SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"The abuse of the system is real, and media reports are validating what we have argued against for years, including the fact that Americans are training their replacements."
(Grassley-Durbin Bill press statement, Nov 11)
There has been much ado about the H1-B and L1 visa programs for foreign workers, with some in favor, and some against. What is pretty clear though, is that abuses do happen.
Now Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) have introduced legislation to try and curb some of these abuses. Among other things, their bill proposes to prohibit companies with more than 50 employees of hiring H1-B employees if the company already employs more than 50 percent of H1-B and L1 visa holders, and to establish a wage floor for L1 workers.
Working conditions of similarly employed American workers may not be adversely affected by the hiring of the H-1B worker, including H-1B workers who have been placed by another employer at the American worker's worksite. In addition, it explicitly prohibits the replacement of American workers by H-1B or L-1 visa holders.
Full text of the bill here (pdf), supporting statement by IEEE USA here.
Given election times and all, what chance do you think this bill has to make it into legislation?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:53PM
The comments thus far seem to be more concerned with touchy feely crap than the real experiences people are having as a result of the sociopathic personality of major corporations. Xenophobia might be behind the law, might not, but for the people who end up bankrupt and on the dole because a company decides it can make an extra half percent profit for those at the very top of the pyramid, what difference does that make? If it means workers keep their jobs, their insurance, can pay their kids' college tuitions, buy food, heat their house -- then the effect on their lives is more important than some complaint about the law coming from an ideologically impure position.
Yes, ideologically impure motives can cause immoral events, so you look at the effect of the law to see if it does such things. The big question really is this: does the US have a moral duty to improve the employment prospects of a select few already at the top of their own pyramids in Cambodia or India or where ever? Is it even possible to have that much effect? On the flip side, if we encourage companies to wage shop by being allowed to go for the cheapest labor anywhere at any moment, aren't we actually just making things worse for the 3d world? As Mexico becomes more expensive wage wise, the corps move elsewhere leaving behind unemployment and suffering there, just as they've done here. So maybe, the most harmful position is actually thinking it is our duty to give jobs to the rest of the world by encouraging sociopaths to wage-rape.
Charity begins at home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @07:27PM
The top tax rate (i.e., paid by the wealthiest 1 pct) for long term capital gains in the US should be increased from 20 pct to 28 pct, which is where it was before Bush came into office. Many of the huge, 8-figure CEO compensation packages are organized to make equity the biggest component. And to realize those gains, CEOs are incented to punch up the bottom line as fast and as hard as they can; the easiest way to do that is to cut the workforce, close offices and plants, trim the product line.