←back to thread

1245 points mriguy | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.409s | 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 #
jltsiren ◴[] No.45306413[source]
That's pretty common in Europe. Temporary work permits can be valid either for a specific job or a specific industry. In the latter case, as long as you can find a job that meets the requirements in a reasonable time, you can quit and stay in the country.

But those work permits mostly concern the individual and the government. The employer is not as much sponsoring them as providing evidence.

replies(2): >>45306547 #>>45311032 #
alde ◴[] No.45306547[source]
Really? Most if not all EU work permits, especially highly-qualified ones are tied to an employer for at least the first 2+ years. If you get fired you have up to 3 months to find another employer who is willing to take over your residence permit.
replies(3): >>45306761 #>>45306763 #>>45311287 #
darnir ◴[] No.45306763[source]
Uhh. No. That's a common misconception held by people that don't actually read their T&Cs. Your worth authorization is tied to "a" employer for the first two years. The employee is completely free to quit and enter into a contract with another employer. All you have to do is go get the name of the employer updated. It's just a formality and nothing else.

Yes, you have three months to find a new job if you're fired, but it's Europe, you most likely got at least a 3 month notice as well.

replies(2): >>45307019 #>>45308962 #
1. alde ◴[] No.45308962[source]
You are arguing about semantics of residence permit vs work authorization which is not the core of the issue. If you get fired and don’t find a new employer then you leave in 3 months.

Also, it is definitely not just a formality to change employers. For example, on a blue card the new employer must prove to the ministry that they couldn’t find anyone local or EU to fill this position aka “Labour Market Test”. The position needs to be registered in a special gov database to prove that, etc, etc.

replies(1): >>45309731 #
2. jltsiren ◴[] No.45309731[source]
The requirements are far from uniform, because each member state sets its own policy. For example, Finland requires the labor market test from ordinary employees but not from those with a Blue Card or those applying for a specialist permit (similar to the Blue Card).