Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses The Courts IT Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American IT Workers Increasingly Alleging Discrimination

Comments Filter:
  • Unionize (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:25AM (#50644385)

    Fighting this battle piecemeal is a losing proposition.

    • Re:Unionize (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:31AM (#50644447)
      I don't know, I think it makes more sense to attack the Work Visa Program (or whatever it's actually called) since so many states are so anti-union right now.

      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)

        by Old97 ( 1341297 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:43AM (#50644555)
        A lot of the rules you're asking for exist, but they aren't enforced. Lawyers put together some plausible but incorrect statements and file them with authorities who aren't eager to check them out. There are videos on the internet showing various lawyers and clients conspiring to do this. To top it off, most in Congress are more loyal to the executives in the IT industry demanding higher quotas then they are to common people. Even when it's been demonstrated that these executives, Bill Gates included, are lying through their teeth about the salaries they pay the H1B's. Your last suggestions hint at a better solution and that is to remove employer sponsorship and control from the H1B process and the visa award completely. H1B holders should be able to change jobs at will and compete for whatever salaries they can get. Currently H1B holders are cheap and compliant due to the fact that they can't change jobs and it is that which makes them so appealing to employers. Free the H1B's and then they will only be valued based on their skills and productivity.
        • 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)

            by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:11AM (#50644771) Homepage Journal

            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.

            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)

            by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:12AM (#50644781) Journal

            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)

              by minstrelmike ( 1602771 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:24AM (#50644897)

              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.

            • 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.

              • by chilenexus ( 2660641 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @01:29PM (#50646587)
                What do you think of the idea of mandating that workers on H1B must be paid at least 3% higher salary than domestic workers - just to offset things affiliated with relocation costs. This would get rid of the motivation to import foreigners for no other reason than finding someone that will work for less, and could motivate the companies to invest in training the employees they have in the skills they need.
              • by AuMatar ( 183847 )

                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)

              by AntronArgaiv ( 4043705 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:42AM (#50645017)

              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.

            • That's easy to get around. Just make a job description that's impossible to fill and you'll probably get very few or no applicants for the position. Just claim to want 5 years of experience for something that's only existed for 3.

              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
            • 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:Unionize (Score:4, Informative)

            by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:16AM (#50644815) Homepage

            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...

            • 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.

            • by dave562 ( 969951 )

              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)

              by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @11:03AM (#50645239) Homepage Journal

              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)

            by tehcyder ( 746570 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:41AM (#50645009) Journal

            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: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              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.

            • The point is that guild style unions are very different from closed shop unions. The higher the skill of workers involved, the more likely the union will be guild style. I think, however, that even manual jobs would benefit from something more like a guild style union. Guilds apply evenly across an industry. A closed shop applies to a specific employer and they create a situation where different employers in a given industry compete against each other to bust unions. Closed shops also tend to create a
          • Well as i see it from afar you guys are getting your asses handed to you. With no support from congress you need to organize in so fashion. Who making out now? Lawyers and Congressmen getting that envelope from the ITT industry who ARE organized.
          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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:Unionize (Score:5, Funny)

        by tommeke100 ( 755660 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:55AM (#50644649)
        They will get right to it after fixing the Patent System. Will keep you posted on further development!
      • 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.

      • The issue is neither pro, nor anti, union. The whole H1B situation is a clear instance of raw political corruption. The real Beltway Bandits, in Congress and the Administration, are essentially selling out American workers for quid pro quo of campaign finance. Don't get me wrong. I do not blame the corporations, who are supposed to be motivated by profit, albeit bounded by laws and regulations, like this one, of society in which they operate and are themselves a part. Rather, I lay the blame squarely on a c
      • by nobuddy ( 952985 )

        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)

      by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas AT dsminc-corp DOT com> on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:32AM (#50644451) Homepage

      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)

        by Lendrick ( 314723 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:36AM (#50644481) Homepage Journal

        The only thing worse than having unions is not having them.

        • Na the H1B's are worse

          • 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.

            • 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

          • 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)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:12AM (#50644775) Homepage Journal

          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)

            by Chalnoth ( 1334923 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @08:45PM (#50649123)

            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.

        • Re:Unionize (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:19AM (#50644855) Homepage

          Say that to the auto industry that drove almost everything overseas. Right now, the IT industry is having it bad. Unionizing under the current paradigm would be WORSE!. It would be like "fuck it, ALL IT goes overseas, and the US as a nation is but a client purchasing all IT services overseas. There's nothing than can stop that happening now, but unionizing would definitely hasten that to occur.

          I'm all about getting organized and having proper representation as a single unified voice to be heard, but unionizing as it's currently known as isn't the answer.

          • by nobuddy ( 952985 )

            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.

      • It depends on the union contract.Unionization doesn't automagically mean lazy employees abound. Most unions do have limits on what they can protect and many times they may not feel the political expense is worth fighting for a lazy employee. I've worked at a well organized union shop. You had to meet performanc metrics. If you couldn't over 2-3 rounds of metrics and it was determined you were actually putting effort into the job, they tried to get you in to a different department that maybe matched your sk
    • 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

    • And the battle has to start somewhere. If it is a handful of lawsuits, let it be. I am sure more will come, once people start to hear these and by a miracle they get some foothold and succeed. And you spoke just like a union shill... Unionizing, creates union fat-cats in the long run, as if it looks like they are doing some good at the beginning. Once things improve a little, they start lining their pockets, doing nothing, off the backs of the union members, cripple economies, keep incompetent workers in pl
  • Fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Apples-to-Llamas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:37AM (#50644495) Journal
    "But Your Honor, we didn't get any applicants to our job posting for a minimum-wage principal engineer... We had no choice but to use H1Bs to fill this critical position!"
    • by creimer ( 824291 )
      A recruiter called me for an I.T. support position that paid $25/hr (my usual rate). I go in for the interview, but the hiring manager is out and the position only pays $15/hr. I told the recruiter I was no longer interested in the position. The recruiter accidentally sends me the salary spreadsheet. Lo and behold, all the I.T. support positions paid $10/hr. If I have returned for another interview, it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to badger me to take the job at $10/hr.
    • You mean not all enterprise architects make $30k?

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:38AM (#50644505)
    Here's my experience with Infosys: Their tactic is to always be the lowest bidder. When they get the contract, the staff they send generally is untrained with many of them learning the skills they need on the job on the client's dime. We had a contract with a client and were replaced by Infosys. So we had to hand over all of our functions to them; it was apparent that only one person in a team of 12 had the skills to do the job. After a year, the client fired them and came to us. But they wanted Infosys rates; we declined.
    • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:10AM (#50644765)

      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.

      • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:39AM (#50644997)

        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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

  • by Notorious G ( 4223193 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:38AM (#50644509)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02, 2015 @09:52AM (#50644621)

      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.

      • 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

    • 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.

      • 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

        • 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. ;-)

    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      "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.

    • by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:26AM (#50644909) Homepage

      That's OK, because when no one will hire anyone over 40, we'll just be unemployed, poor, and without skills that make us marketable. Guess we will be "retiring" on the tax payer dime thanks to the young whom are employed =).

      Pay now, pay later. In the end, WE ALL PAY!

    • by Kagato ( 116051 )

      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.

      • by BVis ( 267028 )

        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.

    • The age-discrimination thing is just a symptom of the real problem, as is the H1-B problem: It's all about money. They'd rather hire some kid fresh out of some cheesy technical school who can just barely find his ass with both hands, because they can pay him far, far less money, and he'll (or she'll, as the case may be) lick their boots in appreciation for getting any job. Then in 2 or 3 years (if that long) when they've got some real experience and are rightly due a raise, they'll claim 'budget cuts' or so
    • by jacobsm ( 661831 )

      58 years old for me and just survived another downsizing, offshoring experience. zOS Systems Programmer, 20 years here, 36 total in the field.

    • 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)

    by choke ( 6831 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:13AM (#50644789) Homepage

    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.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:25AM (#50644901)

    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.

  • by slmdmd ( 769525 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:27AM (#50644911)
    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.
    • by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @01:56PM (#50646811) Homepage

      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.

  • by jcadam ( 964044 ) on Friday October 02, 2015 @10:34AM (#50644955) Homepage
    The concept behind the H1-B program sounds reasonable. Bring in highly skilled experts from overseas that we can't find here. However, since it's now been thoroughly demostrated that:

    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).
    • The concept behind the H1-B program sounds reasonable. Bring in highly skilled experts from overseas that we can't find here.

      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.

      • 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

  • Ten years later and still fighting in court...

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.

Working...