No, it's definitely illegal/against the rules to deliberately pay an H1-B worker less than a native worker in the same position. That doesn't stop anyone from doing it. The program depends on the visa holders to report any wrongdoing; however, I think we all know what would happen should they complain. H1-Bs are considered even more disposable than your average worker, and have a fixed amount of time after being terminated to obtain new employment or face deportation. They keep their mouths shut, and keep getting paid less.
I've read that the suggestion that companies give a laundry list of requirements and experience needed for the job and list it as a "Junior" level position or call it a different type of position all together. Then of course they can't find a local especially at the wages offered.
Think about it, why else would a company employ an H1-B? They will scream and cry about a shortage of native workers to fill open positions, but they're full of shit. There are more than enough native workers to fill the positions; there just aren't enough native workers available at the salaries they want to pay. So, in a sense, they're not lying about a shortage, but it's a shortage of their own creation. That, and frequently a company will identify an H1-B they want to hire and write a job description so specific to their skill set that they can claim there aren't any qualified native workers. Which is true; nobody has the exact same skill set as someone else.
If there were such a shortage as people claim....
While that is true, I would say the counter to that is that people in the western world have a bit more to loose than someone coming from a 2nd or 3rd world country.
I am all for putting a ton of strings on the granting of H1B's. If it's really needed for a position, a company should be paying well above market rates and be able to prove that they exhausted every avenue state side.
Unfortunately, I would agree.
If a country wants a piece of the action, maybe they should take a good hard look at their tax code. They may have to lower taxes *gasp* Perhaps getting 17% of something is better than getting 30% of $0.
The reason companies do this is because it's more profitable to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to skirt local laws.
It may "create" jobs - just not the ones we want. I can envision that it would create lower paying service jobs in the short term.
I think the intention of the H1B system was to bring the "best" people over to the US. Their "ideas" would create jobs, but I don't think that has panned out over the long term.
This is usually my response to people who say "Software Development is red hot."
It's red hot if you're a senior level person in some specific tech/industry. It is also very dependent on geography, and people can't exactly get up and move easily.
At least until the locals catch-up to the market requirements...or else they risk being put out of a job because they cannot compete.
While that is a valid counterpoint to keeping the H1B program, I think part of the problem is companies choose not to invest in training programs and/or set the bar to high many times. Your mom and pop operation does not need to hire Donald Knuth to update their CRUD based inventory system.
Didn't the IEEE conduct a study that there is already a glut of people here already with at least a STEM education, but not working in STEM.... And we're graduating more people with STEM degrees than STEM jobs available every year?
Until we are at the point where anyone who wants to work in STEM can do so, I think we should not let in people. STEM jobs are generally jobs you want people to take...
No, that is not what s/he is saying.
There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with.
What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful. In this case, some Christians find the act of gay marriage distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one. But, they would be more than happy to sell to them in 99.9% of other circumstances.
If there actually was a shortage, we'd see salaries rising and loosening of job requirements (i.e. willing to train people with half a brain, etc.)
Instead, it seems like there is a shortage of "good" people, which there will always be a shortage of regardless of field. Most people, by definition, are "average."
Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy