From an article in Computerworld:
Ten U.S. senators, representing the political spectrum, are seeking a federal investigation into displacement of IT workers by H-1B-using contractors.
They are asking the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and the Labor Department to investigate the use of the H-1B program "to replace large numbers of American workers" at Southern California Edison (SCE) and other employers.
Rather than all of us just griping on Soylent and 'that other site' about H-1B tech workers flooding in while there are plenty of Americans looking for work, these IT workers had a union, and got the attention of 10 senators to look into this issue. Southern California Edison laid off a bunch of American IT workers to replace them with H-1B Indians, and their union (since they are a utility, they happened to have had one), came to the rescue with a huge media campaign and now investigations by US Senators.
Related Stories
Original URL: http://www.itworld.com/article/3035145/it-careers/doj-ends-probe-of-utility-over-it-replacements-no-charges-filed.html
"I wanted to pass along some good news," said Pedro Pizarro, SCE (Southern California Edison) president, in the email. "The Department of Justice's investigation into whether SCE discriminated against American workers in its IT outsourcing practices has closed with no adverse findings against the company," wrote Pizarro.
About 500 IT workers at SCE were cut, mostly through a layoff. Some of the IT workers complained of having to train foreign replacements on an H-1B visa to remain eligible for a severance package.
The cuts followed a decision by the utility to hire Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services to take over some its IT work. Both firms are major users of visa workers.
The layoff of the Edison workers struck a nerve in Washington. After learning that SCE had brought in the two India-based contractors, 10 U.S. senators signed a letter last April asking several federal agencies to investigate.
[...] "It's just another betrayal by our government," said [a] former SCE IT worker, who asked that his name not be used. "The government seems to be taking an active position in allowing companies to outsource" IT jobs, this worker said.
Previous Coverage:
Southern California Edison Replacing IT Workers with H-1B Workers
New Data Shows How Companies Abuse the H-1B Program
Senators will Listen to Tech Union Members about H-1B
[In the mid 1980's, I recall having to train three people to replace me. That was not the only time that H1-B's were hired instead of local help at places I have worked. What will it take for things to change? What, if anything can/should be done? -Ed.]
(Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:40PM
I think it may be easier to blame external factors for your own failures. Failed a job interview? Do not blame it on your lack of intelligence and work ethic. Blame it on immigrants! It makes you feel better, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:56PM
Let's say you were born in America, and you learned the native language of America: English. You go to college to study computer science. You put a lot of effort into it, you learn a lot, and you end up graduating with top grades and top honors. You go for your first interview for a programming position based in San Francisco. What language do all of your interviewers speak, and what language is the interview in? Hindi, and only Hindi. Well, it turns out that you don't speak Hindi, although you're interviewing in America for a job with an American company. Then you realize that you failed the job interview not because of your your lack of skills or work ethic, because you have the skills and the work ethic. You failed the interview because you're now a foreigner in your native country, thanks to failed immigration policies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CRCulver on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:03PM
Instead of responding to the OP's snark in a reasonable way, you've made yourself look like a completely uninformed buffoon. Can you cite a US company ever holding interviews with US applicants in Hindi as opposed to English? Most US firms that do offshoring communicate with foreign workers in English. Furthermore, Hindi serves as a lingua franca in only some regions in India, while so much of the tech boom in India has been in places like Bangalore for whose population Hindi is quite a foreign language, and one they often have little love for, so the use of supposedly "neutral" English has been welcome indeed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:14PM
So the natural American citizen study with good grades at a college and interviews in English and has to accept a salary that only covers costs in India, not USA. The skills required is of a computer language which is flawed but is rote learned by your colleges without any analyze. You get subtly excluded when Kannada is the language of choice.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:28PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:13PM
Getting good grades doesn't make you more deserving of a job. My workplace hires anyone able to do the job, degree or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:31PM
It may not be obvious, but what your company is actually doing is hiring people with degrees to clean up the disasters created by those people they hired who don't have degrees.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:59PM
No, that's not what my company is doing, you elitist fool. Incompetents get fired quickly or not hired at all, and both those with degrees and those without are often turned away, because most people (degree or not) just aren't that good. A piece of paper will not magically make someone better.
You think knowledge only exists in a vacuum, but in the age of information, this is less true than ever. If going to college/university was your means of obtaining an education, then so be it. Some people use other means to educate themselves, and they shouldn't be looked down on for that. There are plenty of brilliant people without degrees if you look around.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:18AM
> A piece of paper will not magically make someone better.
Don't have a degree do you?
You gave it away when you dismissed a degree as "a piece of paper" rather than 4 years of showing up, doing the work, meeting deadlines and being evaluated on your accomplishments and not quitting. Especially the not quitting -- nowadays 44% of college students drop out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:28PM
Don't have a degree do you?
And, of course, this invalidates my arguments.
You gave it away when you dismissed a degree as "a piece of paper"
The degree itself *is* a piece of paper. People who care about getting said piece of paper so they can get good jobs and money don't belong in college or university, because their priority is not to get a real education, and they merely want college/university to act as a fancy trade school for them. They are just corporate drones. Education should be sought for its own sake.
rather than 4 years of showing up, doing the work, meeting deadlines and being evaluated on your accomplishments and not quitting.
I show up, do the work, meet deadlines, and am evaluated on my accomplishments. And even though all of the above happens in colleges and universities, employers still have to look hard to find people who are at least decent, just like they would have to for people without degrees. Everyone should be tested, because if you rely on degrees only, you're going to get lots of trash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:49PM
> And, of course, this invalidates my arguments.
No, the rest of my post invalidated your arguments. The above fact was intended to remind you that your bias is so strong that it shines through your writing. The fact that your bias is that strong casts doubt on the quality of your analysis.
> The degree itself *is* a piece of paper.
Yeah, putting emphasis on the word 'is' totally proves your point.
> They are just corporate drones. Education should be sought for its own sake.
Bullshit. Education is multiple things and when it is a means to and that's entirely normal. That you think otherwise is further proof of your distorted perceptions and ultimately half-assed understanding of the situation.
> I show up, do the work, meet deadlines, and am evaluated on my accomplishments.
Nobody said you didn't, nobody even intimated that. That you think I did speaks to your degree inferiority complex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @07:17PM
No, the rest of my post invalidated your arguments.
It actually did no such thing. Some AC (maybe you) made an unsubstantiated assertion that my company hires people with degrees to clean up the messes left by those without degrees, which is simply false. My argument is simply that there are multiple methods of obtaining a good education and that it is more possible than ever to self-educate at this point, and that employers should hire people based on their own merits, because otherwise they will miss good candidates and accept many bad ones. The rest of your comment did nothing to address any of my points.
The above fact was intended to remind you that your bias is so strong that it shines through your writing.
Like the bias you have for degrees? I don't know who you're kidding, but there is no one on this planet without a strong bias, because as long as you have an opinion, there will be bias.
The fact that your bias is that strong casts doubt on the quality of your analysis.
Non sequitur. My arguments are there for all to see. "doubt" does not even come into it, as you can read my posts for yourself. Arguments stand on their own merit.
Yeah, putting emphasis on the word 'is' totally proves your point.
I really don't even see why you bothered responding to it, then.
Bullshit. Education is multiple things and when it is a means to and that's entirely normal.
It might be normal for people who want colleges and universities to be like trade schools, but in that case, maybe they should just go to trade schools rather than trying to destroy actual educational environments with their corporate mentalities.
Nobody said you didn't, nobody even intimated that. That you think I did speaks to your degree inferiority complex.
The point was that it isn't limited to just colleges or universities.
But since you're going to tell me what I think (that I have an inferiority complex, apparently), I'll do the same to you: You know that I am correct and you are only disagreeing with me to make your precious ego feel good. If you wish, I can play Internet psychologist and diagnose you with a random mental disorder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:26PM
> Like the bias you have for degrees?
You dismiss them as "a piece of paper" that isn't even in the same neighborhood as saying they represent showing up and not quitting for 4 years.
> I don't know who you're kidding, but there is no one on this planet without a strong bias,
That is a fantastic example of self-delusion. The fact that everybody is biased about something is not proof that I am particularly biased about college degrees. As you say your arguments stand on their own merit and that's one of many of examples of how poor your merit is.
> I really don't even see why you bothered responding to it, then.
Because people with chips on their shoulder that are completely unware of the chips on their shoulder are my weakness. I can't resist fucking with people like you because your elitism passing as equanimity is irritating and in all likelihood has been applied to the people around in you in real life to harmful effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:10PM
You dismiss them as "a piece of paper" that isn't even in the same neighborhood as saying they represent showing up and not quitting for 4 years.
It isn't in the same neighborhood because you arbitrarily decided that it isn't. That's pretty subjective.
That is a fantastic example of self-delusion.
I'm going to have to turn that back on you.
The fact that everybody is biased about something is not proof that I am particularly biased about college degrees.
Straw man. That isn't what I was saying.
Because people with chips on their shoulder that are completely unware of the chips on their shoulder are my weakness.
You're your own weakness, then? I know it's not surprising, but from my perspective, you have plenty of chips on your shoulder.
I can't resist fucking with people like you because your elitism passing as equanimity is irritating and in all likelihood has been applied to the people around in you in real life to harmful effect.
Elitism? I'm not the one saying that people with degrees need to clean up the messes left behind by people without degrees and making unsubstantiated comments about how someone else's company does things. Since we're all ACs, I can't say who did what, but there it is.
I merely maintain that a degree does not guarantee competence, and that college and university are just a few means of attaining an education. Self-education is another option. I know plenty of intelligent people who graduated from university, and plenty of intelligent people who didn't. When I call degrees "pieces of paper", I say that because I am disgusted at the attitudes some people have when it comes to education; that it is just something that will let them make more money. I find that extremely sad, but many people go into formal education for those reasons. The best ones go above and beyond what is asked of them because they are deeply interested in the subjects, whether they're in college/university or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @03:48AM
> It isn't in the same neighborhood because you arbitrarily decided that it isn't. That's pretty subjective.
Are you gewg_troll? Your writing style combining mechanical coherence with semantic incoherence is awfully familiar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @06:45AM
You have a point. Technical correctness on the details but failing in overall structure while abusing syllogisms in both directions as it suits their needs. Add in some doubling-down-defense and outright hypocritical-hostility, stir briskly, half-bake for a dozen posts and done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:50PM
Technical correctness on the details but failing in overall structure while abusing syllogisms in both directions as it suits their needs.
I don't see how.
But making unsubstantiated comments about someone else's company and asserting that degree holders always need to clean up after the messes of people who don't have degrees is quite foolish. It's a failure with that person's critical thinking abilities.
doubling-down-defense
When I see something I disagree with, I reply to it. That's all. Whether that counts as a "defense" is irrelevant to the points I'm making.
outright hypocritical-hostility
I don't see how my supposed "hostility" is hypocritical. Where did I say I was against all forms of hostility, which is the only way I could be a hypocrite? And what qualifies as "hostility" must be quite subjective.
Besides, if hostility is hypocritical, then I guess all these AC comments (including mine apparently) are hypocritical as well. But I guess other people's hostility doesn't count because you disagree with me and therefore it can be ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:40PM
I don't think there's any semantic incoherence there.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tibman on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:19AM
I have been brought in to clean up two projects that couldn't get off the ground due to over-engineering. Having seven layers of abstraction because some professor said abstraction was the key to making flexible projects is a disaster. The degree doesn't make person A better than person B. The degree asserts that person A has a certain level of understanding and familiarity with their area of study. What does the lack of degree tell you about the level of understanding of person B? Nothing. Why don't you look at their code or have them do a live challenge during the interview.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @06:22AM
Systemd? Pulse Audio?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:32PM
The degree asserts that person A has a certain level of understanding and familiarity with their area of study.
It really doesn't, in more cases than you would think possible. I'm not sure how or why a lot of these people are allowed to get degrees, but it's as if they just mindlessly did the assignments, failed to understand anything, and somehow got a degree in the end. They have no real drive, because I guess they expected the college/university to spoonfeed them, and the results are predictable.
Why don't you look at their code or have them do a live challenge during the interview.
My company does this. And strangely enough, not only do most people who don't have a degree get eliminated, but most people who do have a degree also get eliminated.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:35PM
If the grammar and spelling errors of this post are anything to go by, I wouldn't have much confidence in Americans either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:42PM
Who the hell scored this "Insightful"?!? Your personal sock puppet? Can you tell me one company in America doing job interviews in Hindi? Just one? I want you to be specific. Name some names. Otherwise I am going to dismiss this as just so much xenophobic garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:47PM
That's the problem with racists. Those fuckers are always hanging around looking for a reasonable discussion to use as a starting off point for their bullshit. They want to steal the legitimacy of actual problems to help them sell their racist bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:55PM
Hindi isn't a race. It's a language, for crying out loud. I know Asians and whites who speak it fluently.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:38AM
I wonder if there is a correlation between aspergers and stupid fucker racism.
Because there is always some dumbass who shows up and proclaims oh, we couldn't possibly be talking about race because no one literally named a race. The fact that context makes it abundantly clear that we are taking about race is never acknowledged and from what I understand aspergers makes it really hard for a person to understand context.
So asshole or just handicapped? Which is at AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:11PM
Well, that in itself is bad enough. But what really caused the bile to rise up into my throat was that some idiot(s) actually scored the comment as "insightful". I mean, what the hell!
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:45PM
Unions can be useful but they can also start telling you at which hours you are allowed to work. That you can't swap a Sunday for a Wednesday. That you must have smoking pause regardless if you smoke. That you can't work a lot one week and take time off the next.
The controlling body of the union can be hijacked by various interests. The IT industry has many individualists. They can exploit the situation by jacking up fees and discriminate against those that haven't joined and so on. Or make a deal with a company to use their crap technology.
So watch out..
Perhaps, if you need a union. You are in the wrong business..
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:59PM
Perhaps, if you need a union. You are in the wrong business..
If you're in the writing business, I'd say you need one...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:17PM
This isn't paid writing so spelling etc quality is optimized accordingly.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:30PM
Well, OK, but what about punctuation? Are you ever going to "optimize" that?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:19AM
The vast majority of professional/serious writers I've been aware of (via blogs, interviews in Writer's Digest, etc.) only lightly edit unpaid recreational work like comments, but include spell-checking as part of it. Compared to producing multiple drafts of intense editing to make their paid/important work the best they can manage, clicking a little wavy line away is nothing.
I can't recall who said it, but my stance on using correct capitals, fixing basic errors, etc. is best summed up as (said conversationally, not actually aimed at you): if you don't feel what you have to say is important enough to make that small an effort, what makes you think it's important enough for others to take the time to read it? With expletives added as needed, of course. ;-)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:08AM
That's a non sequitur. I've read plenty of things with poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization that were nonetheless very informative. The ad hominems usually come from people who can't comprehend basic logic, or comprehend the fact that they are being extremely shallow.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:54PM
If bad writing were the problem. The person would have pointed out the errors explicitly so that one can learn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @10:13PM
I can't recall who said it, but my stance on using correct capitals, fixing basic errors, etc. is best summed up as (said conversationally, not actually aimed at you): if you don't feel what you have to say is important enough to make that small an effort, what makes you think it's important enough for others to take the time to read it.
Because no amount of effort is free. I put all my effort into the ideas.
Would you prefer worse logic, less research and a more shallow topical understanding in exchange for better capitalization?
I don't.
Human language is explicitly redundant so that ideas can be communicated despite minor errors in transmission like spelling errors.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:48PM
spelling etc quality is optimized accordingly.
Seems like the opposite to me, as writing has rules so as to be understood.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Saturday April 25 2015, @07:46PM
Guess I'm a sucker...I spell correctly for free.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:02PM
Called them professional association... I am a member of a union that goes by the name of x company professionals association and I don't get any of the shit you talk about. US it professional should do like the doctors and the lawers: enforce proper education and competency standards, police your members and act as a political force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:32AM
> it professional should do like the doctors
That would be great. Then our technology infrastructure could cost as much as our healthcare does.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:50PM
our technology infrastructure could cost as much as our healthcare does.
If it did, maybe we'd do a better job of it.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:42PM
Unions have lots of issues, but your statement is nothing but FUD.
I work for a college, and I refuse to join our union. It is only because that is the only way to withold the portion of dues used for political contributions (I pay the rest of the dues, but cannot vote in union elections). The parent union contributed to the Republican Governor's association which helped elect Scott Walker who immediately went on a union busting spree. They gave tons of money to the Democrat party as well, and helped elect pro school privatization candidates like Obama. Hilariously / sadly, the two main teachers unions in California took opposite positions on nearly all ballot measures a couple elections ago-- solidarity-- right. So, their contributions simply canceled out.
The top leaders of most of these unions are rich folks who have never worked a day in their lives in the fields of those they supposedly represent. They play golf at the same clubs as the CEOs of the companies they are supposedly representing the workers of. Their children attend the same private schools as those corporate executive's children. They live in the same gated communities. These rich scum just like any other rich scum, encourage no strike clauses which eviscerate the power of the union members.
However, unions are the only reason we have any worker protections/rights in the US at all. But, for them to continue to be relevant, we need to take control back. It is the same rich bastards controlling unions, government, corporations, police, military, and everything else. We are at a point where my school can kick out the existing union and switch. I am lobbying for joining the IWW, the only real union left. And, of course I encourage others to break free from voting for the Democrat-Republican Corporate party candidates. But, too much a coward to stop paying my taxes that support our wars of aggression around the word on behalf of the rich parasite class.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:26AM
The top leaders of most of these unions are rich folks who have never worked a day in their lives in the fields of those they supposedly represent. They play golf at the same clubs as the CEOs of the companies they are supposedly representing the workers of. Their children attend the same private schools as those corporate executive's children. They live in the same gated communities. These rich scum just like any other rich scum, encourage no strike clauses which eviscerate the power of the union members.
A Doonesbury strip years ago, in which Duke found out he was being replaced as the ambassador to China by Leonard Woodcock, had Duke replying to a comment that Woodcock had shown great sensitivity to the working class with "Honey, all labor leaders show great sensitivity to the working class. That's how they avoid belonging to it".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:22PM
> Unions can be useful but they can also start telling you at which hours you are allowed to work.
Surprise! Tools don't make you a craftsman, but even a craftsman can't do much without tools.
Good judgment is necessary in all human endeavours and anyone who tries to factor it out will eventually end up with bad results.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:57PM
Why the fuck is the parent comment modded Offtopic? It's totally on-topic.
The modding system here is pretty broken if a good, on-topic comment like that is modded Offtopic. Why the fuck isn't something being done to fix that bad modding? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @06:59AM
It's modded +3 now. What do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:14AM
if you need a union. You are in the wrong business..
no, if you work for a business in the dog-eat-dog country of USA, you need unions.
were you not paying attention to what happened 100 years ago? we all forgot, it seems, and we let big business get powerful again without a matching balance of power in labor.
keep voting against your own best interest; but I promise you, you WILL run into a nasty boss or company that you will then make you wish you had someone more than 'just you' to fight for you.
or, are we just supposed to keep accepting anything big companies want to do to us? afterall, they would NEVER take advantage of the high unemployment and factors such as those. no, they'd never stoop that low.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:33AM
> no, if you work for a business in the dog-eat-dog country of USA, you need unions.
In the US there has been a very strong correlation [epi.org] between union coverage and income equality.
If unions made things worse, all the declines in union membership over the last 40 years should have produced a booming economy.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:51PM
Unions are good (with some caveats). It's more about moving into a industry where you actually have leverage against the employer without unions. When you need them it's because you haven't enough leverage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:26AM
The best thing that ever happened to our "T" union, was the day we voted them out. Ok, we lost one day off per year, but no more dues, better pay, and we're no longer feeding the lazy pigs.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:16AM
First off, most unions don't do that. They aren't dumb, and usually want more freedom for their members at the expense of management.
Second, you might want to notice that all of the scheduling scenarios you're talking about could be denied by the boss at least as easily as by the union.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:21PM
Golly gosh, I'm not in a unionized field. So that means that I can come in and work whenever I want, as much or as little as I want? Wow! I'm gonna go tell my boss that right now, I'm sure he'll be thrilled to know that!
And I no longer have to take a smoking pause? Maybe I can get a non-smoking pause....
Unions can discriminate against non-union employees? I want to live in the state you live in! In most states one can withhold joining the union and only lose the right to vote for union officers. (Which is very unlike the 'right to work' bullshit being fed by certain anti-union conservatives.)
And it's the union that decides to make deals with other companies for exclusivity of tools? Not my IT department? Wow, that's news to me.
Perhaps, if you don't need a union, you're from a country where you're parasiting off the lack of U.S. unions, and/or a paid shill from a foreign government.
So what country are you actually writing from, comrade?
Dufus.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by g2 In The Desert on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:03PM
But the troubling part is that they were complicit in this activity as it blossomed over the last ten to fifteen years. It shouldn't take a union, a special interest group or a political action committee to get these... ummm... Honerable men and women, to do the job we sent them to Washington to do.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:38PM
Elizabeth Warren explained how this works on a recent episode the daily show.
She laid out a sophisticated understanding of the real way power and money intersect. It's not primarily about quid pro quo cash for favors. It's about whose voices get heard and what issues end up on the agenda. "The wind only blows from one direction," Warren said. "It only blows from the direction of those who have money." Yes, campaign contributions matter. But big interests have "invested in other ways," too. They've invested in paying attention to what happens and to having their agents show up constantly and make noise. Consequently, the concerns of the rich and powerful are present in "every rule that's written, in every conversation, in every discussion."
-- Elizabeth Warren explains the real way corruption in Washington works [vox.com]
It isn't about buying laws, its about buying access. That is the self-deception that congress has been using for at least a couple of decades (when I first heard the above explanation from some other speaker). They feel that as long as they don't take a bag-o-cash in exchange for a favor, then they are morally and ethically in the clear. Nevermind that nobody without a bag of cash even has a chance of getting a word in edgewise. Its pay to play, but anyone who can afford pay gets a fair shot.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:24PM
The first priority should be enforcement of the rules. Does anyone think that the big outsourcing companies are following the laws on H1-B visas?
For policy change, I think that H1-B visas should only be granted to companies that will directly benefit from the employees' work. In other words, a model whereby an H1-B employee is shopped out like a contractor to other companies should not be allowed.
Lastly, any company that has laid off more than a very small number of employees performing the same tasks as the H1-B employees should not be allowed to get H1-B visas, and the policy change above should be used to prevent companies from laying off employees and then replacing them with outsourced employees doing the same jobs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:43PM
> The first priority should be enforcement of the rules.
That will cost money. There is literally no money allocated in the budget for H1B rule enforcement. Only the worst cases of fraud and abuse ever get investigated because they are so egregious that the public gets involved and external pressure makes it happen.
> . In other words, a model whereby an H1-B employee is shopped out like a contractor to other companies should not be allowed.
Half of H1B visas are used in the process of off-shoring. [npr.org] This SCE case is one such example. They aren't shopped out like a contractor, they are on-site for a year or two of training and then they go back to India and take the job with them.
> Lastly, any company that has laid off more than a very small number of employees performing the same tasks as the
> H1-B employees should not be allowed to get H1-B visas,
Good luck with that. HR will just play tricks and reclassify the position to have different titles despite doing the same work. IT work is already such a catch-all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:31AM
I disagree. There should be no H1B anything. No fuckin reason what so ever is justified enough for the shit-storm that these cause.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:40AM
and none of them did me a lick of good. When I was 16 ('74) I worked at a Fed Mart car wash and had to join the union. I made minimum wage, yet had to pay union dues. When I was 18 I worked for Buck Knives. Again, I was making minimum wage and paying union dues. At 19 I was a welder and, you guessed it, had to join a union. I was making something like $0.50 over minimum wage, but my union dues easily wiped that out.
After that I became an electronics tech, then a software engineer, and have no love lost for unions.
CSB. At Buck Knives we were told that if we dropped something and it rolled under a machine we had to call a special someone to retrieve it. As I worked the night shift that meant calling a union rep, rep called some dude at home, some dude at home drove to the shop and retrieved the object while making double time. Prolly an hour or more. Don't tell anyone, but whenever I dropped something and it rolled under the machine I got down on my knees and manually got it. While furtively looking around to ensure I wasn't caught and fired, of course.
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:09AM
So, your problem with unions is that they made concessions to the employers such that unskilled entry level employees didn't cost them extra, but you were too young to use the health insurance and you didn't stick around to benefit from the job security and the higher pay of more senior positions.
What did you expect, fairy dust?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2015, @12:33AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:31AM
On the H1-B issue, here and on the other site.
1. US workers are being replaced by people who completely lack IT skills, and a few weeks or months of training is a band-aid that can't fix that. Therefore, the H1-B program is harmful to the parent corporations who use them, and unfortunately there are two many greedy morons in the senior executive ranks.
2. H1-B workers may be cost-effective from the POV of US corporations, but it's totally unfair to US IT workers who spent decades, and typically several hundred thousand USD getting a college education.
Guys... which is it. I'm tired of this chucking stuff at the wall and having all these contradictory arguments getting modded up simply because they are anti H1-B.
Re argument #1: capitalism is not a nice economic system, and nobody said it was, but over time it punishes companies and other actors that are consistently incompetent. (Monopolies such as Comcast, and regional utilities are conspicuous exceptions because they have no effective competitors).
Re argument #2: Now you are advocating a "Looking for #1" philosophy. Isn't that what Steve Ballmer was criticized for doing 12 years ago when he called Linux and open source a "cancer"? Ballmer was saying that US corporations, and their high-paid staff, ought not to have to compete against people who gave away their work for free.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:42AM
Argument #1 simply doesn't make sense. If you are going to replace expensive qualified people with cheap unqualified ones, wouldn't it be even easier to just pay minimum wage and hire anyone who applies?
As for argument #2... let's just say that self-interest often trumps principles. Do you really think most people would still advocate for "equality" when they were the ones on the advantageous side? Some, sure. But most?