Justice Department Slaps IBM Over H-1B Hiring Practices 195
Dawn Kawamoto writes "IBM reached a settlement with the Justice Department over allegations it posted discriminatory online job openings, allegedly stating a preference for H-1B and foreign student visa holders for its software and apps developer positions. The job openings were for IT positions that would eventually require the applicant to relocate overseas. IBM agreed to pay $44,400 in civil penalties to the U.S., as well as take certain actions in the way it hires within the U.S. The settlement, announced Friday, comes at a time with tech companies are calling for the U.S. to allow more H-1B workers into the country."
Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Could the justice department do any less? The fines are a joke.
I guess something is better than nothing. Still, we need to clamp down on tech businesses and get them to stop exploiting H-1B's. I guess someone up in upper management is not concerned that one day we'll are be serfs even more than we are now.
Re: (Score:3)
The other something that will likely happen is that IBM will now ask their contractors to take an extra week of furlough. (Furloughing contractors is one of the ways IBM weathers bad news from Wall Street or, in this case, the Feds. In recent years you could expect to be furloughed for a time pretty much every quarter.) I know other places that let whole rooms full of contractors go when the government slapped them with a fine; they're there in the morning but
Re:Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
we need to clamp down on tech businesses and get them to stop exploiting H-1B's
Here's a simple approach: eliminate the H-1B program. Forget the "well, let's compromise, some need" blah, blah, blah garbage. Just get rid of it. The country did fine, and was a leader in science and technology for decades, without the H-1B visa program. Also note that this does not mean any reduction in immigration (including skills based immigration), just a guest worker program that we don't, and never did, need (except for lowering salaries).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The average H-1B "worker" does not have any skills that are in particularly short supply in the US. That's a myth created by tech companies to up the quota and suppress wages. It's aided and abetted by academia, which wants more customers (called "students" in their business) and their own cheap labor. It's a line parroted by politicians and pundits, but not supported by, uh, you know, actual facts.
If you want immigrants that are more highly skilled than we have now, then adopt the Australian system, which gives preference to skills that are in particularly high demand, as demonstrated by actual labor statistics rather than the say-so of tech billionaires. For example, a while ago Australia was giving preference to hair stylists. People joked about it, but there was a genuinely high demand for them. Maybe it's all that sun and surf. Regardless, if there is a high demand for hair stylists but not programmers, then hairstylist is a more valuable skill. Your opinion of programmers as highly skilled is irrelevant. Professors of Medieval French Literature are also highly skilled and educated, but there's no shortage of them.
Lastly, if what you're looking for is skilled immigrants, then why have a guest worker program like the H-1B instead of an immigration program?
Re: (Score:2)
How? (Score:2)
I don't think we've got a chance. I remember reading an article from some University economist or something where he talked about how we're all going to have to get used to a lower standard of living and a more "Fragile" existence. I'd
Re:Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. Those visas mandate proper salaries (note that the article says nothing about this point)
Re: Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
A law that is not enforced is hardly a law at all.
Re: Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
A law that is not enforced is hardly a law at all.
Worse is when laws are only selectively enforced.
Re: Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:2)
A law that is not enforced is hardly a law at all. Worse is when laws are only selectively enforced.
Worse yet, law "enforcement" which results in tiny fines with no meaningful penalty (as they were designed) hold no deterrent effect. Business managers who measure everything by its budgetary effect are free to interpret the chance of such "penalty" as a marginal cost of doing business as usual. In fact, if you build it into the budget and you don't get caught, your bottom line is improved.
So much for the hypothetical value of H1B visas. In this light they look like what they always have been, business to
Re: (Score:3)
The world is your oyster if you are IBM and you can buy your "self" a sympathetic lawmaker connected to a compliant judiciary. Welcome to capitalistc competition. Where everything is exactly what it seems to be, if you are a total cynic.
I'm sure this is not unique to IBM and that Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others are just as culpable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they mandate it but it often doesn't happen. Even if it does, the employer takes full advantage of having the effective power to deport the employee at any time for any reason to wring it back out of the indentured servant they hired.
Re: Are you F*cking kidding me!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Those visas mandate proper salaries (note that the article says nothing about this point)
It still drives down wages. If there truly is a limited supply of skilled workers, then supply and demand dictates that wages will increase. As wages increase, more workers will enter the field and wages will stabilize. However, bringing in H1B workers keeps supply and demand from working, thus keeping wages down and discourages new workers from entering the field. Bring in enough H1B workers and now there are a surplus of workers and wages fall, maybe not ot third world levels, but below what the market would normally dictate.
So ultimately, the OP was correct, H1B visas, because they disrupt the normal supply and demand flow for wages do indeed supress wages. While that is not the intended purpose of H1B visas, that is the practical effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But that is the lesser of the two evils. The businesses have a knife at the throat of America
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Those visas mandate proper salaries (note that the article says nothing about this point)
If we artificially pump up the supply of domestic workers (by importing them with H1-B visas), it drives down salaries for everyone.
H1-B workers serve to devalue the "proper salary" that would be paid if they weren't in the country.
TLDR: Basic supply and demand applies here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong, and you're also a hypocrite. You don't mind near slaves and children making everything you buy, the same countries can do you software work just as well too, and for less. Would you rather these people live in the US for a while, pay taxes for your benefits, or have all that money go overseas and have them work in their original country?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, and you're also a hypocrite. You don't mind near slaves and children making everything you buy, the same countries can do you software work just as well too, and for less. Would you rather these people live in the US for a while, pay taxes for your benefits, or have all that money go overseas and have them work in their original country?
Ummm, these people coming in on H1B visas aren't working in sweatshops in SE Asia. Nor would changing H1B visa laws impact those sweatshops one bit. Besides, aren't those same H1B visa holders purchasing the same goods in the US that the rest of the people are, thus exploiting the "slave labor and children"? As for the taxes? I'm pretty sure that whomever IBM (in this case) hired in the US, they would be paying taxes, too. As such, all the things you mention make no difference whether a domestic worker or
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, and you're also a hypocrite. You don't mind near slaves and children making everything you buy ...
And you know this how? The GP mentioned nothing about that. Do you often make gross and often inaccurate generalizations? That's the root of prejudice.
Would you rather these people live in the US for a while, pay taxes for your benefits, or have all that money go overseas and have them work in their original country?
That's an old and very weak rationalization for the H-1B program. Given how much lower salaries are in some countries, even compared to H-1B salaries, and that, unlike the H-1B program, there are no limits on foreign hiring, companies will move any jobs they can offshore. It's not as though they had even a shred of loyalty to the people and the country that b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I count 7 posts before you Godwinned the thread. That's pretty fast work, Slick7!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you, it is still a severe hyperbole. "IBM, the company that helped Hitler and preferred H1B workers"...
Somehow, I think you can find things IBM did in the past 70 years since Hitler killed himself that were worse than preferring H1B workers to Americans.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not hyperbole. They actually did those things in the literal sense. At most it's an overstatement.
Re: (Score:3)
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Okay - comparison versus mention. Fair's fair.
Still, if you have to go back 70 years in time where the worst they did was supplying a dictator with tabulating machines, and you can't find anything else, then involving Hitler doesn't really strengthen the case versus IBM.
$44,400 fine -- That'll teach 'em! (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, a whole $44,400 fine. That's got to sting a multi-billion dollar company. Bet they won't dare try that again.
Re:$44,400 fine -- That'll teach 'em! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, a whole $44,400 fine.
Good thing they did not download an mp3 file illegally. Because that could have cost much more!
Re: (Score:2)
it's probably a 1% surcharge on the overtime IBM paid their law department to reach the settlement.
Re:$44,400 fine -- That'll teach 'em! (Score:5, Insightful)
If investors actually pay any attention at all to this news, the price will go up. IBM has essentially proven to its shareholders that they can once again go up against the federal government in cases like this and come out paying virtually nothing in fines, while not being required to take any meaningful action as far as policy revision goes. That's called "enhancing shareholder confidence."
You probably shouldn't have sold those shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $44,400 fine -- That'll teach 'em! (Score:2)
On this case they are hiring them SPECIFICALLY up send them back to India. IBM has some face-to-face jobs they can't quite stop hiring.. Do rather than repurpose their own staff they lay off they will hire the Indians first, work them 4-5 years in America and send them home.
India Business Machines Isn't even pretending they are axing all US citizens any more.
This is an outrage! (Score:5, Funny)
The heavy hand of big government continues to stifle the economy. Just think how many jobs they could create if they still had that $44,400.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The government is creating the problem but not in the way your implying. It's supporting the mythology of a labor shortage by turning a blind eye to practices that seem to show that there is an IT shortage when it's actually the opposite problem and the issue is that there is a shortage of labor at a low wage.
We can argue free market, but there is only a free market with government regulation. You can argue that's it's not true, but you can see historically that I'm right.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulation can only be beneficial when the regulators arent corrupt.. 'cept they ARE corrupt, so regulation is harmful instead of beneficial.
IBM alone has billions of dollars per year in government contracts, gives millions of dollars per year to politicians, gets government protection from competition through the completely molested p
Slaps? I think you mean playfully tickles... (Score:3)
That fine is so small, it could be paid of of petty cash at a startup.
Re: (Score:2)
Startup? I could pay it by taking some money out of my 401k.
Another example of overbearing government (Score:3, Funny)
IBM agreed to pay $44,400 in civil penalties to the U.S.
Well gee, why don't you make them switch the way the toilet paper falls over the roll as well, you fascists!
Re: (Score:2)
And IBM execs high-fived each other and shouted "TOTALLY worth it!!" as they took their millions to the bank.
We need IT unions now and better training (Score:5, Interesting)
We need IT unions now and better training Not more high cost schools that give you skill gaps.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
LOL. What is this, 1955? Labor unions don't exist to help workers. Labor unions exist to help labor union bosses and funnel money to one particular political party. That's it.
Maybe once upon a time, a long time ago, labor unions had a point. Not any more. They are corrupt cannot even keep their own members from deserting. Why are their members deserting? Because labor bosses don't give a shit about their members. Moreover unions are racist [google.com.hk].
The cure you propose is worse than the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
That the USA has a history of rotten unions is obvious. It also has a history of much better ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World). In the 90's we had some trouble over here with a union that didn't do anything for its members either. A new one was founded and quickly outmatched the old one whose members left in droves for the new union.
Having no union is still worse than even a corrupt union, though, as the corrupt union has to do at least *something* for their members in orde
Re: (Score:2)
That the USA has a history of rotten unions is obvious. It also has a history of much better ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World). In the 90's we had some trouble over here with a union that didn't do anything for its members either. A new one was founded and quickly outmatched the old one whose members left in droves for the new union.
Having no union is still worse than even a corrupt union, though, as the corrupt union has to do at least *something* for their members in order to get them to join. And if you're in a closed shop, you can apply and organize inside the union. Not easy but sitting back and complaining never helped anyone.
Soooo, You're saying that there's a Market for Unions? And that people will choose the one that works for them? How Capital!
Re: (Score:2)
Union organizers have been shot at, lynched, run out of town, fired, blacklisted, locked up... it's not as if "harassment from the DNC" is worse than trying to organize a union in, say, Guatemala. Or Colombia. If people are serious about organizing, they will find a way.
Besides, the DNC has plenty of enemies. Behaviour like sketched would hand those enemies another box of ammo on a silver platter. It would also mean a dent in grassroots support - which they need to have any power. So while I'm sure that if
Mod Parent down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should try to learn from other countries. We have unions and they are quite helpful in many aspects to protect employees. For example, have a look at German unions. It could open your eyes. Furthermore, Germany's corporations have a board of directors which include 50% representatives from the labor force of the company and a workers committee. All these elements help companies to perform better and to level power between the owners, employers, and employees. It is not perfect, but when I think ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would raise prices abroad, and narrow the disparity in standard of living (thereby eroding one of the main reasons H1B applicants want to come to the US).
Re:That would be the final nail in the coffin (Score:5, Informative)
Unions in the USA all crawled into bed with the Democrats decades ago
Specifically, unions started really supporting Democrats in the 1930's, for a very good reason: The Democrats had just passed the National Labor Relations Act, which among other things gave unions the legal right to exist. For the 50 years or so before that, union leaders were operating under the constant threat of being beaten to a pulp or shot by company goons, and the unions tended to put their political support not behind either Democrats or Republicans but instead behind Socialists.
The Democratic Party continued to support organized labor up until the late 1980's or so, when they decided that the unions were basically a lost cause, and Bill Clinton abandoned unions in favor of corporate funding of the Democratic Party. Unions have never recovered either the political clout or the membership and funding they once had. And totally coincidentally, a worker today makes less (adjusted for inflation) than they did in 1987, despite the fact that the current American worker is more productive than any other worker that has ever existed on the planet.
Unions are a good thing (Score:2)
If unions are such a bad thing, then why is Germany doing so well while the US economy sucks (especially in context of salaries, employment (real figures), and salary spread)? The unions in Germany had a part in it in conjunction with a real healthcare system for everyone and the anti cyclic measures taken during the last crisis. Unions can help to guarantee same salary for similar jobs forcing companies not compete by lowering salaries, but to be innovative in their products.
Free market anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wouldn't it be a more of a free market, if companies could hire world wide, without control of the government (ie. without the restriction to hire US employees)? .. (until the wages aren't high enough any more to be motivation enough obviously..)
I think arguing with "free market" for preventing immigration is really a bit strange.. so in a free market IT wages would significantly drop, because there is no shortage of good educated IT personal willing to immigrate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't it be a more of a free market, if companies could hire world wide, without control of the government
Which they can't, and won't be able to. There is, and never was, any plan or intent to eliminate barriers for hiring foreign workers in general in the US. It's limited to techies and farm workers. Whenever they complain about having to bend over while no one else does, they're told to suck it up in the name of the "free market". Isn't it amazing how selective the "free market" is?
Re: (Score:2)
Demand that your member of congress attach severe penalties (years in prison and seizure of assets) for the executives of any company that uses H1B labor when there are US workers available.
I've no desire to increase the burden on the taxpayers by imprisoning those sleazebags (prison is expensive). A much simpler and cheaper approach is to just end the H-1B program. I'm sick of this "compromise" and "exception under special circumstances" debate about the H-1B program. Just get rid of the damn thing. It didn't start until 1990, and the US was the world's technical and scientific leader for decades before some BS artists dreamed up the supposed need for such a program.
H1B working as intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wrote something about H1Bs in a different post. Modified to be more relevant to this post:
Every time a company tells Congress they need more H1Bs, they're not telling you they can't find programmers, they're telling you they don't want to pay a competitive wage. Combine this with the fact that a lot of programmer types consider themselves too "individualist" to be involved with anything so "workmanly" as a labour union, and you set up a system where talented workers' wages are artificially reduced.
The result is a competent creative who is suddenly being pitted against people whose standard of living requires a third or less of the salary by a company whose primary interest isn't in being a good corporate citizen, investing in the community, or even playing by the rules that conservative and libertarian proponents pay lip service to, but increasing "shareholder value" by any means necessary no matter who suffers, and no matter how bad it is for the community, the region, and the country.
Re: (Score:2)
The result is a competent creative who is suddenly being pitted against people whose standard of living requires a third or less of the salary by a company whose primary interest isn't in being a good corporate citizen, investing in the community, or even playing by the rules that conservative and libertarian proponents pay lip service to, but increasing "shareholder value" by any means necessary no matter who suffers, and no matter how bad it is for the community, the region, and the country.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value; as defined by the shareholders. Some companies include things beyond a financial return, or believe being socially responsible results in greater returns; but in any case they driver is still shareholder value and shareholders ultimately vote with their wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value; as defined by the shareholders. Some companies include things beyond a financial return, or believe being socially responsible results in greater returns; but in any case they driver is still shareholder value and shareholders ultimately vote with their wallets.
WRONG.
A sane company's purpose should be to:
Provide a good or service that delights customers.
Make enough money doing it that they can fairly compensate their suppliers and employees.
Put most of the remaining profits back into long-term investments.
Borrow from (and repay) shareholders as little as possible.
We lost sight of that a few decades ago, which is why our economy remains in the crapper.
We won't be able to fix it until we realize that customers and employees are more important than short-term shareh
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that doesn't work. Shareholders put up the capital needed to enable the formation of the company in the first place. It is these people who are taking the bulk of the risk in the formation of a company. Unless companies return as much as possible to these risk takers they won't be interested in supplying capital again; in fact they may not even have any capital any more.
You think you have a problem with job formation now? Wait until your supply of capital dries up.
Re: (Score:2)
The result is a competent creative who is suddenly being pitted against people whose standard of living requires a third or less of the salary by a company whose primary interest isn't in being a good corporate citizen, investing in the community, or even playing by the rules that conservative and libertarian proponents pay lip service to, but increasing "shareholder value" by any means necessary no matter who suffers, and no matter how bad it is for the community, the region, and the country.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value; as defined by the shareholders. Some companies include things beyond a financial return, or believe being socially responsible results in greater returns; but in any case they driver is still shareholder value and shareholders ultimately vote with their wallets.
You make it sound like Democracy. It isn't. Most corporations have the majority of their voting shares in the hands of a very small number of people and/or investment organizations that have little interest in their investments other than strictly financial.
Corporations operate under Charter. Charters are granted by States, which ostensibly operate to the good of their citizens. Meaning that the State determined that the Corporation in question would benefit the State and thus (theoretically) the citizens t
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a point I don't think is understood well enough in the classical "supply and demand" method of educating and indoctrinating children about capitalism.
In the last few decades, the typical American has been told over and over that passively investing in reputable mutual funds are a Good Thing, either directly or more frequently via a 401K or IRA. And, honestly, this is mostly true.
It's had a side effect, however, into convincing working-class Americans into thinking of themselves as "investors"
Re: (Score:2)
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value
And since they have such a single-minded and potentially abusive purpose, and no conscience, we've historically had laws and regulations to limit their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
not to piss on your parade but your wages are really ridiculous - if someone out waged themselves then it's the american worker. that is you had too good pay negotiations(usually paradoxically that's associated with "too powerful" unions!)
in Finland you can get Msc's for 3000-3600/month(sure it costs a bit more for the employer than that but that's what the employee gets pre-tax. for the record the employy pays roughly 30% of that in taxes and tax like deductions). that's something like 50k of dollars per y
Re: H1B working as intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Let's ignore for a moment that this visas mandate US level salaries
Most of the problem isn't that we can ignore it, but that the companies in question as well as Congress does ignore it. The entire program only exists because it acts as a loophole by which employers can pay sub-standard wages, not competitive wages, despite what you might wish or the actual law might require before you get into the contingencies and loopholes. The biggest of these is that "competitive wage" is defined by occupation and region, not actual job function. You want a lead programmer at journeyman prices? Not a problem in the law.
H1B visas are by law only allowed when there is not a US citizen with comparable skills at the local prevailing wage. The prevalence of H1B visas requires one to believe that the US job market is just so great that it's difficult for employers to find qualified applicants.
As well as the advantages which directly affect the US wage:
Off-the books overtime. Denial of legally required benefits. Hiring under one firm and working under another. These workers can be sent back the minute they cease to be a bargain.
There are plenty of US workers for what are mostly entry-level programming positions. The companies don't want H1B visas because, in accordance with the intent of the law, they can't find suitable candidates at market value. They want them precisely because they want them below market value.
Re: (Score:2)
I think at this point, the argument is whether or not the U.S. citizens without jobs are "qualified enough".
If you got a job as a cubicle warmer during the .bomb era by being pulled out of college before you learned very much, then it really doesn't matter if you can claim some experience in a titled position at a failed startup where you served as a cubicle warmer; unless you went back and finished off your degree after the cubicle warming position went away, you're probably not as highly qualified as some
Re: (Score:2)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Nobody is terribly concerned about H-1B's from Germany (for anyone who's unaware, Karlsruhe is a German city). That's not because of bigotry, but simply because Germans don't work cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. Free trade and fluid labour forces between countries with a comparable standard of living is a lot different than importing work (via virtual outsourcing) or workers (via actual work visas) from poorer nations.
Interestingly, China has to deal with this dynamic internally, though I'm only passingly familiar with how they handle it. In a word, poorly, at least by the human rights and labour standards of the US. The GDP difference between Shanghai and, say, Tibet is fairly striking - 4x
Re: (Score:2)
The prevalence of H1B visas requires one to believe that the US job market is just so great that it's difficult for employers to find qualified applicants.
It's difficult for the US government to find qualified candidates for elected offices. Just take a quick look at the clowns sitting in Congress, honking horns, blowing slides and driving around in tiny little cars, while the country rips itself apart in two different directions, instead of gently leaning one way or another.
Let's bring in qualified H1B politicians to ensure the US government gets qualified candidates with the right skills to run a government.
This could work for the executive branch of the
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the H1B program, it sounds like a good idea, and it might even have some legitimate applications, but in practice it would be abused. Other countries would use it as a way to get rid of politicians they don't want. Do you want Silvio Berlusconi, Jaroslaw Kaczynski and Mohamed Morsi sitting in the Senate?
On the other hand, the Chinese would drive down the cost of bribery so low that any middle-class household would be able to afford its own Congressman.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. There are plenty of qualified candidates. Sometimes they even get elected. Like this [talkingpointsmemo.com] guy.
Ultimately the real problem is the most of the electorate isn't capable of determining who is qualified and who isn't. This allows the incompetent in.
Uk Labour Party Policy (Score:2)
Re: H1B working as intended. (Score:5, Interesting)
The market for talent is a global one, you should be grateful companies decide to stay in the US, where they pay taxes, instead of moving operations elsewhere, as many have done.
Western salaries have been historically too high, a global economy will correct this, wether one likes it or not
Funny. Whenever CEO's tell us the market for talent is a global one, they mean that they should get paid more, or else they leave. Whenever it's about us, it somehow means we have to make do with less, or else they kick us out.
As a freelancer, I've found that it's exactly the opposite: I get hired for jobs in other countries because the market for workers is global. But CEO's are CEO because they are tied into the political superstructure of a country. Once they leave, they usually find that their whole network is gone and that is most of their value.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever CEO's tell us the market for talent is a global one, they mean that they should get paid more, or else they leave.
Perhaps American CEO's should compete in the global labor market, because CEO's in other countries are lucky to get 1/10'th, and often more like 1/20th or less of what American CEO's do. It's probably because those foreigners have it easy. What idiot couldn't run a simple outfit like Mitsubishi or Siemens?
Re: (Score:2)
The market for talent is global. But H1B's while not necessarily paid lower than the 'going rate' also do not result pay higher than the going rate thus reducing the pay that everyone (H1B's, locals, contactors etc.) can get.
H1Bs are not enabling more people to immigrate to the US.
In this case IBM were specifically targeting foreign nationals so that they could be easily relocated later. I.e. teach them to be a westerner IBM employee then throw them somewhere else in the world so that wherever they end up
$44.4K fine for Big Blue? (Score:5, Funny)
Computer programming is not IT! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
huge mistake by putting IT people and programmers in the same bucket
Do you suffer from lack of oxygen by sticking your nose so far up in the air? They're different, but both are affected by the H-1B program.
In my experience working in the Bay Area, there really is a shortage of competent high-skill systems developers/programmers
Here's a hint: there are parts of the US outside of the bay area. Bay area provincialism may have blinded you to that fact, so consider this a helpful reminder.
Re: (Score:2)
Are programmers from outside the Bay Area prevented from applying to work at companies like Google/Facebook?
I know the salaries are higher, but if you want to do something radical like buy a modest house to raise a family in, the salary difference doesn't even comes close to compensating for the higher cost of real estate.
However, if you're looking for a guy to write your next database engine/compiler/OS kernel/Internet-scale search engine, you will hit a shortage.
Not if you realize that there are actually parts of the country besides the bay area. For example, there is a lot of top notch software talent in Pittsburgh, who'll happily work for less than in the bay area. Or are companies that claim their technologies connect the world unable to think of ter
H-1B visas skirt export restrictions (Score:2)
Their claim of not enough qualified people in
Re: (Score:2)
H-1B visas need to be restricted even more.
The best way to restrict H-1B visas is to completely eliminate the program. It was never needed in the first place.
This is stupid (Score:2)
I would preferentially hire someone from India for a US job that would eventually relocate to India too, or wherever the job was meant to be. This is actually the best use of an H1B I can think of rather than flooding the market with more Chinese engineers. Most of the studies I have read seem to imply that there is no real shortage of talent for just about every technical profession.
They do the same thing for US employees (Score:2)
That is, in IBM's mad rush to eliminate 100% of all US employment (except for executives) by 2015 they, admittedly occasionally, offer a devil's bargain to US based employees being cut: relocate overseas on your dime to take a job at CURRENT LOCAL wages and you get to keep your job.
Makes you wonder how much longer IBM will be an American company, legally. They may as well re incorporate in India or Ireland at this point. 50,000 regular full time employees in the US and dropping. Most new jobs going to low s
Seriously? (Score:2)
"IBM agreed to pay $44,400 in civil penalties to the U.S"
And yet that's the fine for about two songs if you're a regular person.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that RIAA should be in charge of the H1-B Visas and their allocation?
You're 99.9% wrong on blaming government. (Score:4, Interesting)
The only wrong thing is that the 1965 Immigration Act was passed. Repeal that, remove the regulations from it, and tell the lobbying organizations that complain to EABOD.
By showing a preference for more despotic countries and locales over US citizens, businesses show a hate for freedom for anyone else that isnt one of them. They made the choice to use these countries instead of hiring in a more free US.
Re: (Score:2)
The only wrong thing is that the 1965 Immigration Act was passed.
Don't go slamming the 1965 Immigration Act in its entirety. You can argue about categories and quotas, but it did eliminate the racist immigration policy that we'd had before. It also has nothing to do with the H-1B program, which didn't start until 1990.
Re: You can thank your USA gov't for this (Score:2)
In addition, your own advocacy that the US citizen must pay for a choice of a business is absurd and un-American. The worst thing the US could do for its citizens is for the courts to not smite companies for doing these practices, to not take away all the ways to screw with workers(such as permatemping, 29ers/49ers), and not otherwise directly hire a US citizen in good faith.
The US does not bow to the world.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not bow to the world.
Unfortunately it doesn't bow to its citizens either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ALL of those things would apply to an H1-B as well. 100%. So it's not that.
It's just cheap labor conservatives up to their dirty tricks again.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just cheap labor conservatives up to their dirty tricks again.
Aided and abetted by cheap labor "liberals". I say this as a liberal. Being a "liberal" in politics these days means accepting gays in the military (a good thing) while shafting people who are trying to earn a living. Billy Clinton's "third way" means acting all open minded while working almost as hard as the conservatives to screw the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
OSHA and environmental regulations are the job killer in the US.
Right, better we should let people get killed on the job and pollute the environment with abandon. Works in China! Meanwhile, Germany has worker safety and environmental laws much tougher than the US, yet they are a major industrial exporter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The jobs have left. There is a whole world of smart people who are now competing. The IT revolution has made knowledge and work transfer easier and easier. If it weren't for H1b's to complain about it would be the sound of jobs being sucked out of the developed world. Unions won't stop it. They might shift the playing field a smidgen.
Maybe more than a smidgen. Garment workers in Bangladesh have started agitating for more union representation. Seems they got tired of having the overcrowded Dark Satanic Mills collapse on them while pulling their 15-hour shifts.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a bridge to sell you.