right to organize, unions would cease to exist. Think about it: How does a union form at a new workplace? Someone broaches the topic with their fellow employees.. and they would immediately be fired were there not laws in place to protect that attempt to organize. Sometimes they're immediately fired anyway, since the employer figures that any lawyer the ex-employee hires wouldn't stand a chance against the legal counsel
Very little known secret (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Very little known secret (Score:5, Insightful)
H1b employees also get displaced by TCS/Infosys. Their official policy is 85% offshore and 15% on shore employees. The onshore 15% exists mostly for co-ordination. An H1b employee's CTC is always higher by at least by 1.5x times to locals. Recently my friend who is on h1b was forced to look for another h1b sponsor because the company A signed a partnership agreement with TCS. TCS provided 3 sysadmins for his replacement but they were not upto the mark as expected by A because TCS's sysadmin's won't know scripting. This H1b guy was forced to train the TCS guys(10 of them) in perl scripting. He did that too but then they quit TCS for better salary and work hours. A new PM from TCS would come onshore every 1.5 to 2 years and he would question why they are employing a h1b guy for 2x the cost of an L1B. In the mean time the h1b guy's extension process etc. would be delayed. He used to be in lot of stress, they would still be search for an replacement and apply for the extension on the last week/day of original h1b expiry and then too they will provide 1 yr extension. Frustrated he quit for another company B. The same story has started to repeat at company B now. There is another category of visas called L1A and L1B(intra company transfer visa) where prevailing wages doesn't have to be shown and qualifications are not a factor. Almost 95% of the TCS onsite guys had either L1A or L1B and they were getting 60k for a 110k job position and their taxes found some loop hole and they were hardly paying any taxes, that is around 4k. The h1b guy was getting 85k and his vendor the rest. CTC was around 140k to the company. L1A visa is also eligible for immediate green card processing under "multinational manager"(eb1) category. The master degree H1b guys on an average wait for 10 years(talking Indian), the bachelor degree holders wait for 20 or more years. L1A guys just 3 to 6 months. For a foreign student he has to become a scientist(Phd + papers etc) to qualify for the equivalent category as "multinational manager". Some "multinational managers" are just 10+3(diploma) qualified. Last year there were around 500 eb1 gc applications(search 485 inventory on google). This year already 13000 eb1 applications have been received. H1b guys are under the Eb2 and Eb3 green card quotas. So companies have figured out the L1 loop hole and bringing in the 15% onsite workers as managers. That explains the huge jump in eb1 category. So the foreign scientists/Phds are unhappy too. The L1As get green cards in 6 months and then are not counted as foreign workers, qualifying the company as less than 30% dependent on foreign workers. Thus they import for L1As. So I would say, the anger is misdirected towards H1b instead of L1x visas.
Looks like an informative story but I couldn't get through it due to the lack of line breaks, excessive abbreviations, and poor formatting.
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but when you write like this, it's awful difficult for others to follow.
This is why we can't have nice things (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Employers can't be trusted to act ethically and honor both the letter and spirit of the law, and
2) The government has been steadfastly failing to monitor the program and enforce the rules
The entire program needs to be scrapped. No H1-Bs, period. We apparently can't handle it, so employers need to find the talent here, or do without (or, you know, invest in employee development/training again).
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing whatsoever reasonable about the idea that with a population this large and (some of) the best universities in the world, that we somehow can't find -- or make -- plenty of "highly skilled experts" right here.
In other words, I agree with your conclusion, but your premise gave the government way more credit than it deserves.
Re: (Score:3)
You're looking at it incorrectly.
India is 3 times as large in terms of population. The people pool is simply larger, which means that make the "highly" in "highly skilled" high enough and there would be someone in India with better skills (on paper) than someone in the USA.
Mind you, that simple metric does not account for cultural clash, language barrier, etc. That's where the problem is. Effectiveness on the job is not only hard skills, but soft skills too. A person from India who is 10% better in hard ski
A long time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's really only true if buying products produced by a subsect of humans which are less expensive due to structural pay differences in their native countries is also unethical.
Enough knowledge has been transferred to other countries that if local companies do not hire remotely, then they will be driven out of business or forced to relocate overseas by cheaper competition.
There is no good solution except allowing wages to equalize and removing some of the barriers to capitalism which prevent us from buying
Re: (Score:2)
For that to be a "good solution," developing-world labor protections and environmental standards have to come up to meet ours. Other
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Informative)
Hiring a specific sub-sect of human because they can be paid less is more than discriminatory. It's unethical.
Multi-national companies are *not* American companies and they have no allegiance to America or its citizens. Their ethics are not your ethics. They see "shareholder value" as the highest ethic. To them, national boundaries are a hindrance to maximizing shareholder value.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is entirely untrue. If your age, race, or gender negatively affect your ability to get employment that is illegal. You don't have to be a minority group to be subject to discrimination.
Re: (Score:3)
...in theory.
Re: (Score:2)