←back to thread

391 points JSeymourATL | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
shmatt ◴[] No.42136701[source]
I have to put out a ghost job req and interview every person applying within reason for every green card a direct report is applying for. I have to show there are or aren’t any residents or citizens that can fill the job

The main problem is: even if the interviewee knocks it out of the park, is an amazing engineer, I still am not interested in firing my OPT/h1b team member who can still legally work for 2-3 years. So while I will deny their green card application and not submit it, I also won’t hire the interviewee

replies(31): >>42136752 #>>42136767 #>>42136774 #>>42136780 #>>42136810 #>>42136823 #>>42136839 #>>42136883 #>>42136886 #>>42136915 #>>42136920 #>>42136923 #>>42136962 #>>42137042 #>>42137071 #>>42137140 #>>42137317 #>>42137324 #>>42137482 #>>42137543 #>>42137550 #>>42137609 #>>42137707 #>>42137852 #>>42137859 #>>42137899 #>>42138253 #>>42138557 #>>42138666 #>>42139472 #>>42139846 #
indoordin0saur ◴[] No.42136823[source]
Wait, this isn't clear to me. Are the interviewees citizens? So you're interviewing citizens to prove that there aren't any who can fill your jobs but even when they clearly could fill the job you don't hire them? Seems like the requirement of proving "there are or aren’t any residents or citizens that can fill the job" is going to be near impossible for the government to enforce
replies(10): >>42136851 #>>42136924 #>>42136974 #>>42136988 #>>42137005 #>>42137037 #>>42137305 #>>42137387 #>>42137822 #>>42138048 #
cj ◴[] No.42136924[source]
At the last startup I worked at, our CTO was on a visa.

To satisfy the "no one in the US can fill the CTO role", they took out an advertisement in a San Francisco newspaper classifieds so they had evidence that they attempted to find a US citizen / permanent resident CTO.

Obviously there were no applicants.

replies(3): >>42137163 #>>42137572 #>>42137660 #
dec0dedab0de ◴[] No.42137163[source]
CTO actually makes sense for an h1b though, it’s a high paying job that can depend greatly on the technical and creative skills of the individual and how they mesh with the company.

The problem is when it’s someone pumping out code, or doing tech support for half the cost of the local competition.

replies(1): >>42137349 #
bluefirebrand ◴[] No.42137349[source]
No, this is backwards

CTO is not such an exceptional role that you can convince me that a company couldn't find a single person in America who would be qualified to take it

It's also a highly sought after role, so people would generally be willing to relocate for a role like that

H1Bs are designed to fill labour shortages, where your local labour market is saturated and you are struggling to find local talent or attract talent from further away, so you can import workers

Using a visa designed to fill labour shortages for an executive position like CTO is frankly an abuse of the system

replies(2): >>42137667 #>>42138571 #
returningfory2 ◴[] No.42137667[source]
But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages.

Like if Google is struggling to hire L3 entry level engineers, can't they just offer $1 million/year salary? Then of course they will get the people they want.

To me, the point of H-1B and similar programs isn't "we can't get the individual staff we need". It's rather that at a society-wide level, having more software engineers at an overall lower salary can be more beneficial to the country than fewer engineers at a higher salary. And I feel that the success of Silicon Valley kind of shows this: if we didn't have any immigrants to the US, maybe the salaries would have been higher, but there is simply no chance SV would have reached the scale it has.

replies(4): >>42137718 #>>42137953 #>>42138354 #>>42139837 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.42137718[source]
> It's rather that at a society-wide level, having more software engineers at an overall lower salary can be more beneficial to the country than fewer engineers at a higher salary.

Beneficial to owners of capital in said country. Not so beneficial to non owners of capital (also usually labor sellers) in said country.

replies(1): >>42138203 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.42138203[source]
It's not so binary. Economic growth and prosperity does benefit a broad swath of society.
replies(2): >>42139048 #>>42139655 #
mistrial9 ◴[] No.42139048[source]
btw the actual couch used by Marie Antionette is now on display at the San Francisco Legion of Honor.. a very expensive couch! at least a dozen people must have benefited economically from that couch.
replies(1): >>42139283 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.42139283{3}[source]
They most certainly did! However, that is a pretty tortured comparison if that was the case.

I think I would be harder to make such a cynical zing about the net benefit of allowing 10,000 doctors to immigrate.

replies(1): >>42139383 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.42139383{4}[source]
That’s true, but in reality, the US chains the engineers and doctors with the specter of losing their visa and arduous paperwork over their head so that they are coerced into selling their labor at an even lower price.
replies(1): >>42139611 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.42139611{5}[source]
I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean there is no net benefit. hundreds of thousands of people are paid market wages on H1B visas and many get green cards. On balance, this is good for consumers and citizens.

I feel like people have a gut reaction to injustice and harm where they want to trash the whole system, not realizing that would be an even greater injustice and harm.

It is a counterproductive distraction to real change and improvement. It just scratches the emotional itch of moral outrage and superiority.

replies(3): >>42139781 #>>42139845 #>>42152889 #
1. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.42139845{6}[source]
I do not want to "trash the whole system", but when I see laws crafted specifically and solely to depress labor prices, it is reasonable to get emotional and feel morally superior. Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B?

See also lower minimum wages and separate labor standards for poorer Mexican immigrants in agriculture, not to mention the complete lack of requirement for employers to ensure legal work authorization, and complete lack of consequences for employers that employ people without work authorization.

replies(1): >>42140197 #
2. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.42140197[source]
> Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B?

H1B visas are not restricted to a single employer. The catch is that the new employer is required to demonstrate the new role is valid for H1B work.

This is a control to make sure that H1-B visa holders are not underpaid or doing abusing the system.

It is a genuinely tough problem. You could decouple the H1B visa from the employer position, but then you have people entering for one type of work at market rate, and doing any type of work and undercutting salaries.

The whole employer requirement is an attempt to protect native workers. Letting H1B workers enter decoupled from a job and salary requirement would be much better for employers. They could pay them minimum wage and hire them into any role they want.

Im curious to hear ideas for how it could be structured that is better. Im sure there are options. Maybe the workers themselves could submit the info for change of employment, but I dont know how they would prove the work is at prevailing wage.

replies(1): >>42140832 #
3. ◴[] No.42140832[source]