Donna Conroy, Executive Director of Bright Future Jobs, was a guest on a radio talk show called Blog Talk Chicago. Here's a link to the newsvine website, where it was posted. Can you help get the word out? We need to restore EEO in the US.
The only thing that the free market proponents can possibly have to say for themselves is that a Nobel winning economist postulated once that the next Great Depression could be easily averted by making cash available to the banks when the financial meltdown started and credit tightened up that way it has -- liquidity. So far, we are still waiting for the results. Credit is still tight. There's no change to the downward spiral, and no end in sight.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Milton Friedman could have been wrong?
Another interesting fact about Milton Friedman is that he was not too fond of the employer visas that make all of the outsourcing and offshoring possible. He called the visas a corporate subsidy. If the corporations were healthy, they would need subsidies, and they would not attempt to insist on a continuation of such. It's only a diseased political and business community that would take such a self destructive approach - bypassing and discarding its own workforce.
Retreats at luxury spas, buying private jets, handing out billions in "retention bonuses" when there are 10's of thousands out of work in the finance industry and the companies are asking for a taxpayer bailout. Then they repay those same taxpayers by trying to hire foreigners to replace them.
It's obvious to everyone outside Wall St. that these people just don't get it. Entitlement has become so entrenched it's a way of life for them.
We need to get rid of the uppermost layer of management. We can think of it as an exfoliation. Let the new year, the new administration, and the newly devastated economy in the US allow fresh growth in management.
What the above paragraph really means is they couldn't find enough Americans capable of the job, who were willing to take less pay than average, so their costs would be less, and their profit margins would be more.
H1B rules say that you specifically cannot pay them less. An American worker has the right to go to a company, demand the salary, related qualifications and job descriptions. If the American citizen can prove that she is qualified for that position, then the company cannot continue hiring the H1B. In fact, all this information is REQUIRED BY LAW to be posted in a public space in the company (in the bulletin board of the hallway).
There are rules and safeguards up the wazoo about hiring workers with with lower pay on H1B.
On the other hand, H1B sponsorship costs money in application fees and lawyer fees. You'd have to hire the H1B for ridiculously little for the whole system of underpaying to be even worth it and have a way to get away with it.
As far as I know, there has been no major disclosure or legal action against a practice like this. All that has been are stories that people have put up in the web.
The banking industry needs a lot of IT and database people. This is where a lot of H1B hiring goes on I believe.
The LCA's say that the average pay for H-1B workers is far below the market. All you need to do is look at software development jobs. They are normally listed at the $40,000 to $48,000 range for development jobs with 5 years of experience. Those jobs would normally pay at least $90,000 at a normal market rate. Check the facts before posting.
Use the database for the 2007 H-1B's at
http://www.h1bfacts.com/
-- and you will find out for yourself.
America has a choice. Bring in foreign labor that sometimes is much better and sometimes much worse than American labor over here legally or outsource their functions and loose all the benefits in the process.
America could refuse to let employers bring workers in, and it could refuse the jobs go. Adequate corporate governance will provide effective solutions in the future. Appropriately structured tax incentives will do a lot to correct this situation and to prevent this type of corporate misconduct ongoing. There is no immediate threat, technically, from other any other countries. The US does not need to stay ahead of the competition. We are already so far ahead it's ridiculous. We always have been. The only factor that comes to mind that has been effective in convincing people of the inevitability of offshoring and outsourcing is the stale, left-over hype to the effect that Internet had suddenly changed labor markets the world over. That theory has been soundly defeated when put to the test. When a company lets its operations go abroad, or when they have people working remotely in order to try to cut costs, they lose. Most offshoring companies have already begun back shoring operations because the excessive hype surrounding offshoring was unrealistic. It results in dissatisfied customers, increased security risks of all types, exposure to unstable political environments, problematic internal communications... the disadvantages of offshoring are too numerous to mention.
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
The government should let the banks fail immediately, if they are in trouble. Then the banks should be nationalized without any fussing, fretting or hand-wringing. It would be far more affordable for the taxpayers. What has happened is that the Board members and the execs who actually run the financial industry and the government, have correctly calculated the most efficient path to maximizing profits. They privatize profit and nationalize loss. Before nationalizing the losses incurred by the biggest banks, they want to loot the national (borrowed) treasury while there's still some credit left available. That's all that's really going on right now. Congress, for their part, is doing little more than politely asking the marauders how they want the cash - 10's 20's 50's 100's?
I hire a lot of foreigners. Trust me, we pay out the ass for them. They're more expensive than 90% of Americans who apply for the same job, and then again, they're more qualified than 90% of Americans who apply.
The LCA database for H-1B placements states otherwise. The foreign developers usually work for the range of $40,00 to $48,000 - if you bother to verify the facts. This happens when the market rate for those jobs goes up to $90,000. 55% of the placements under the H-1B visa program are entry-level. They are therefore almost entirely unqualified, except to receive copious amounts of OJT during their first year on the job. Your statements regarding the hiring of workers from overseas are absurd.
...people turn to protectionism. No news there.
One of the primary purposes of a democratic government is to protect the individuals who are citizens of that sovereign nation. This is known as "the government doing its job." Why do believe that this action on the part of government is termed protectionism in the first place? Protectionism is normally used to describe excessive or disproportionate import duties on goods and materials.
" LONDON (Reuters) - Hundreds of nuclear workers joined nationwide protests against the use of foreign-contracted labour on Monday, saying Britons were losing out at a time of rising unemployment and economic recession. About 900 contractors at the Sellafield nuclear processing plant in northern England walked off the job, joining more than 1,000 others in the fuel and energy industries who have carried out impromptu strikes over foreign labour in recent days. "
VMS version 2.0 ==>
