In the UK it's actually much harder to fire someone than in the US, due to the various employment laws, although employees need to be aware of the law and stand up for their rights.
In the US you can generally fire someone at any time for any reason... In the UK you have to have a justifiable reason, and except in cases of gross misconduct you have to have given the employee both verbal and written warnings as well as having given them a chance to improve (ie in the case of incompetence).
The employment agreement does not imply that you will be given increased compensation for doing more work...
On the other hand, if you are paid the same as your peers then it's reasonable to perform a similar level of work. If you are more skilled than your peers then you should either be able to complete the same amount of work to the same standard in less time than they do and have some free time, or you should be paid more if you're completing more work in the same time.
If the employee in question is performing to a similar level as his peers on a similar salary, and he's not doing anything which damages the company or his colleagues then there's no justification to fire him as he's every bit as useful to the company as his colleagues.
The main problem I have is that the H-1B is not fair because it is enough to replace me as a worker but it is not enough for me to have lower cost of living
That's a potential argument against outsourcing, but not against H-1B. The H-1B worker lives in the US and pays the same prices you do.
A lot of companies expect you to do more than Y hours for no extra $X...
There has to be give and take... I'm expected to do 40 hours a week, sometimes i do 30 and sometimes i do 50, my boss is fine with this so long as the work gets done and he's happy that if work needs to be done outside of normal hours he can ask me to do it. Similarly, i'm happy that i can take a morning off or a long lunch to do my own thing sometimes. It balances out, the work gets done and the staff are happier and more flexible.
On the other hand i worked for a previous company that demanded i sit in the office even if i wasn't working, keep to strict lunchtimes, never be late arriving but often be late leaving, they frequently demanded that i work extra hours for no extra pay, often tried to contact me when i took pre-arranged holiday, or expected me to spend a lot of time travelling to other locations for work. It was all take and no give on their part, so i started working to rule (arrive on time, leave on time, ignore emails/calls out of hours etc), looking for another job and fairly quickly quit that job and moved on.
If someone is meeting all exceptions, and management is aware he getting everything done with time to spare, it is management's failure to give them more work.
Go to management, ask for more work, a.k.a., a promotion, and the money that comes with it. If management says "no" then you have bad management, i.e., management that is not interested in employee development. Time to look for a job with better management.
Bottom line: if you're not doing the job you're being paid for, you're goofing off.
... says the guy posting on a forum during work hours....
Perhaps your work hours, but not mine. Don't presume everyone works 9-5 weekdays.
I've actually been in several jobs like that, the boss asks me how long i need for a particular project, i quote a time i think will be reasonable with a little margin for error and he then proceeds to give me twice as much time as i asked for...
My quotes were honest, if i said i needed a week i would actually be done within a week, and i never got any complaints that the work was not completed to a sufficient standard. What am i supposed to do with the extra time?
But, if you want to sell your produce to society, and society has placed some negative value on fertilized or irrigated crops
"Plants Crave Electrolytes!"
Not really. But keep telling yourself that, because we know you're kicking yourself for not mining coins when the could be mined by normal computers.
So you're saying house builders are free to get carpenters through H-1B?
There's no reason why not. They'd just have to figure out how to satisfy the rather vague requirements of high skill. They'd have to be pretty highly skilled just to justify the effort, though, since it costs several thousand dollars to get a potential employee through the H1-B process.
How can a person ever chose a profession if the most lucrative ones will just have a back door opened to relieve the price pressure?
Just accept that you're competing on a global market. If someone in India, or Romania, or Brazil, or wherever can do my job for less money, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it. I have some enormous inbuilt advantages in my understanding of the culture and language, my access to high quality education, etc., and if I can't leverage all of those to outcompete them, I deserve to lose. Yes, this means Americans can't just coast on their luck at being born here. Boo hoo.
My opinion is that we shouldn't have an H1-B program, instead we should allow anyone who wants to work in the US to do so. If that creates a larger influx than we can manage then we can be selective but we should still take every highly-skilled and highly-educated worker we possibly can. Brain drain the whole world, because that will keep the innovation and progress here, and keep our economy the most powerful in the world. Immigration has always been the engine that drives economic growth in the US. That was true when my ancestors arrived in the early 19th century, it was true when we used all the Nazi rocket scientists to win the space race, and it's true today.
But to flip that in reverse, outside of working hours is YOUR time, and yet many companies expect people to work more than their contracted hours sometimes...
If a company wants to be strict with hours, then the employee should be too... If they want to be flexible, then the employee can be flexible too but you can't have it both ways.
You had a steam engine? We had to get marketing to aid us if we needed hot air!
There are several factors to consider, including, in no particular order:
1) Is he otherwise getting his job done?
2) Is there a conflict of interest?
3) Is company policy clear on the issue?
4) Can his side work benefit his employer?
There are many other factors, too. My company's policy is clearly spelled out: we are allowed to have side jobs and businesses, as long as there is no conflict of interest, no misuse of company property, and as long as they don't interfere with getting our work done.
We have found that side jobs and businesses tend to produce useful things that are then imported into company work. It's a win-win for everyone, under the right circumstances. The company benefits, and the employees benefit.
It should be positively encouraged. I also believe offices should be furnished with beds, so we can take a nap when we want. And we should all have an additional computer with an up to date graphics card and 4K monitor that we can install Steam on.
This seems reasonable to me. What say you, fellow programmers?