[CLUE-Talk] Media outlets

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 12-20 13:25, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:02:49 -0700 (MST)
> > "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> >
> > > When you say "H1B issue" what are you referring to?
> >
> > I'm assuming:
> >
> > http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/H1BFAQs.htm
> > http://h1b.info/bookmarks.php
> >
> > Norman Matloff seems to be one the main sources of argument against high
> > H1B quotas.
> 
> I'd argue against it as well... companies no longer need to be importing
> high-tech talent, if they ever did. 195,000 EXTRA people a year being
> brought over at low rates can't be good for those of us already scratching
> for work here.
> 
> Overall, I think it's a rotten program. It's bad for U.S. citizens
> and it's not so hot for a lot of the foreign workers, either.

I found link on projectcensored.org:

http://www.projectcensored.org/stories/2001/10.html

It would not have been so bad if it had maybe been tweaked a bit, and if
there was any sort of professional organization (not necessarily a union)
that most developers were part of.

Tweaks:

1. H-1B should not be tied to a company. That's indentured servitude. They
should have time to find other work, not have to be booted from the country
the minute their company decides to toss them.

2. All names, departments, positions and most importantly, SALARIES of
H-1B's should be posted in a prominent place so all employees know what the
deal is, and can report violations if they think the H-1B is not being paid
the right amount. I think the rules are that an H1-B should be paid at least
90% of what a citizen would make doing comparable work...but there's obvious
wiggle room when you say "developer" or "IT" - the range is all over the
map, so the enforcement is/was negligible.  

3. Proper enforcement of the current rules. There is a class-action lawsuit
apparently being launched or getting ready to launch against Sun for laying
off American employees and turning around and replacing them with H-1B (last
spring?) in violation of the rules, if I understand correctly. 

4. Right now, they can renew it once after three years, for a total of six
years. I'd change it to be renewed indefinitely. Otherwise, it seems to have
a built-in age discrimination clause...

5. Lastly, getting rid of the "exempt" kind of employee - overtime should be
paid for everyone, at least beyond some sort of threshold like 50 hours a
week. H-1B really opens up potential for abuse in this regard - if a citizen
gets to breaking point, he can always quit. H-1B must at least find another
sponsor. At least do this for the H-1B employee, if not for all.

Personally, I'd be in favor of a more rapid immigration policy, with proper
background checks. The idea of national temp worker program just seems
distasteful. This country wasn't initially populated by temp workers.

As Jed said, H-1B is still preferable to moving the whole job offshore - at
least some of the money is being spent here.
 
> > While I can see the "unemployed US workers" side of the argument, I don't
> > come to the conclusion of restricting immigration as a means of protecting
> > US jobs. Companies can just move the work elsewhere anyway. If that's the
> > alternative, I'd rather see the cash-flow stay inside our borders, i.e.
> > the H1B worker spends some of their income on US products/services. That
> > helps our economy.
> 
> I don't think we should necessarily restrict immigration, but H1B, iirc,
> is a special exception allowing people to immigrate specifically for
> high-tech jobs. In that situation, the need no longer exists -- it
> should be done away with.

 
> This is a situation that doesn't fall neatly into liberal vs.
> conservative -- but I think it does fall into corporate vs. public
> interest. It's in a corporation's interest to be able to import
> people to work at a lower rate, while it's in the public's interest
> not to do so... I'd say it's semi-conservative, but certainly there
> are plenty of non-corporate conservatives who aren't in favor of
> immigration.

I don't know too many people in either party who are opposed to *legal*
immigration. There are those (mostly conservatives?) who oppose looking the
other way on illegal immigration - but the truth is that both major parties
are vying for the Hispanic vote, and corporations love the cheap labor. My
position is that if you aren't going to bother enforcing immigration, why
bother to enforce *any* law?  It seems ridiculous on the face of it...coming
here is not some right, it's a privilege, and should be earned/achieved via
legal channels, and branding people as "xenophobic" when they oppose illegal
immigration is just calling names. 

And the amnesty thing - sorry, too bad, get in line with everyone else. Just
because you managed to evade the law for a certain number of years doesn't
make it any less illegal, IMHO. I know two people who emigrated from
Germany, and they did it the legal way. It took them a combined time of over
5 years, and I'm not sure how many thousands in lawyer fees. My brother's
wife: I think it was about 2-3 years. A fellow college graduate: I think it
took him 4 years after college (he was here on student visa). It just
violates most people's sense of justice when people who play by the rules
get the shaft, and those who duck the law get rewarded. My brother's wife
wasn't even able to work for some of that period. 
 
> This issue is probably not being extensively covered for a couple
> of reasons:

I don't know if it's even been covered on TV. I've never seen it talked
about, ever. Even on cable, I've only seen Tom Tancredo mention it, and even
that was only in passing. I think he did, anway. 

Even in the trade rags, I haven't seen much said about it. Maybe a few of
the online articles, but as for print....H-1 what?
 
> 1. Corporate influence -- corporations don't really want the public
> discussing the fact that they'd import people to save money when
> so many people are being laid off. (It'd be a touchy subject any
> time, but now...)
> 
> 2. Boring -- it isn't a topic that can easily be made sensational,
> so TV news isn't interested. Now, if an H1B person goes postal,
> then it'll be covered...
> 
> 3. Complex -- it isn't easy to boil down into a "good vs. bad"
> situation, so it's too complex for TV. Makes for bad sound bites.

I'd say it's 95% corporate influence - and maybe the other two comprise the
other 5%.

In any case, I'd prefer legal immigration being accelerated with proper
background checks and naturalization to H-1B...but that's not what corps
want, obviously. If that's not feasible, I'd like some tweaks made to it.
But w/o the issue even being out there in the public eye, there's little
chance it will change.

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of 
our friends. 
-Martin Luther King