Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

    Chuck, Diversity is definitely not the issue, as you point out; it's non-U.S. workers, nothing racial here. Dale's note is great ammo for everyone to know and use when shortsighted decision makers only look at the per hr rate. I don't believe in bigger government either, and only in some instances protection/tariffs for strategic industries.

    Comment


    • #32
      Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

      KC, Of course there's always the organized labor route. Ask yourself: Is the produce clerk at Vons, who gets $18 per hour, twice as valuable as the produce clerk at Wal-Mart, who gets $9 per hour? I'd say not. It's a matter of perspective. Is the $90k U.S. programmer worth 3 times as much as the $30k (or less) programmer in Indonesia? Maybe so. But it seems that some employers are willing to take the risk. I'm generally a risk avoidance manager and won't go the cheap route. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessary "KCM2" wrote in message news:6ae6ba8b.30@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | Chuck, | | Diversity is definitely not the issue, as you point out; it's non-U.S. workers, nothing racial here. | | Dale's note is great ammo for everyone to know and use when shortsighted decision makers only look at the per hr rate. | | I don't believe in bigger government either, and only in some instances protection/tariffs for strategic industries.

      Comment


      • #33
        Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

        I submit below H.R.2154 for your consideration. I strongly urge all readers to write to their congressmen in support of this bill:
        To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent an employer from placing a nonimmigrant who is an intracompany transferee with another employer. (Introduced in House) HR 2154 IH 108th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2154 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent an employer from placing a nonimmigrant who is an intracompany transferee with another employer. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 19, 2003 Mr. MICA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent an employer from placing a nonimmigrant who is an intracompany transferee with another employer. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PLACEMENT OF INTRACOMPANY TRANSFEREES. Section 214(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `(F)(i) No alien may be admitted or provided status as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(L) unless the importing employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an application stating that the employer will not place the nonimmigrant with another employer where-- `(I) the nonimmigrant performs duties in whole or in part at one or more worksites owned, operated, or controlled by such other employer; and `(II) there are indicia of an employment relationship between the nonimmigrant and such other employer. `(ii) The employer shall make available for public examination, within one working day after the date on which an application under this subparagraph is filed, at the employer's principal place of business or worksite, a copy of each such application (and such accompanying documents as are necessary). The Secretary shall compile, on a current basis, a list (by employer and by occupational classification) of the applications filed under this subparagraph. The Secretary shall make such list available for public examination in Washington, DC. The Secretary of Labor shall review such an application only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies. Unless the Secretary of Labor finds that an application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary of Labor shall certify to the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 7 days of the date of the filing of the application, that the requirements of this clause have been satisfied. The application form shall include a clear statement explaining the liability under this subparagraph of an employer who places a nonimmigrant with another employer in violation of clause (i). `(iii) The provisions of section 212(n)(2) shall apply to a failure to meet a condition of clause (i) in the same manner as such provisions apply to a failure to meet a condition of section 212(n)(1)(F).'.
        Dave

        Comment


        • #34
          Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

          Thanks for the information, Dave. Here's an article that goes into detail about what L-1 (intracompany transfer) visas are. This inpires me to write my representatives in Washington! "...The L-1 visa was originally intended for multinational companies that need to transfer key employees to U.S. divisions. But in recent years, outsourcing firms such as Wipro Technologies, Infosys Technologies and Tata Consultancy Services have stepped up their use of the L-1 visa to bring programmers and other professionals from India to work at the offices of U.S. clients. ... " "... The L-1 visa carries no salary requirements, theoretically allowing a foreign worker to continue drawing the salary he was paid at home while working side-by-side with or replacing Americans earning two or three times as much. ..." Here is the link to the full article: http://tinyurl.com/donm or https://www.amduus.com/cgi-bin/nph-p...5/BU268156.DTL

          Comment


          • #35
            Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

            Why do you want the federal government to tell you whom you can and can't hire?

            Comment


            • #36
              Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

              Ted asked, "Why do you want the federal government to tell you whom you can and can't hire? " That's not what I am saying, Ted. I want corporations to obey the law. H-1Bs are supposed to be used only when they cannot find qualified American citizens to do the job. What is happening is companies are laying off Americans and replacing them immediately by applying for new H-1Bs. I have seen it with my own eyes. L-1 visas are there so multinational corporations can transfer their employees into the US easily. That's fine, but what is really happening is the workers are being hired overseas and immediately "transferred" to the US. There never was a job for them in India, Mexico, Brazil, wherever. L-1 visas are a way around the so-called limit on H-1B visas, plus as this article points out there are no salary requirements so the L-1s can be paid peanuts. Companies are skirting around the laws, and I am tired of it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                Susan said: Companies are skirting around the laws, and I am tired of it. I think I understand that, Susan. Why don't you do what I did? I started a corporation & hired an American.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                  Ted wrote: I started a corporation & hired an American. I fail to see how that alone will create a market for skilled American technical workers. The U.S. is in grave danger of losing a domestic capability for skilled technical workers. This is prevalent at Colleges and Universities all around the country. There are fewer and fewer "Computer Science" majors. In point of fact, on many campuses (campii?) it is a dying department. The cause of this effect is the misplaced greed and short term focus on the bottom line. The overall effect is a general loss of quality, greater time consumption, and ultimately the loss of the ability of the user to have input into the process, and personal customization. Without this, general productivity declines, and the short term gain is turned into a long term loss. We are a nation of immigrants, but immigration laws, and the ability to hire have been legally systemic since our nation's founding.The L-1 process encourages contracting and subcontracting of unskilled labor simply to enhance the bottom line. Productivity and skill never come into question. Just talk to investigators who post ads for different skills only to receive resumes for every ad from the same individual, with each resume showing a completely different skill. Here's how the L-1 scam works. The scammer will go to a foreign country and hire 100 workers to nothing for six months. The scammer will even pay them a buck or two. Then the scammer will bring these workers into the U.S. on an L-1 visa. Once here, they are hired out to other companies at prevailing market rates, while continuing to receive the minimum wage or even less. The scammer pockets the difference. Almost every company that uses L-1 visa holders does not hire them. The contracted company is only aware of the invoice, not the visa holder's salaries. The contracted company never hired these workers, and is using this loophole to fire American workers. It is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. There is language to that effect in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Laws when well written apply standards to society that should enhance the quality of life. Think about that the next time you are in an elevator, and staring at the inspection sticker. Dave

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                    Ted wrote: I started a corporation & hired an American. David wrote: I fail to see how that alone will create a market for skilled American technical workers. You're right, David. I didn't have enough work to hire everybody, but I had enough to hire one person. I did the best I could. I think that you & Susan should hire some Americans too. Both of you have good hearts, and you would offer good pay, benefits, etc, without regard to the bottom line, unlike the big corporations. America needs you two & many others to hire people and put them to work, as I did. David also said: Here's how the L-1 scam works. Thanks for the explanation. You have filled a big gap in my knowledge. Furthermore, David said: It is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. There is language to that effect in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Can you be more specific? I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I do understand the Tenth Amendment (the last one in the Bill of Rights), which says that any authority that is not expressly delegated to the federal gov't is reserved to the states and to the people. Can you tell where the Constitution authorizes the federal gov't to decide whom you and I can and can't hire? Also, the Declaration of Independence is not law, but I have the highest respect for that document & would be interested in knowing what portions of it you are referring to. But anyway, no one has yet answered my question, which is why you and Susan and anyone else who feels the same way you do wants the gov't to take away their liberty. This is why I jumped in. You see, I read day after day in the newspaper of someone who wants the gov't (usually the federal gov't, sometimes the state, sometimes local) to prevent him from doing something, and for some time now, I've been most curious as to why people want their freedom restricted. For example, let's say you're strolling thru the park one Sunday afternoon & you sit down on a bench to take a breather. There's a guy sitting there & the two of you strike up a conversation. You find out he's a computer programmer from India who's working for a Fortune 100 corporation. His family was starving, so he accepted an opportunity to come to the US and work. You give him the details of a challenge you're currently facing & he responds with an elegant solution that you had not thought of. Before long you realize that this guy would be a valuable asset to your business. There's just one problem. You can't hire him away from the big corporation that's exploiting him because of the law. So back to my question. Why do you want the gov't to tell you whom you can and can't hire?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                      Why don't you start your own corporation and hire an American. If I did start my own company, absolutely I would hire only citizens or legal workers. I would not apply for H-1Bs. Okay, now how will that solve the problem of corporations importing tens of thousands of workers illegally? I am glad that you hired a citizen to work for you - but that is not the issue because it does nothing to address the problem. The bottom line is that the immigration laws must be enforced. So back to my question. Why do you want the gov't to tell you whom you can and can't hire? Again, Ted, I want the immigration laws to enforced. The example you provide details why H-1B and L-1 visas are bad for the foreign worker too. As an employer, you can hire any citizen and green card holder that you wish to. There are almost 300 million to choose from.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                        Susan said: Again, Ted, I want the immigration laws to enforced. Yes, you've said that several times, but you have not addressed my question. The example you provide details why H-1B and L-1 visas are bad for the foreign worker too. How is giving a job to a guy whose family is starving bad for him? If I did start my own company, absolutely I would hire only citizens or legal workers. Why legal workers? Why not just American citizens? If the law were amended to permit the hiring of illegal immigrants, would you then include them? I can't believe you'd even ask the question. Probably your real point was that I start my own company. I have no ulterior motive here. I have not taken sides in this issue. I have noticed in everyday conversations, on talk radio, on the editorial pages of newspapers, etc. that people often voice support for laws or regulations that reduce their authority to make decisions, and instead transfer that authority to a government agency. That is all I am trying to find out. It is a general question that interests me, & I thought that this thread might help me understand. If it seems that I have another motive, then maybe it has never occurred to you that the laws for which you are voicing support apply to you just as much as to the companies against whom you are railing. I do hope that you will start your own company, but that is not what I am trying to accomplish in this thread. The economy is stalled and it would not be the smartest move right now. I have heard more than one person say that such circumstances provide the best time to start a business. People everywhere are looking for ways to cut costs. What a good time to build a customer base. And that is not the issue. The bottom line is that the immigration laws are not being enforced, and they need to be. But you have not told me why you want that law to be enforced, even though it reduces your freedom. Well, tomorrow (Monday) morning I go back to little-or-no-time-to-post mode. I appreciate the comments that have been made in response to my questions, and apologize if my asking questions has offended anybody. It may be that my questions are off the subject of the thread (but I don't think so.) If so, I apologize for the thread drift.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                          Susan said: Again, Ted, I want the immigration laws to enforced. Yes, you've said that several times, but you have not addressed my question. Again, between US citizens, green card holders, and the holders of other legal work permits, employers have about 300 million people to choose to hire or not hire. If you consider that the government telling you whom to hire, so be it. A question for you: Do you want to abolish the law that you must be a citizen or green card holder to legally work in this country? When I start with a new company, I (a US citizen) need to produce ID that proves my citizenship. Are you against that law? Do you feel that that the government is being too restrictive on your right as an employer? How is giving a job to a guy whose family is starving bad for him? Read the details about L-1 visas - typically the workers are paid the pittance they are paid at home. Therefore if they are starving in their home country, working here on an L-1 visa probably won't help them increase their standard of living any because they won't get a bump up in pay by coming here. That's why employers love L-1s, they can pay peanuts. Why legal workers? Why not just American citizens? If the law were amended to permit the hiring of illegal immigrants, would you then include them? Why would I discriminate against a legal immigrant assuming they are qualified for the job? H-1Bs that were brought into the country by corporations that are laying off Americans with the same skill sets are breaking the law. L-1s imported by body shops are here illegally. It's just a matter of the government and the politicians having the will and the courage to stop this abuse. ... maybe it has never occurred to you that the laws for which you are voicing support apply to you just as much as to the companies against whom you are railing. I don't follow your point. I would hire citizens and green card holders. I wouldn't lay off Americans while I petition the government to import H-1Bs. But you have not told me why you want that law to be enforced, even though it reduces your freedom. I want the immigration laws to be enforced because I am not a fan of anarchy. L-1 visas, for example started for a good reason. But it's being abused now and that must change. Rep. John Mica, a supporter of the original L-1 legislation was on CNN just today saying the L-1 needs to be reformed. The number of L-1s entering the country for IT jobs has increased despite the fact that the industry in a downturn. No wonder even talented programmers cannot find work, eh? I don't see how enforcing immigration laws to be what they were intended to be reduces my freedom. If you feel that your employees must be citizens or here on legal work visas is too much government interference, then we will have to agree to disagree. One last point: Both H-1Bs and L-1s are not supposed to be "pounding the pavement" applying for jobs like your or I would. Corporations must proactively apply to bring them here for a specific job. As CEO of Susan, Inc., I should never see the resume of an H-1B land on my desk unless I applied to the government to import him/her. H-1Bs and L-1s are admitted into the country to fill a specific job. If that job ends they are supposed to go home - both are temporary visas. When they enter the country under false pretenses, or stay longer than they are supposed to, they are here illegally as far as I am concerned.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                            Hi Susan, Im an Indian It professional working in singapore on AS/400 for the past 3 yrs. You're right these bodyshoppers (aka scammers) suck the mojo outta us poor guyz. They lure us with promises of a bright future in a foreign country (US mostly) and demand tons of money which our parents manage to gather by selling farmlands, houses , jewellery etc., Poor parents do so dreaming that their kids would go abroad , get a good job & repay the loan eventually. The scammers collect the money in India , process the H1 or L1 (mostly by providing fake docs..sometimes with the aid of corrupt US lawyers), bring these guyz to the US & contract them to the eager US companies for peanuts. so far, so good...most of the times these poor guys are on bench(either becoz they're no good or their skills not in demand anymore) & live in pathetic conditions...the scammer refusing to pay them full salary. I can go on & on...it makes me sick.. i wish you people could do something to weed out these scammers from your country.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                              Why do you want the gov't to tell you whom you can and can't hire? I am troubled by the use of this language. It is nearly identical to the language used by the segrationists prior to the mid 1960s. Those with short memories have forgotten that language like this was used in the halls of congress to justify human suppression. It worked for many years. As one who can vividly remember the civil rights struggle that culminated in a consitutional amendment, I find that language of exclusion is personally repulsive. The United States is still quite the land of freedom and opportunity. To seek freedom and opportunity there used to be a price. It meant becoming an American. For millions upon millions of immigrants (including my ancestors, and most likely every other American's) this was a price gladly paid. They wanted to be Americans. They came here to be Americans, not only to share the treasures, but also to participate in the responsibilities of an American. Immigrants used to have the ultimate goal of becoming citizens. Immigrants have fought in our wars, paid our taxes, and particpated in our political process. The L-1 and H-1B programs have never been a matter of immigration. In point of fact, both type of visas insist that the "worker" return to his country of origin, and never use these programs again to gain entry into the U.S. These programs were never about freedom, they were never about opportunity. Greed, and an unlevel playing field werre the sole motives for enacting this legislation in the first place. Most congressmen I have communicated with admittedly state that they did not understand the effect that these programs would have, or anticipate the abuses that would occur. They also state that undoing a situation is far more difficult than creating the situation. The reason that democratic governments put restrictions on actions, is to protect its citizens, and ensure fairness in all processes. Dave

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Article: Downsizing jobs, outsourcing lives

                                Wow! I get the feeling that some people here actually believe that government represent the people (you know, the low percentage who actually vote). Not so, in US and Canada, government is run by and represents corporations. Corporations are run with cash, when they save cash this can be passed along to politians who make decisions for corporations to save cash, and the loop continues. I don't have a solution to this discussion, when I figure out how to stop US from taking jobs from Canada I'll let you know. Thanks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X