emc/h1-b

[peterman at eecs.tufts.edu (Charles Peterman)]

Forget quota's, forget percentages, open up the possibility of litigation,
mire it in bureaucracy, and watch the enthusiasm for H1-B's vanish.  Make
it so that an unemployed individual can sue for 5 x wages lost (based on
industry local average for position/duties) against an employer if they
can prove any of the following

a. That the position was not offered to US workers via a public outlet for
at least a 2 month period.
b. That they were considered as a candidate and were qualified for
   the position than the H1-B candiate who has taken the position. (The
   employer must establish ground for rejection)
c. The H1-B candidate was brought over for a position equivalent to one
   that existed prior to a reduction in force.
d. The H1-B's position did not exist prior to his/her arrival.


Every H1-B they hire, they  effectively must prove that no equally
qualified professionals are available via known local and national hiring
pools.   Period, not quota's, no falsifiable percentages.  Unemployment
doesn't measure underemployment. The qualifications for the position must
be:

a.  established at the time the position is offered.
b.  be submitted to the Department of Employee Training or
    equivalent in that state, so they can farm it out.
c.  based on criteria that is achieveable within the US.
d.  wage insensitive.

Translated, being a graduate of Technical
College of Calcutta cannot be a necessary qualification, and saying there
are no qualified candidates because an employer is not willing to pay
_market_ rate is not an excuse.

Employers go for H1-B/L1's because they can get them cheap, easy to
manipulate, and easy to get rid of.  Mire them in the same red-tape mess
that manipulating a citizen requires and you will see a quick drop in
new H1-B's.


The chance of us out-lobbying Sun, HP, Microsoft, etc is slim to none.

-Charles

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Richard Strano wrote:

> Some friends of mine are thinking about trying to draft
> legislation which would prohibet H1Bs unless unemployment goes below 4%.
> How does that sound?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin at blu.org [mailto:discuss-admin at blu.org]On Behalf Of
> dan moylan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:42 PM
> To: boston linux and unix
> Subject: re: emc/h1-b
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Joseph Vincent wrote:
> >> I was speaking with a friend of mine the other day who
> >> was telling me about EMC . . .
>
> josephc at etards.net writes
> > I'm not sure what your getting at.
>
> why not?  it's pretty straighforward.
>
>    - he's out of work
>    - many of his friends are also
>    - emc is hiring h1-b's, ostensibly because none of the
>      locals is qualified
>
> if you presume not to undestand, you are being deliberately
> obtuse.
>
> > Are you implying that someone else is more deserved of
> > being out of work than you?
>
> a gratutitously nasty comment, obviously not what he was
> saying, and unworthy of this mailing list.  besides, this
> was all thoroughly hashed out days ago.
>
> dan
>
> j. daniel moylan
> 84 harvard ave #2
> brookline, ma 02446-6202
> 617-232-2360 (tel)
> 810-454-1823 (fax)
> jdm at moylan.info
> moylan.info
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>