India’s TCS Faces U.S. Trial in Anti-American Bias Case(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
India’s TCS Faces U.S. Trial in Anti-American Bias Case
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-27/india-s-tcs-faces-u-s-trial-in-anti-american-bias-case
12 comments
The point is, part of the deal was that worthy individual would have a shot at being recruited instead of completely let go and TCS did not make a good faith effort as part of the deal, and the deal was for the optics. This is not a white or black thing as you are trying to interject race into this. Its more like, if I hire from India I do not have to pay "premium", that is the part of the discrimination. Even if Mr.Buchanan was Black Transgender Women with two kittens, he would not have a shot, the point is the he never had a shot at being re-employed under the new structure.
Your argument would be correct if no American from the company was re-hired by TCS which I don't think is the case.
Outsourcing efforts at companies usually start with part of the workforce / couple of projects outsourced to a major outsourcer. This gives them partial insider information on the competence / political scenario / compensation in the company. I wouldn't be surprised if TCS worked with company management to figure out who would be retained based on these 3 variables and let others go without their fair shot even if they were qualified.
While this sucks for a candidate, I don't think you can allege discrimination based on this.
Outsourcing efforts at companies usually start with part of the workforce / couple of projects outsourced to a major outsourcer. This gives them partial insider information on the competence / political scenario / compensation in the company. I wouldn't be surprised if TCS worked with company management to figure out who would be retained based on these 3 variables and let others go without their fair shot even if they were qualified.
While this sucks for a candidate, I don't think you can allege discrimination based on this.
My point is there was no good faith effort to retain, the dye has been cast long before and promises were made for optics. You can nitpick this, but that is my larger point, which you seem to validate in your "explanation".
I am not fool enough to think a cost-arbitrage company would hire an American as their first second or third option. Its a given that its only last resort for most cases and that too, it skews to the extremes of competence or keeping the politics stable.
I am not fool enough to think a cost-arbitrage company would hire an American as their first second or third option. Its a given that its only last resort for most cases and that too, it skews to the extremes of competence or keeping the politics stable.
Your right which is why the EU has TUPE to stop abuse of employees when a company is taken over.
Since you mentioned nit-picking, I'll nit-pick :). You mean "die", as in the singular of "dice".
I believe it is a reference to die as in manufacturing dies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_(manufacturing) basically the phrase is like “the mould is set”
I believe your parent has it right: cast in this case means thrown or tossed. "to cause to move or send forth by throwing cast a fishing lure cast dice", sense 1a here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cast
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_die_is_cast
- https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/die+is+cast
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cast
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_die_is_cast
- https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/die+is+cast
fascinating! thank you!
Isn't likely to be from dice because it's such an ancient expression, like from Roman times?
Trivial detour. Remani hits the point.
If the problem is just that US employees demand higher pay, wouldn't a simpler (and legal) way of solving this for TCS would just be to offer a salary that they were planning to offer the Indian workers? If US workers are happy to work for that then fine; nobody loses out.
No. It’s not that simple. I’m an American who used to work for an Indian consulting company and I worked in the Bay area. The issue is that as an American, I could quit my job at any time because I found employment somewhere else, and at 20+ years of experience (more like 35 actually) I commanded a rate substantially higher than all my Indian colleagues (which were all except for one other American colleague Indian, from India). My Indian colleagues explained to me that they were trapped because of the H1-B visa: since the employer sponsors those, they had to take whatever salary the employer offers or they don’t get the job. They also can’t apply for another job nor switch jobs because of it, whereas I could (and did, but for family reasons). They were effectively stuck and made artificially dependent on the mercy of their Indian consulting companies, for years. Because of this, the consulting companies would pay them the lawful minimum so as not to hit against the dumping laws, which is far below market value. That’s how it works.
I might get downvoted for this but I don't feel sorry for these guys as they have made their choice. Over the years, I have routinely seen people who make this exact choice - join the US arm of the outsourcing company for depressed wages. They do it because of the "onsite" allure.
I am not judging. I understand why people make this choice - Better life in US. Unfortunately, this comes at a price which no one is liking.
I am not judging. I understand why people make this choice - Better life in US. Unfortunately, this comes at a price which no one is liking.
> They also can’t apply for another job nor switch jobs because of it,
As someone who's switched jobs on an H1 twice, I can tell you it's simply not true. It's a common misconception because earlier you couldn't change jobs on an H1 but the law around that was changed almost 10 years ago. If you have in-demand skills in 2018 Silicon Valley (JS, Java, Python, anything ML, big data, distributed systems or data science will work a treat) you're going to have recruiters contacting you regardless of your visa status.
From my limited knowledge of consulting companies (spent 8 months at the beginning of my career at one), a lot of their employees get very job-specific training in older technologies, understandably because that's the stuff being outsourced. That may be why they felt unable to move - their skills weren't in-demand anywhere else.
As someone who's switched jobs on an H1 twice, I can tell you it's simply not true. It's a common misconception because earlier you couldn't change jobs on an H1 but the law around that was changed almost 10 years ago. If you have in-demand skills in 2018 Silicon Valley (JS, Java, Python, anything ML, big data, distributed systems or data science will work a treat) you're going to have recruiters contacting you regardless of your visa status.
From my limited knowledge of consulting companies (spent 8 months at the beginning of my career at one), a lot of their employees get very job-specific training in older technologies, understandably because that's the stuff being outsourced. That may be why they felt unable to move - their skills weren't in-demand anywhere else.
Technically you can, but if you have a Green Card application you have to restart the 12-year process over again.
Not true. You have to restart the process but can retain the same priority date. Your place in the queue is never lost.
That would come as a pleasant surprise to my friends, who seem to be under the impression (and they are fairly knowledgeable about the process, since it is a sword of Damocles that constantly dangles over them and their families). Also, this seems to indicate otherwise: https://www.murthy.com/2017/11/30/changes-in-employer-employ...
see: "If Employer A is unwilling to go through with the employment offer, the case ends. In that event, the I-485 case cannot proceed, as there is no intent to employ the sponsored worker. The same would be true if the sponsored worker is unwilling or unable to work for the sponsoring employer and wants to stay with the new employer, in this example, Employer B."
see: "If Employer A is unwilling to go through with the employment offer, the case ends. In that event, the I-485 case cannot proceed, as there is no intent to employ the sponsored worker. The same would be true if the sponsored worker is unwilling or unable to work for the sponsoring employer and wants to stay with the new employer, in this example, Employer B."
It talks about "if current employer is not the GC sponsoring employer". I am saying that job changes are easy IF the new company is willing to sponsor the GC in which case the process restarts (taking about 2 years) but the priority date is retained.
(2 years)
My friends from India have been waiting 8 years, paid hundreds of thousands in US taxes and are still years away from getting their GC. So I can say with complete certainty that this figure is incorrect. I wish it weren't. But we have an obligation to understand the law and the situation as it exists rather than as we wish it did. These are real people with families, houses, etc. who are afraid every day that by the whim of their employer they'd have to pack up their whole lives and leave at the drop of a hat. No one deserves that.
My friends from India have been waiting 8 years, paid hundreds of thousands in US taxes and are still years away from getting their GC. So I can say with complete certainty that this figure is incorrect. I wish it weren't. But we have an obligation to understand the law and the situation as it exists rather than as we wish it did. These are real people with families, houses, etc. who are afraid every day that by the whim of their employer they'd have to pack up their whole lives and leave at the drop of a hat. No one deserves that.
0xcafecafe is right. I think the confusion you're having is "place in line" vs "length of green card process".
Your Indian friends have been waiting 8 years because their turn in line hasn't come yet. The place in line refers to the date of the most recent application that was granted a green card - the date your GC application was filed is known as a "priority date".
For Indian and Chinese nationals with Master's degrees, applications with a priority date of around 2009 are only now receiving green cards. This is the "8 year wait" that your friends are referring to.*
If someone with a priority date circa 2012 were to change their job right now you are correct that they would need to "restart the green card process" at their new job. A new green card application takes between 1 and 2 years. But it doesn't matter because their priority date is at least 3 years away anyway. And the new green card application at their new job can re-use the same 2012 priority date from the old GC application by the previous employer - so they'll receive their green card at the same time as they would by staying at their old employer.
*The only reason this line exists for Indians and Chinese is because green cards are apportioned by the applicants' country of birth, without regard to the population of that country. Since India and China are by far the largest countries in the world, they simply have more applicants than anyone else. Put another way, a Master's degree holder from the Seychelles could get a green card in the same amount of time as a Canadian or an Eritrean or Italian or Brazilian - between 1 and 2 years. I think this whole country of origin business is silly, and not just because it affects me personally. There is a rule change proposed in Congress to address this issue: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/392
Your Indian friends have been waiting 8 years because their turn in line hasn't come yet. The place in line refers to the date of the most recent application that was granted a green card - the date your GC application was filed is known as a "priority date".
For Indian and Chinese nationals with Master's degrees, applications with a priority date of around 2009 are only now receiving green cards. This is the "8 year wait" that your friends are referring to.*
If someone with a priority date circa 2012 were to change their job right now you are correct that they would need to "restart the green card process" at their new job. A new green card application takes between 1 and 2 years. But it doesn't matter because their priority date is at least 3 years away anyway. And the new green card application at their new job can re-use the same 2012 priority date from the old GC application by the previous employer - so they'll receive their green card at the same time as they would by staying at their old employer.
*The only reason this line exists for Indians and Chinese is because green cards are apportioned by the applicants' country of birth, without regard to the population of that country. Since India and China are by far the largest countries in the world, they simply have more applicants than anyone else. Put another way, a Master's degree holder from the Seychelles could get a green card in the same amount of time as a Canadian or an Eritrean or Italian or Brazilian - between 1 and 2 years. I think this whole country of origin business is silly, and not just because it affects me personally. There is a rule change proposed in Congress to address this issue: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/392
It'll be more telling if of 400 laid-off employees a significant number applied and if they did, what percentage were hired by the consultancy. If very few were hired, it would raise the question why they would not be preferred candidates, given their job history.
Or why the employees where not transferred to the new employer unless their role was redundant (note I say role here)
It's really simple, these companies are using cheap labour while making a huge profit in dollars. They can under quote other companies because of this. Taking in natives mean pay has to be high.
Not just the pay, H1b employees need to stick around as it's difficult to shift to another company, especially if they are processing green card. Also they tend to work longer hours, as I have seen personally, though that doesn't necessarily produce more quality, but most of the corporates who hire from TCS or other outsourcing firms want 24/7 routine jobs like production support, junior developers or testing. Even for development they use the same stack for decades so there is pretty much nothing more to build or learn, but minor patches and fixes here and there, which is barely interesting for anyone other than who want to stick around for the lack of other opportunities..
p.s. I am from India and have worked in U.S for couple of months for a large bank.
p.s. I am from India and have worked in U.S for couple of months for a large bank.
I think the H1B restrictions you touch on are a big part of the problem. If it was easy for H1B holders to change employers the market would be allowed to correct this. The H1B holders could demand market rate and proper treatment. Right now it's completely distorted.
Unfortunately lot of people fail to see H1B's outside of silicon valley and H1Bs = cheap (indian) IT labor = bodyshops...
Many fields demand multidisciplinary knowledge (for eg. automotive) we need people who understand physics (mechanical engineering), signal processing, algorithms, data analysis, programming etc.
There's a huge shortage of people who are willing to dabble in multidisciplinary fields. Step into any automotive company and ask the engineers if they know how to code or use large amounts of data effectively. You will be surprised. I have seen H1B folks overcome tough challenges and put huge amount of effort in making amazing products.
Generalizing and bashing H1B's is not fair, neither is making regulations from SV point of view.
p.s. I work in one of the big 3's. I am on H1B and I have never accepted bare minimum salary. I am not an IT guy.
There's a huge shortage of people who are willing to dabble in multidisciplinary fields. Step into any automotive company and ask the engineers if they know how to code or use large amounts of data effectively. You will be surprised. I have seen H1B folks overcome tough challenges and put huge amount of effort in making amazing products.
Generalizing and bashing H1B's is not fair, neither is making regulations from SV point of view.
p.s. I work in one of the big 3's. I am on H1B and I have never accepted bare minimum salary. I am not an IT guy.
There is absolutely no bashing of H1B done here. What you say about multidisciplinary knowledge is true. I bet many of the Indian CEOs and co-founders came via H1B itself. But that was not the point. The majority of H1B holders are low paid workers bought here not just because of lack of skills, but also due to low pay and willingness to work shifts etc etc.. We can't deny that.
Sorry, I did by no means intend to bash H1B visa holders. I agree that it's only a small portion in one particular industry that's causing that perception. That makes it even more important though to not constraint H1B holder's choices artificially.
As a car enthusiast and a system engineer / architect I’d love a shot at working in the car industry. I never see advertisements for those jobs though; they are mythical.
That aside, nobody so far has been bashing H1B’s, on the contrary: all the comments so far are for H1B liberalization (H1B’s should’t be tied to a particular employer) so that the loan dumping could stop and so that competition could take place based on experience and competence.
The problem is greedy managers going after “shareholder value” (their bonuses and promotions) and corrupt politicians who knew the situation and yet didn’t step in.
That aside, nobody so far has been bashing H1B’s, on the contrary: all the comments so far are for H1B liberalization (H1B’s should’t be tied to a particular employer) so that the loan dumping could stop and so that competition could take place based on experience and competence.
The problem is greedy managers going after “shareholder value” (their bonuses and promotions) and corrupt politicians who knew the situation and yet didn’t step in.
working in car industry for about 3-4 yrs. I can assure you these jobs are not mythical.
read this article - https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/harman-wants-quiet-ride-u...
skills required - fundamentals of acoustics, vibrations, signal processing, algorithms, coding, managing huge amounts of data, optimization, controls etc.....
this is just one technology. there are many more things that go in a car and are way more complex than active noise cancellation.
read this article - https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/harman-wants-quiet-ride-u...
skills required - fundamentals of acoustics, vibrations, signal processing, algorithms, coding, managing huge amounts of data, optimization, controls etc.....
this is just one technology. there are many more things that go in a car and are way more complex than active noise cancellation.
Yeah, its like a glorified sweatshop. Is it any wonder that these companies don't get any respect.
Don’t let your disgruntled self make generalizations about everybody else. I’m curious what the justice department finds out. In America the law is supreme so just wait for it to conclude instead of making baseless statements in a public form.
He was stating his own experience - so that is his basis. When you work at some place you also see whats going on in there generally. He was not commenting about the "bias" which is what TCS is facing trial for.
> Taking in natives mean pay has to be high.
More than pay, it is the "culture fit" that these companies seem to care more for.
The business model of these companies involve getting most of the work done in India. For that to work, one needs phone calls at odd hours. An Indian employee will be more willing to accommodate these demands to attend work-related calls at odd hours.
As regulation around H-1B and similar work visas tighten, Indian outsourcers are trying to hire people of Indian origin who have green cards or are American citizens. I know from a handful of acquaintances that these employees are paid well - hence my thesis that it really isn't about the money.
More than pay, it is the "culture fit" that these companies seem to care more for.
The business model of these companies involve getting most of the work done in India. For that to work, one needs phone calls at odd hours. An Indian employee will be more willing to accommodate these demands to attend work-related calls at odd hours.
As regulation around H-1B and similar work visas tighten, Indian outsourcers are trying to hire people of Indian origin who have green cards or are American citizens. I know from a handful of acquaintances that these employees are paid well - hence my thesis that it really isn't about the money.
Employing a few citizens/green card holders, doesn't mean it's not about money - it just to satisfy regulations, so you can keep getting h1b's approved.
Most of outsourcing companies now moved to having small offices in US. 5%-10% are employed in US, while the rest is outsources, such models with few employees onsite just helps to outsource more.
The number of people these companies have in US is a minuscule fraction of their total worldwide employees (Infosys employs 200K, TCS 380K). The salary of H-1Bs in US is also a minuscule fraction of their revenue (Infosys makes 10B annually, TCS 17B).
> 5%-10% are employed in US, while the rest is outsources, such models with few employees onsite just helps to outsource more.
My point, precisely. These companies would not mind paying good salaries to their employees on H-1B, or hire local employees, if they can keep the outsourcing business humming along.
> Employing a few citizens/green card holders, doesn't mean it's not about money
Well, it is about the money as in every business is about that. But these companies hire H-1Bs not to save money primarily. It is not clear to me from your comment wether you are agreeing or disagreeing with that.
> 5%-10% are employed in US, while the rest is outsources, such models with few employees onsite just helps to outsource more.
My point, precisely. These companies would not mind paying good salaries to their employees on H-1B, or hire local employees, if they can keep the outsourcing business humming along.
> Employing a few citizens/green card holders, doesn't mean it's not about money
Well, it is about the money as in every business is about that. But these companies hire H-1Bs not to save money primarily. It is not clear to me from your comment wether you are agreeing or disagreeing with that.
Hiring Green card holders or Indian's of American citizenship is a different matter. They aren't gonna work for the salary of an Indian citizen on H1B. The equation changes there.
I agree, there could be a cultural angle. But I don't think that is the main reason.
I agree, there could be a cultural angle. But I don't think that is the main reason.
> Hiring Green card holders or Indian's of American citizenship is a different matter. They aren't gonna work for the salary of an Indian citizen on H1B. The equation changes there.
The savings from the salaries of few US employees does not change "the equation", as you put it, for global outsourcing companies - Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, IBM GS, Capgemini, Accenture etc - who make tens of billions per year, and employ hundreds of thousand people.
The savings from the salaries of few US employees does not change "the equation", as you put it, for global outsourcing companies - Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, IBM GS, Capgemini, Accenture etc - who make tens of billions per year, and employ hundreds of thousand people.
In TCS, is the salary scale same for Indians on H1B and American Citizens? (Assuming they are equally qualified/competent)
I don't know. From anecdotal reports I have heard, they don't hire from both classes of people for equivalent positions.
This is pretty bad for Indian IT Industry. I would want companies like Flipkart etc. to represent the tech industry in India rather than TCS and Infosys.
Having said this, the American companies are equally at fault to exploit the system. There are a lot of complicit parties to this dysfunctional system.
Having said this, the American companies are equally at fault to exploit the system. There are a lot of complicit parties to this dysfunctional system.
By companies like Flipkart, do you mean companies which have never turned a profit and are unlikely to do so anytime soon?
Yes, just like all the other US tech startups/companies
Like Amazon? Or Uber? Or many others?
Nepotism runs strong in India. Nearly 85% of the country’s businesses are family-run, and Bollywood is dominated by just a few families. Even job-seekers with impressive resumes have to fall back on personal connections to find work.
https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indi...
https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indi...
Strongly reminds me of another country in central Europe. And not incidentally, that country is one of the poorest and least developed EU countries, where young qualified people are emigrating in droves.
Nepotism is an extremely destructive toxin to a country and her people.
Nepotism is an extremely destructive toxin to a country and her people.
I had a short TCS contract once. I remember the background on my badge was green to indicate I was a US citizen. It was for an ITAR regulated project, so we were only allowed to talk about it with other US citizens. It was also just a software licensing server, which shows just how stupid ITAR is.
And 5 technical people, 2 projects managers and 6 digits to install a server that could be done in 30min by someone in house?
There was a thread on reddit a little while back where a guy who claimed to be an American working for Infosys said he was often subjected to discriminatory talk, out in the open, by the majority of his coworkers. As in they would openly discuss such things in meetings.
It's human nature to group up by any perceivable similarity and view oneself as superior to those who are dissimilar. Add in the fact that these companies have a much higher margin with non-American employees and it's not hard to see the plaintiff's claims as plausible.
It's human nature to group up by any perceivable similarity and view oneself as superior to those who are dissimilar. Add in the fact that these companies have a much higher margin with non-American employees and it's not hard to see the plaintiff's claims as plausible.
“It's human nature to group up by any perceivable similarity and view oneself as superior to those who are dissimilar.”
Oh the irony here. On this particular topic, HN is an echo chamber.
Oh the irony here. On this particular topic, HN is an echo chamber.
It’s too late. Been going on for the last 15 years and the ladder is already stacked with nepotism.
Why is the lawsuit against the outsourcing companies? American companies took decision to replace their employees with wokers from outsourcing firms. Companies like TCS and Infosys provide a service at a cost. They don't and can't dictate American firms to fire their people and use it's service.
> TCS, Asia’s largest software maker,
I'm wondering if that's a fact or just part of the news article.
I'm wondering if that's a fact or just part of the news article.
From a headcount and revenue perspective, it's true.
OK, thank you for the enlightenment :)
Simple rule: At least 50% of your domestic workers need to be citizens or green card holders.
Why should a company be forced to hire subpar employees? If jobs are the issue then we can just have a jobs program run by the government. Let's let businesses do what they're good at.
Unless the visa cap changes, we should just give visas to the 65k most highly paid workers. If you're in those top 65k then the US probably really needs you. Don't tie the visa to a particular employer and give people time to find a new job.
Location and industry are irrelevant.
If you're providing enough value to a company that they're willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're in San Francisco or Detroit.
If you're providing enough value that a company is willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're a manager, a software developer, or a sales person.
If nobody is willing to pay you that much then the market has spoken. We can have other visa programs for artists and other people whose work might not be as valuable.
Unless the visa cap changes, we should just give visas to the 65k most highly paid workers. If you're in those top 65k then the US probably really needs you. Don't tie the visa to a particular employer and give people time to find a new job.
Location and industry are irrelevant.
If you're providing enough value to a company that they're willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're in San Francisco or Detroit.
If you're providing enough value that a company is willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're a manager, a software developer, or a sales person.
If nobody is willing to pay you that much then the market has spoken. We can have other visa programs for artists and other people whose work might not be as valuable.
Selecting highest paid H1Bs is actually not a good idea. Assume you ar doing startup for 3D printer and you found this genius young guy in UK who knows how to write firmwares for it. Being a startup you can't pay a lot of base salary and this is a rare skill to find good people in this area. Even though talent is right in front of you which can make or break your startup, your hands will be tied up by the law. Hope you get the idea... Sorting applications by pay will mean that only top 5-10 companies will benefit from global pool of talent and that would put their competitors even further out from competing.
Isn't price the signal the market uses to tell what is more valuable? If another company is offering more for their candidate than your startup, then that means the other candidate has more value to the countries economy. If you aren't going by price and are going to pick by some nebulous value, like innovation, when it comes to visas then the government is going to be picking and choosing winners.
I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit as I am not against government intervention, but it's a question that needs to be asked and answered
I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit as I am not against government intervention, but it's a question that needs to be asked and answered
I don't think the top 65k salaries are necessarily going to the top 5-10 companies. I work for a very small company outside of the SF/SV bubble and our pay is much more than the top H1B companies. We don't sponsor new H1Bs because recruiting is expensive for us and we can't really afford to have candidates rejected by the random lottery.
Any system is going to have winners and losers. As I said above, my company can't sponsor new H1Bs under the current regime. I suspect that your startup example can't take that gamble either.
Finally, there are always workarounds. Your hypothetical startup could hire the expert as a remote employee or if they're a true expert then other visas are available to them.
Any system is going to have winners and losers. As I said above, my company can't sponsor new H1Bs under the current regime. I suspect that your startup example can't take that gamble either.
Finally, there are always workarounds. Your hypothetical startup could hire the expert as a remote employee or if they're a true expert then other visas are available to them.
Or, just pass HR 392, which will lift country caps for green cards. That ends the endless green card wait, and people get job mobility.
I disagree.
Simple rule: Don’t allow visas for client projects. If companies need people let them hire directly at market rates.
It’s weird that you work with organization A and your paycheck comes from organization B.
Simple rule: Don’t allow visas for client projects. If companies need people let them hire directly at market rates.
It’s weird that you work with organization A and your paycheck comes from organization B.
It still boils down to cost. Recruitment and retention costs money. There are plenty of companies out there whose sole business is managing a rolodex of freelancers and sponsoring visas where necessary. They wouldn't exist if companies wanted to do this themselves.
Make that 75%..... Sort by the highest salaries, give the visa to the actual employee so they are not tied to a employer..etc...
Little things that can make the program better, and avoid the current abuse from some the bodyshops, and make it work for actual real talent/great engineers
Little things that can make the program better, and avoid the current abuse from some the bodyshops, and make it work for actual real talent/great engineers
won't you want to factor by cost of living/geography/state taxes etc? 100k in Austin is very different from 100k in SF. It is quite hard to come up with an actual mathematical formula that can be used. I can sympathize with the law makers who are in charge of actually coming up with a concrete real formula.
Make is simple... Who ever pays the most money gets the H1B. That would force companies to decide if they really need that foreign worker over a US Citizen. If they do because the person is an expert in their field they will pony up the money for the visa.
Before we do that we need a visa to keep the kids we're educating in schools here in the country after they get their bachelor's or master's degrees.
Right now to go to work full time they have to get an H1B, which means they'll get screwed over if it becomes a matter of who pays the most.
The US loses if we educate kids on things, and then they move back to whatever country they came from. I mean, it's good for the country they go back to, but if we're looking at this in a self-interested "Good of the US" standpoint (Which we must be, if we're having this discussion at all), we want to keep them here.
Right now to go to work full time they have to get an H1B, which means they'll get screwed over if it becomes a matter of who pays the most.
The US loses if we educate kids on things, and then they move back to whatever country they came from. I mean, it's good for the country they go back to, but if we're looking at this in a self-interested "Good of the US" standpoint (Which we must be, if we're having this discussion at all), we want to keep them here.
I take the point but why?
Oversees students are a revenue stream for universities as they can charge more and subsidise locals or pay the hug wages bursars get.
And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
Oversees students are a revenue stream for universities as they can charge more and subsidise locals or pay the hug wages bursars get.
And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
>I take the point but why?
Because we are spending resources teaching them things, and not reaping the real reward of that effort. Being attractive to the best and brightest is a way to keep innovation and progress going.
>And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
Is it fair for them to be forced to live someplace with a lower quality of life just because they were born there? To deal with the lack of infrastructure? etc. If they feel a moral obligation to go back to their home and try to improve that, that's great for them - but it shouldn't be an obligation we've forced upon them because we decided that immigrants are icky and all we want from them is their money for 4-6 years.
There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't make it easy for students educated in the US to stay in the US, especially if they work in STEM or any other research heavy field.
Because we are spending resources teaching them things, and not reaping the real reward of that effort. Being attractive to the best and brightest is a way to keep innovation and progress going.
>And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
Is it fair for them to be forced to live someplace with a lower quality of life just because they were born there? To deal with the lack of infrastructure? etc. If they feel a moral obligation to go back to their home and try to improve that, that's great for them - but it shouldn't be an obligation we've forced upon them because we decided that immigrants are icky and all we want from them is their money for 4-6 years.
There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't make it easy for students educated in the US to stay in the US, especially if they work in STEM or any other research heavy field.
Yeah I have been waiting for green card for 15 years. US Masters degree in CS from top-10 university, 6 publications, 100+ citations. Senior staff engineer in top valley company for 6 years, got multiple awards/always top performer. Then started own company(multi-million$ revenue) and created ~10 high-paying jobs in the valley.
With the new proposed H1 changes, I will have to leave since H1 extensions are being revoked. Not that I mind, getting bored of the valley - Europe is definitely better in terms of diversity. Also I have seen that the advantage of being physically in the valley is no longer what it was. Everything happens remotely - yes even sales.
Perfect. The best case outcome for your proposed solution is a reduction of 1% in US unemployment rate. (65k H1b/year vs 6.6million unemployed in the US)
Have to start somewhere and go from there. At least it would be a start; it could be refined over time.
Got it. So if you were given the job to fix US unemployment of 6.6 million(likely more since this is just reported numbers), you would begin by focusing on the 1% bucket and then continue to refine the solution within that bucket.
I would at least fix that bucket rather than endlessly discussing hypothetical fixes and get nothing done. Perhaps I would gain some insights on how to fix the rest, too.
A one-size-fits-all solution might very well not exist.
A one-size-fits-all solution might very well not exist.
Well, arguably the total number of working H-1B visas (including extensions while waiting for a green card) (and working H-4 dependents) is the more relevant metric.
That number is not tracked directly, but it's about a million or so, all at significantly higher wages than the median US personal income of $31,099/y.
https://qz.com/949589/the-h-1b-visa-cap-tells-you-very-littl...
That number is not tracked directly, but it's about a million or so, all at significantly higher wages than the median US personal income of $31,099/y.
https://qz.com/949589/the-h-1b-visa-cap-tells-you-very-littl...
Companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple have thousands of job openings and are desperate to hire more talent. They will happily interview anyone(from US, India, China, heck Syria) if the person is qualified. So this is just xenophobia(surprising to see such thinking in comments here on HN). The effect though is that top valley companies have already instituted a policy to stop hiring fresh-grad H1bs to avoid risk.
While so far, places like silicon valley have been unique in being centers of innovation, this will change. Till just a couple decades ago, you literally had to be physically in the office to work on a database server etc. Within a generation or so, the advantage of physically being in silicon valley will be immaterial.
While so far, places like silicon valley have been unique in being centers of innovation, this will change. Till just a couple decades ago, you literally had to be physically in the office to work on a database server etc. Within a generation or so, the advantage of physically being in silicon valley will be immaterial.
Sorry, but there’s a massive difference between when Apple, Google etc hires an H1-B and when someone like TCS does. Very different jobs and very different reasons for using the visa.
Google, Microsoft, Apple aren’t Indian body shops. Not many of us think the former are abusing H1Bs like the latter.
In that case the solution would have been simple - just ban the top-10 in this list that are in consulting: https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2017-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.asp...
Unfortunately, this is a political issue. Eq the changes proposed in http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-ho... will affect more than 10% of current employees at Google, Apple, Microsoft. Note - you cannot just fire these 10% employees and replace them with another warm body.
I agree with you that the abuse is being done by a few companies(some of which are Indian - Infosys/TCS, others American - eq IBM/Accenture, French - Capgemini). However, the "solutions" that have already been executed by the current administration are aimed at appeasing the economically disadvantaged section of American society. The reason for rising unemployment is not foreigners stealing American jobs, it is driven by economic disparity and in some ways an artifact of how technology innovation disproportionately benefits the few. Throw out all 100% H1bs and other foreign workers and it will not move the unemployment index at all.
PS: Reflect on the bias underlying your comment re:Indians. If you actually look at the data, you will see the companies abusing the system are not just Indian, but American, French, European as well.
Unfortunately, this is a political issue. Eq the changes proposed in http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-ho... will affect more than 10% of current employees at Google, Apple, Microsoft. Note - you cannot just fire these 10% employees and replace them with another warm body.
I agree with you that the abuse is being done by a few companies(some of which are Indian - Infosys/TCS, others American - eq IBM/Accenture, French - Capgemini). However, the "solutions" that have already been executed by the current administration are aimed at appeasing the economically disadvantaged section of American society. The reason for rising unemployment is not foreigners stealing American jobs, it is driven by economic disparity and in some ways an artifact of how technology innovation disproportionately benefits the few. Throw out all 100% H1bs and other foreign workers and it will not move the unemployment index at all.
PS: Reflect on the bias underlying your comment re:Indians. If you actually look at the data, you will see the companies abusing the system are not just Indian, but American, French, European as well.
Oh I totally agree, and not all Indian companies are body shops. IBM is in my mind at the same level as infosys these days.
Also the total number of unemployed people in US is 6.6 million. The number of H1b visas granted every year is 65000 (that's 2 orders of magnitude). If you were put in charge of solving the unemployment problem of USA, would you focus on the 99% bucket or the 1% bucket? So you would agree that the backlash is driven by xenophobia and not any possible rational or data driven argument.
More like 15%.
Arguably the total number of working H-1B visas (including extensions while waiting for a green card) (and working H-4 dependents) is the more relevant metric.
That number is not tracked directly, but it's about a million or so, all at significantly higher wages than the median US personal income of $31,099/y.
https://qz.com/949589/the-h-1b-visa-cap-tells-you-very-littl...
Arguably the total number of working H-1B visas (including extensions while waiting for a green card) (and working H-4 dependents) is the more relevant metric.
That number is not tracked directly, but it's about a million or so, all at significantly higher wages than the median US personal income of $31,099/y.
https://qz.com/949589/the-h-1b-visa-cap-tells-you-very-littl...
Multiply the yearly grant rate by six and you get abiutnthe total number of H1Bs, so not quite a million.
But regardless, it’s not like all unemployed are competing with body shoppers, while the HN crowd probablybisnt either.
But regardless, it’s not like all unemployed are competing with body shoppers, while the HN crowd probablybisnt either.
First of all, the annual number of H1Bs is over 85000: there are 65K general H1Bs, 20K for people who got Master's degree in the US and uncapped number for non-profits and other exempt orgs. And non-profit is not necessarily a shelter for orphaned kittens, NFL is one, for example.
Secondly - H1B can be extended indefinitely while the AOS process is pending, this is in the news right now since Trump's admin announced they are looking into ways to prevent this. The same news are saying over a million H1Bs holders will be affected if the admin succeeds.
Secondly - H1B can be extended indefinitely while the AOS process is pending, this is in the news right now since Trump's admin announced they are looking into ways to prevent this. The same news are saying over a million H1Bs holders will be affected if the admin succeeds.
Yeah it's different non intersecting sets. Also, if you add all the jobs created by companies started by H1bs, it's definitely more than a million.
Not many of us are against H1Bs in general, but it is easy to dislike the body shops because they don’t add much to the economy (not creating jobs).
Companies like Infosys, TCS, Accenture, Capgemini provide backoffice services for many Western business at a lower price point than what they could do themselves. That adds much to the economy.
The real leeches in this system are the consulting/placement shops.
The real leeches in this system are the consulting/placement shops.
Sure, it isn’t binary. Infosys is a good example of a mixture.
And xenophobia is ok - it is a deep human flaw and an artifact of evolution and resource constraints. As smart logical people we should be conscious of our xenophobic biases. Not being aware of that is what leads to things like 1930s Germany.
I've been in the US since 2008, and am still waiting for my green card because, well, I'm from India and on EB2. I wonder (perhaps due to my not understanding some aspect of all of this) why there isn't a distinction between H1Bs sponsored by companies that take on outsourced work and others. The Microsofts and Googles aren't the ones meeting out "sweatshop" treatment to its employees. Couldn't this problem be trivially solved by either denying or having a limit on the ability to sponsor H1B visas only for companies that take on outsourced work, or is "outsourced work" not a well defined thing?
"TCS argued Buchanan ... didn’t attend any of the town hall meetings he was invited to during the Edison transition to learn about open positions with TCS and how to apply for them -- and he didn’t apply for a specific job"
I have no experience whatsoever with TCS, so I have no idea if there's any merit to these accusations. But guy-at-job-fair-was-not-nice-to-me hardly makes for a compelling discrimination argument. I've heard far worse stories from women and people-of-color interviewing at most American companies.