So, the Tata VP, Vandrevala was lying when he said H-1Bs were 25%-35% cheaper than US citizens? The LCAs which repeatedly showed the H-1Bs were 10%-25% below local market compensation (most clustered around 12% below local market; and this for people we were supposed to believe were "best and brightest", the kinds of people who should be commanding compensation up to 10 times local median compensation for the job) are a figment of all our imaginations? Former cross-border bodyshopper Vivek Wadhwa was lying when he admitted that the core thumb-on-the-balance was that H-1Bs were cheaper? Yah, sure.
...
"the company made a good-faith effort to fill the positions with Americans, but wasn't able to find people with the needed skills."
I must congratulate you on not using/abusing the transparent weasel-word "qualified".
Tell us about this "good-faith effort":
Did they put the hiring manager's e-mail address and desk-phone number in the half-page or quarter-page display ads in newspapers across the country and in trade publications, the way employers did before H-1B?
Did they include them in their postings on a dozen or more job boards? (A lot of firms place job ads on sites, either without an e-mail address and phone number belonging to a manager, or at a site which blocks such contact information from job-seekers.)
Did they offer to fly candidates in from Maine, Florida, Hawaii, Alaska, Kansas... for interviews, and were the executives and mangers ready and willing to cover the hotel, rental car, and meal costs the way employers used to do before H-1B?
Did they offer relocation assistance the way employers did before H-1B? Did they offer to buy the new-hires' homes and re-sell them at the company's risk the way better employers did before H-1B (some firms offered this service on a contract basis to other firms)? Did they offer coaching or assistance in dealing with movers?
Did they offer 2-16 weeks of new-hire training (and 2-4 weeks per year of retained employee training) the way employers did before H-1B?
If applicable, did they offer to sponsor the new employee for necessary security clearances?
Were able and willing candidates' info buried in their "applicant management system's" black-hole data-base, never to be seen by human eyes again?
Were they actually offering market compensation (not just a bodyshopper's hourly rate, but total package of salary, insurance, paid holidays off, paid vacation off, sabbatical, company gym, company cafeteria, training, tuition and fee and text reimbursement, company thrift plan, credit union membership, on-site or near-site day-care, stock-share grant, stock options, IRA, Keogh, intrapreneurship grants, flexible hours... whatever)?
Were the "needed skills" actually *needed*, or were there a lot of "nice to haves" listed as "required"? Did they describe an actual human being, or were they seeking a purple squirrel kind of candidate to do -- for one below-market wage -- the jobs appropriate to a team of 5 or more specialists? Or was it merely a very peculiar niche?