←back to thread

1245 points mriguy | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
frogblast ◴[] No.45306280[source]
IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

I think a very high application fee is actually part of a good solution, but is useless by itself.

A flawed proposal:

* Dispense with the 'need to search for a qualified American' which just complicates the process without achieving the stated goal, and includes a ton of legal and bureaucratic expense and time.

* A large application fee paid from the company to the federal government.

* The worker's relocation expenses must also be covered by the company.

* The worker gets a 10 year work authorization on the day of their arrival.

* The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.

The latter bullet is the key one. That's the one that uses market forces to truly enforces this person is being paid above market wages, and is being treated well, at their sponsoring employer. (which in turn means they don't undercut existing labor in the market).

It also means that employers don't really look abroad unless there really is a shortage of existing labor. But when there is a true shortage and you're willing to spend, the door is open to act quickly.

The obvious defect is that it creates an incentive for the employee to pay the federal fee themselves (hidden) plus more for the privilege of getting sponsored, and the company basically being a front for this process. Effectively buying a work authorization for themselves. I'm not sure how to overcome that. Then again, the current system could also suffer that defect (I don't know how common it is).

replies(21): >>45306306 #>>45306308 #>>45306316 #>>45306322 #>>45306337 #>>45306344 #>>45306361 #>>45306370 #>>45306379 #>>45306383 #>>45306387 #>>45306405 #>>45306407 #>>45306465 #>>45306644 #>>45306673 #>>45307004 #>>45308077 #>>45308340 #>>45309828 #>>45310541 #
leakycap ◴[] No.45306308[source]
No company would ever sponsor someone if the last bullet is part of the deal. You're just killing the visa program another way with that wishlist item alone.
replies(11): >>45306368 #>>45306401 #>>45306413 #>>45306505 #>>45306530 #>>45306533 #>>45306875 #>>45307833 #>>45309679 #>>45310371 #>>45311289 #
topkai22 ◴[] No.45306530[source]
If they are using the program as intended they would. They are supposed to be looking for skills that are impossible to find in the US. If they are offering a good deal to the employee then the employee should stay, just like someone with full work authorization would.

If they are just using the program to pay less than they otherwise would for labor that does exist in the us, well, then we have another issue.

I would modify the proposal to include a larger annual fee rather than an application fee, so that the initially sponsoring company isn’t solely bearing the cost. There should also be a floor pay rate for the visa holder, something the 75th or 80th percentile of both the company and of income in the MSA the visa holder is located in.

replies(1): >>45307693 #
1. renewiltord ◴[] No.45307693[source]
All you're doing is having a gold card program but where the immigrant pays the applying company rather than the government. Seems pointless.
replies(1): >>45311887 #
2. delusional ◴[] No.45311887[source]
Why is it pointless? I think thats exactly what the people advocating for H1B for specialized workers want.

I dont know if thats a good idea. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Im also not sure its a bad idea either, it seems useful from an economic perspective. What i know its not is "pointless", it does do something.