Talk:H-1B visa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use for out-sourcing

Outsourcing firms, many based in India, are major users of H-1B visas. The out-sourcing firm contracts with an employer, such as Disney, to perform technical services. Disney then closes down its in-house department and lays off its employees. The outsourcing firm, using lower-paid immigrants with H-1B visas, then performs the work.

This well-sourced information was recently removed from a prominent location in the article and buried in the "criticism" section. It is clear from the source that much of the use of the visa is in this manner. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First, cluttering the article isn't a good thing. This belongs in the criticism section. Second, it isn't NPOV. The source does not say that the people the outsourcing company uses are "lower-paid." jfeise (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you having trouble accessing the article? Adding highly significant information is not "cluttering the article." Including all notable points of view is NPOV, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality. In this case the information is about a corporation that owns a television network and in published in the paper of record in the United States. As to lower paid, perhaps not in those exact words, but it is unlikely that a firm would contract for outsourcing at higher cost than what it costs them in-house. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, but you seem to have trouble reading it. It doesn't say what you claims it says. And it belongs in the criticism section. There are references to other articles about other big corporations that have done questionable things wrt the H1. And speculation about what is or what is not likely doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Put it on your own blog. jfeise (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And it is strange that if you are an admin, as you claim on your talk page, I have to point you to WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. You really should know that. jfeise (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the policies you are citing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of H-1B workers

As editing is impossible in the article itself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Department of Labor workers with a H-1B visa may be used to replace American workers. There are federal guidelines for the use of H-1B workers: they are intended to be issued to foreign workers with advanced skills if American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use should not “adversely affect the wages and working conditions” of American workers. In addition to corporations such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google who hire H-1B workers for jobs they have difficulty filling, corporations such as The Walt Disney Company use outsourcing firms, many based in India but with U.S. subsidiaries, who are major users of H-1B visa workers. The corporation contracts for technical services with the out-sourcing firm. The corporation then closes down its in-house department and lays off its employees. According to Ronil Hira, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Howard University, the outsourcing firm, using lower-paid immigrants with H-1B visas, then performs the work. This is possible because existing federal regulations have no enforceable requirement that a search be made for American workers or that newly hired workers' skills, wages, or working conditions be comparable to the displaced American workers; thus, displaced American workers may be required to train inexperienced, unskilled immigrant workers who are displacing them. By bringing in a new company, the outsourcing firm, the company laying off the workers is able to truthfully say that it is another company, the outsourcing firm, not they, who is hiring the cheaper H-1B workers.

"Edison relies on a loophole to skate around rules forbidding the use of cheap H-1B labor to replace existing domestic employees. Technically, Edison isn't the H-1B employer; Tata and Infosys are. This sleight of hand allows Edison to say, as it told The Times, that it is "not hiring H-1B visa workers to replace displaced employees."

[1][2]

“ Disney is the first high-profile employer — one that made its name by waving the flag and portraying itself as an integral part of the American fabric — to be outed. Dallas Morning News ”

That's the point! User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The other NYT's article http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/senator-bill-nelson-seeks-inquiry-into-disney-world-immigrant-hiring.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

“ The article drew an unusually strong response from readers, who posted more than 2,000 comments online. ”

1. Ron Hira is a well-known anti-H1 person. Thanks for showing that you are not adhering to WP:NPOV. 2. "they are intended to be issued to foreign workers with advanced skills if American workers with those skills cannot be found" is simply not true. Please read the laws related to the H-1B. jfeise (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is the loopholes in the law that are being exploited. That is the information that is being added. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus his point of view is notable and should be included in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And it is, in the criticism section. jfeise (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Abusing the talk page for furthering your anti-H1 agenda, I see. Adding known anti-H1 articles to an entry instead of posting a new entry. You are only showing your bias. What a shame that a Wikipedia admin violates Wikipedia rules so blatantly. There are tons more pro-H1 articles, but you of course don't reference them because you have an anti-H1 agenda. QED. jfeise (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is repeated removal of well-sourced material while simultaneously quoting policy which, if read carefully and understood, supports inclusion of the material which inspired my interest.

Sorry, but due to repeated removal of this well-sourced relevant material from the article, it was impossible to edit there. I'm not quite sure what form this material should take, but am collecting material here. You are welcome to try to use the material in an appropriate way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that the H-1B has been un-teathered from amnesty, Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the press is now covering the topic, I suggest that the article be split into H-1B visa and H-1B visa abuse. There are numerous convictions (involving kickbacks for placement) and actions against H-1B employers, potential H-1B workers should have a resource to verify that they won't be working for a crook and be benched on arrival. As far as I'm concerned, if the "consultant loophole" for Disney, SoCal Edison and others are notable to have a series of articles in the New York Times and LA times, it is notable enough for Wikipedia. So real the question is, which article does it belong in? 009o9 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

From my talk page User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to H-1B visa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeise (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jfeise. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to H-1B visa seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as H-1B visa are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to constant removal of edits it was impossible to edit the article. Sorry. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The normal way is to seek consensus, and not just post the same biased stuff on the talk page. A Wikipedia Admin should know that. jfeise (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. When will you begin discussing the issues? rather than simply reverting. For example, what does our neutral point of view policy require with respect to notable points of view. Not deletion, but inclusion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop misrepresenting what I did. I moved your changes to the criticism section where they belong. It was you who then went on a rampage. jfeise (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Disney is a big deal. So is a bi-partisan congressional request for an investigation. Even an article in The New York Times is a big deal. Burying in a "criticism" section is not due weight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a big deal. This kind of stuff has happened before with other high-profile companies, e.g., MS, Intel, and that is all in the criticism section. It belongs in the criticism section. jfeise (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is something that happens only rarely, is not systemic to the H1, and because of that doesn't justify an elevated mentioning. If it did, then all the other situations, the huge majority of situations, where the H-1B is used as intended would also have to be mentioned at the same level. The way you added it made the whole article appear anti-H1, i.e., a specific POV. I think that was the wrong way to go about it. This belongs in the criticism section. jfeise (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you will read Wikipedia:NPOV carefully, it advises against a criticism section. Here's a question: What are H-1B visas used for and by who? The research I've done today shows that a substantial fraction is used for outsourcing rather than to meet labor shortages in skilled occupations. Not only does it not belong buried in a confusing criticism section, it probably belongs in the lede. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your research is rather flawed. The abuses are small. The majority of H-1Bs are to fill positions in skilled occupations. You just don't read about it much because that's not news. So, you see the few abuses, and falsely conclude that it is widespread. It isn't, as anybody who actually watches the space can tell you. You fell for the reporting bias. There are provisions in the laws to prevent salary dumping. That alone makes outsourcing rather useless, unless it is outsourcing to a foreign country. I suggest you do real research about the H1 instead of just blindly believing the misrepresentations from the anti-H1 crowd. jfeise (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

My research shows that the NYT's article was ground breaking, see this link. It WAS "not news" NOW it is. The Department of Labor says, no, there is nothing in the laws. At Southern California Edison the firm saved about 40% on wages by outsourcing. There is no crowd, more a flash mob. The Dallas Morning News' and The New York Times agree about, basically, nothing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

CIS is yet another anti-immigration outfit, as is John Miano. You really need to know the background of the outlets reporting things. There is lots of misrepresentation. The anti-H1 crowd is indeed very vocal, and it can amount to a flash mob. There is of course nothing in any law about outsourcing. But there is a lot in the H1 laws about wages. People on H1 need to get paid the prevailing wages, for example. See this link, and 20 CFR. Articles like the NYT article kind of appeal to emotions, but are short on actual facts. If there was real evidence of H1 violations, CIS etc. could just file a complaint with DOL. But they don't have anything, and just try to manipulate public opinion with emotional stories. jfeise (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times' is generally considered a reliable source. Combined with the other sources, there are good sources for much of this information; more than enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The displaced employees cannot go to the DOL as per the terms of their severance agreements, CIS cannot go to the DOL because they don't have standing "Labor Department won't investigate alleged Edison H-1B visa abuses," The Los Angeles Times - 009o9 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Has anybody ever seen the NYT run an article about their comment section response on another article? I can't recall any. This topic deserves WP:DUE, this is obviously a significant viewpoint. "Disney Layoffs and Immigrant Replacements Draw Deluge of Comments," The New York Times - 009o9 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

“ Ms. Preston focused on Disney because it was one of the most recent cases in which tech workers had been laid off and forced to train replacements. “Disney is the ultimate American company,” she said. “This is a company that inhabits our childhoods.” ”

User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As to weight, "A few readers disagreed, and sought to explain the corporate motivations behind the layoffs." That can certainly be included. Stockholders are not interested in how "good" a company is if there are no dividends. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Although "Joe Smith from Chicago said, in a comment recommended by more than 2,400 readers, “As soon as I log off here I am selling my stock.” User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dynamite

"StephenHester San Francisco, CA 6 hours ago The issue is the misuse of H1B's by outsourcing companies like Infosys (Indian) and the large US corps trying to shave costs-- by and large these folks are used for call center jobs, some techie, most not, which many folks in US can fill easily.

If INS really checked the applications, they would / could reject most of these, but they don't.

In previous lives I brought in several H1Bs -- the application and proof required was substantial -- since then I've discovered the checking process was minimal. Fudging on the applications do carry penalties for the employer, but you need to check them.

The folks I brought in, by the way, were PhD in Physics and Math with years of experience, to pursue algorithm research in security -- people with multiple patents, doing very original work. I could not find equivalent in US, in university or corporate. And I paid them more than US market. They are the kind of folks we want to bring into the US.

Having these folks here enabled me to grow a company and hire additional US folks, in prime jobs, that I would not have been able to do otherwise.

We don't need and we should not provide H1Bs to companies like Infosys. PERIOD!!! They really do nothing for the US economy!!!" User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Another bunch of bomb throwers: "Immigration attorneys from Cohen & Grigsby explains how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants" User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Need to Add a Section on Microsoft

In March 2008, Bill Gates testified before Congress, claiming that the software industry needs more H-1B visas because technology is analogous to the Olympics and America needs the best tech minds. This is, of course, pure baloney used to rationalize replacing American workers with low-cost foreign labor. People such as Gates would have us believe that H-1B workers are superb intellectuals with doctorates, but the reality is that most H-1B workers have just undergraduate training. Hiring cheap foreign labor helps corporations make profits, but the losers are American workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a June 2009 article directly from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer. The Detroit Free Press recently interviewed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who asked him why Microsoft in 2007 built a research and development facility in Canada--over the border in Vancouver--not that far from Microsoft's quarters in Redmond, Wash. Detroit Free Press.

It is obvious that the 2009 numbers are down because of the political ramifications of companies getting visas when they continue to lay off U.S. workers (i.e. Microsoft laying off 5,000 workers, yet continuing to employ Visa Holders). 1

How can a company like Microsoft continue to assert that there is a "shortage of talent" before congressional testimony, yet lay off U.S. citizens right in Redmond, WA, USA?

Why is the reason you claim for the 2009 numbers obvious? Because Bloomberg says so? The more obvious reasons are stepped-up enforcement by DOL and USCIS, and the recession.

And Microsoft did not lay off people until late 2009. The Congressional testimony of Ballmer was in 2007, the testimony of Gates in 2008. Therefore, your assertion is completely ridiculous, and only shows your anti-H1 POV. And in 2009, MS laid off Americans AND foreigners. jfeise (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

This Business Week article from April of 2009 didn't think it was so far fetched or else why would they have included this statement in their article?

Microsoft came under fire in January when it announced it would lay off 5,000 workers while continuing to seek H-1B visas. On the company's first-quarter earnings call on Apr. 23, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said the company wants to add 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs in "higher growth" areas over the next 18 months.

---

Microsoft has admitted that it continues to add people to its payroll while laying people off.

Here is the June 2009 article from Ballmer himself: Detroit Free Press.

---

Stepped up enforcement of H1-B? The only person authorized to investigate fraud is the Secretary of the Dept. of Labor himself?

• DOL 2006-2010 Strategic Plan See page 2

Here it is from DOL themselves:

37802 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 126 / Friday, June 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations:

One such comment suggested that the Department require in-person interviews to address alleged fraud in the program.

In response, the Department is unable to address this comment.

Under the INA, the statute specifies that employers must file attestations with the Secretary and the Secretary must issue a certification within seven (7) days unless the attestation ‘‘is incomplete or obviously inaccurate.’’ See INA § 212(n) and (t); 8 U.S.C. 1182(n) and (t).

---

There is no provision in the law for any enforcement other than the 4 things listed on the application which are simply to "deny the application" for incorrectly filling out the form. Letter to the editor, with references. Here is the LCA application form from the Dept. of labor. It only says you may file complaints, but there is only a provision in the law for one person authorized to investigate them.

---

This very own wikipedia article makes that point:

The law specifically limits the approval process of LCAs to checking for "obvious errors and inaccuracies."[6] The approval process for these employer attestations simply amounts to the checking the form is filled out correctly. The employer is, however, advised of their liability if they are replacing a US worker.

There is even a legal link to the requirements as well as DOL (Dept. of Labor) statements indicating that.

see:

• 8 USC 1182 (n)
• GAO Report
• DOL Strategic Plan 2006-2010. Main one
• DOL Strategic Plan 2006-2001.
• DOL 2006-2010. see page 36.
• GPO.gov No demonstration Required.
• USC section 8. Reference to the law from Cornell

---

• DOL 2006-2010. see page 36.

An E-3 or H-1B1 worker may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker. ...

H-1B nondependent employers are not subject to the conditions, and their H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker.

---

Section F of Form ETA 9035 “Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers,” which can be found on the Department of Labor website,[2] provides the four labor certification conditions: 1) Pay the prevailing wage; 2) Provide working conditions that do not affect the working conditions of similar workers; 3) No strike or lockout within the occupational classification; 4) Post notice of the application to sponsor H-1B workers.

Notably absent are requirements to first recruit American workers and to hire American workers when they are available.

ETA Form 9035 contains a misleading section F-1 which asks whether the employer is “H-1B Dependent” or a “Willful Violator.” Less than one percent of employers of H-1B workers fall into these categories. Even for that one percent, there is option “C” in which even these employers need not recruit Americans as long as they only sponsor “exempt nonimmigrants” – where “exempt” means paid at least $60,000 or holding at least a Master’s degree. 3

Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) recently introduced "The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud & Prevention Act of 2009." They charge that the H-1B program “is plagued with fraud and abuse and is now a vehicle for outsourcing that deprives qualified American workers of their jobs." 5 Durbin said in a statement that the “H-1B visa program should complement the U.S. workforce, not replace it."[ http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2009/db20090423_219068.htm 6]

The reason it is plaqued with fraud and abuse is because there is no provision in the law for enforcement, other than application errors or omissions. This is the reason that Senators Durbin and Grassley have been investigating this and fighting for changes in the law.

Here is a collection of Articles from BusinessWeek listing the issues.

---

First, a company laying off people in one division is unrelated to what happens in another division. You can't shift game developers to work on Windows 7, for example. That would be like using an Electrical Engineer to work on construction projects. Anybody who actually has experience in management knows these things, but of course, most of the H1 critics come from the lower ranks and have not had the experience f actually being responsible for these kinds of things.

If the H-1B workers were not recent graduates with no experience in Windows 7, or any other specific Microsoft product, that would make sense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Second, as far as stepped-up enforcement is concerned, see things like arrests in February 2009 [3] and the January 8, 2010 USCIS memo on employer-employee relationship [4] The latter memo in particular has essentially killed the body-shops, as is evident by the very low numbers of H1 applications this year.jfeise (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As of 2015, experience has demonstrated to outsourcing firms that what little enforcement there was had little practical effect unless spectacular bad luck such as a whistle-blower played a role. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

One of the problems with software development managers and hiring & staffing practices is precisely what you stated. Many managers simply consider software developers "resources" to be shifted around on a schedule or timeline as needed. They believe you can simply "plug-n-play" software development "resources" (aka people) as needed. I am aware of a large worldwide telecommunication company that has publicly said so and was a heavy user of the H1B visa program (via the bodyshops of WiPro, InfoSys, and Tata Systems (TCS)).

I know of people who have gone from Government industry, to embedded systems development, to health care industry, to telecommunications industry in a matter of 2-3 years time. They are hired and laid off from each of them and are hired without any question as to whether they can do the work well.

A highly-skilled software engineer would be able to do so without problem if given the chance. I believe that most software management underestimates, under appreciates, or simply ignores the amount of "ramp up time" and business knowledge that is required to perform the work of a highly complex software system. In other words, while going from game developers to Windows 7 operating system development arguably requires different skillsets, it's not out of the range of possibility that a software engineer would be able to transition from one domain to another, if offered the chance.

Many short-sighted companies have failed to demonstrate any long-term investment or commitment to its employees through training or retention. Ultimately it costs the company in lost business knowledge and failed IT systems. However, many companies appear to be only looking at "the bottom line" in terms of how much it pays it's employees per hour, not the end product or the "total cost of ownership" of an IT system in terms of business knowledge and employee investment. I know of two such telecommunication companies that have failed miserably in this hybrid "off-shore" / outsource business model to the extent that they have had to backpedal due to the results of class-action lawsuits by their shareholders and lost business and productivity and IT system failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom888 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

If companies are shortsighted is certainly not for you to decide. It also is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. You can have your opinions about if companies are shortsighted or not, but such opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article. Complain about shortsightedness of companies on Slashdot...

Further, if you "know" about some companies who have failed in implementing some outsourcing strategy is also irrelevant in the context of the H-1B. The H-1B has nothing at all to do with management failures. I know about companies who failed because they produced overpriced cars with American workers, and dismal quality... So, products made by Americans are not automatically better just because they are made by Americans. And in particular, the computer industry exists worldwide. Where do you think a large part of the development for the Linux OS and other Open Source software is done? Here's a hint: Not in the US. Heck, even Mr. Torvalds, the inventor of Linux, came to the US on an H-1B.jfeise (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet you think YOUR opinion should have a place, even a veto. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Actually, it is for the public to decide. Hint: industry isn't even interviewing qualified citizens. It's not about qualified. It's about compatriot hiring of captive and too often low wage also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.18 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And the public spoke, by the thousands, in their comments to the recent NYT's article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Misc: Propaganda?

I wonder if the 3 links lately [added] anonymously really bear enough information to be present on the page. This looks more like propaganda to me.

This link no longer leads to the material added, presumably in January 2006 User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC) They were external links:

• H-1B Special coverage from computerworld.com
• US Citizenship and Immigration Services site on H-1B visa Program
• List of the top employers in the US.. A bit dated but still an interesting list
• US Department of Labor Foreign Labor Database
• US Department of State information on H-1B visa
• US GAO Report on H-1B Problems, PDF format
• H-1B worker wins case
• H-1B information for doctors
• [http://www.immitips.com ImmiTips: H-1B information for all]

Anti-H-1B websites

• ZaZona
• Rescue American Jobs
• H-1B Info
• Norman Matloff
• H1B Visa Scams
• USMLE, J1, H1B and Foreign Medical Graduates

http://www.geocities.com/dbdoggle is particularly dreadful -- its absurd premise is that bussiness's goal is to keep workers (especially white males over 30) unproductive and unemployed, so that they can use these shell companies to collect government grants. http://www.geocities.com/dbdoggle/?200619#nasa is particularly amusing. 71.139.55.50 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Old geocities blog, now gone. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Visa Statistics related to Outsourcing Firms

• Crackdown on Indian Outsourcing Firms

Link, to Yahoo news, is long gone. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a crackdown. The Indian firms have clearly explained that they earlier preferred Business visa's for their consultants to travel to the USA for knowledge transfer. However, the American embassy in India advised the Indian firms to use H1B so that USA may benefit from the tax payed by these workers.

BusinessWeek & InformationWeek have articles on this.

The articles are 3 years old. Lots of things have changed since then, in particular, improved enforcement of the H-1B rules, and, on Jan. 8, 2010, a policy memo from USCIS about the employer-employee relationship requirement for the H-1B. This memo may spell the end of the "H-1B bodyshop." jfeise (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Talent search v. recent grads

From here:

“ Orkut Buyukkokten, a native of Turkey who received a PhD in computer science from Stanford University, joined Google as a software engineer on a temporary visa and later developed its social networking service, now known as Orkut.com. Krishna Bharat, who's originally from India and who earned a PhD in human computer interaction from Georgia Tech, joined Google in 1999 on an H-1B visa and was instrumental in creating Google News, an aggregation service. ”

is different from an outsourcing firm employing thousands of recent grads from Indian schools. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

“ Bock called the situation a "crisis," adding that over the last year Google has not been able to hire 70 promising candidates because of the visa shortage. ”

But that was because all the slots were taken by outsourcers, not because the cap was necessarily too low. (By the way, if only highly talented persons were allowed to immigrate, there would be no sense in a cap, in my opinion. But that is not the case; most immigrants are cheap warm bodies. We have lots of mediocre people of our own, already. ) User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

The H1B article takes a biased view on the H1B visa. It is sad that wiki that should strive to become a platform for all the citizens of the world has been converted into a propoganda medium for jingoists. The articles does not touches on the pain and the plight of H1B workers from India and China who have spent 6 years of their life contributing to the American economy, consider it their home, and now live a life as vagabonds waiting for a green card to come through. The article completely ignores the contribution of the H1B workers as code coolies doing jobs such as code maintenance, automation, localization etc.that American citizens do not want to do. The fact is that it is expensive for an non-American to do undergraduate studies in US and so the percentage is low. Masters and higher studies is typically funded by the college for all the students. If American students do not want to avail of this opportunity then it is their fault and not a fault of H1B workers. On wage depression: the survey quoted does not accounts for Cost to Company which is the real metric that should have been taken and 15% reduction could be easily explained by things such as the lawyer cost and the government charges that are paid to the American government for brining in the worker. The survey ignores the fact that once the H1B worker moves to green card this difference disappears. The criticism of American workers is completely unfounded and based on their fear of competition. They are behaving like cartels of Indian companies before globalization who wanted the rates that they desire for the inferior services they provide.

The notion that American workers provide "inferior services" is unfounded. They chose fields of study where they will not have to compete with cheap labor. Being paid ten times what you would have been paid in your native country should be reward enough. The IT worker laid off, now selling insurance, who once filled the slot you now fill, might agree. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was recently edited to suggest that the locking in of an H-1B visa holder to a particular employer because of green card processing is a thing of the past. The person doing the edit correctly noted that PERM allows for fast labor certification, and AC21 allows a person to switch jobs after the I-485 has been pending for at least 180 days. However, this person neglects to mention that due to priority date retrogression, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules. If those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times will improve in a major way but the person will also lose their favorable priority date. Priority date has become a major issue in employment based green card cases in a way that it previously wasn't. Thus the employee often still remains locked in with a specific employer for an extended period, although the legal specifics as to why have changed a bit. Thus, the neutrality of the recent edit to this page is disputed.

--Dash77 07:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but disagree on the scope. As I understand it, the latest USCIS memo on AC21 implementation and green card portability allows the H1B holder to change jobs once their I140 is approved and I485 is filed but unadjudicated for six months. The only persons ineligible to file I485 in the last few months (as you mentioned) are Indian and Chinese applicants for whom priority dates have retrogressed in the EB2 and EB3 categories. H1B's from other countries are generally unaffected. It's likely that this is only a short term issue as the Senate Judiciary Committee has already voted to take action to address the priority date retrogression for these cases. (see http://www.competeamerica.org/news/alliance_pr/20051020_visashort.html)

(above comment was unsigned, by an IP editor)

• If "CompeteAmerica" (formerly known as American Business for Legal Immigration or ABLI, a lobbying coalition of hi-tech companies that promote expansion of the H-1B visa program) is as reliable with its prognostications about H-1B legislation as it is with the "factual" information on its website, then the issue may in fact be a longer-term issue after all and will need fixing.--Ray921 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed an appallingly opinionated paragraph from the "US policy on maximum duration" section, which effectively insinuated that H-1Bs were third-worlders looking for a shortcut to US permanent residency. Pretty typical paranoia, but extremely non-NPOV. Jmason 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• The removed text had a viewpoint, but a revision may have been preferable to deletion. Does anyone know the percentage of H1-B holders who apply for permanent residency? --Ray921 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the % who apply for PR off hand. One thing to consider - it is not just developing world H-1B holders who apply for PR - those of the developed world do it too. Robert Brockway 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know many persons from Canada, Germany, UK, and other "first world" nations that have used the H-1B as a stepping stone to permanent residence.Offshore1 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you uncomfortable with them. You are definitely concerned as you have taken the trouble of mentioning it.

Structure of uses

Specific references would be required of course, but a week of reading about this shows this structure:

1. Major outsourcing firms who hire recent graduates, from both the U.S. and India, and contract with firms to provide services
2. Firms such as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft who hire talented graduates in significant numbers
3. Small, sometimes corrupt, outsourcing firms
4. Firms and organizations who hire or sponsor unique or specialized talent

The last use is hindered by the rapid taking up of the quota by outsourcers and firms without specific talent needs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Abuse & Corruption Allegations

H1B and L1 visa is a disaster for America.

It is no difference than illigal mexican immigration. There is no check who is qualified or not. DOL and USCIS just blindly issues H-1B and L1 to foreigners without testing their skills and education. Any Indian with fake document can get an H-1B and L1 visa. It is a massive disaster for America. In many cases, companies are replacing highly qualified Americans who have earned a REAL degree from a US university with Indian H1-B's from low quality dipoloma-mills that earned their degree in 6 months! Sure, those displaced Americans find jobs, but many of them are working in fields requiring little or no tech skill as result, such as technical marketings and sales while the skilled work is performed by lower-grader H1-B's who learn on the job and work for 10-20% less. its ridiculus. Congress should ban all Indian Companies in USA who like to hire L1 and H-1B. Any company want to do business in USA must hire US citizens or train US citizens to do the job.

hurrr durrppp perppp durrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.160.59 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 Federal authorities busted a nationwide H-1B Visa Scam. In October 2008, a USCIS report found that the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Feds-Bust-Nationwide-H1B-Visa-Scam

I have seen a Chinese restaurant with an extreme turnover in staff. The workers have perfect teeth, seem very well educated, pretty, and always speak Chinese (except very occasionally slip and speak very fluent and well intoned English). I have assumed that they transfer to another drop after some requirement is met. Here it says they are restricted, however, with an L-1 visa they can switch jobs if the restaurant is say owned by another company ( computer firm, etc). I assume this is a lawyer's paradise. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I've reverted this edit DIFF, which removed informative historical content. The new content borders on legal advice and WP:OR, sole sourced from the University of Chicago, which is unlikely to be an independent source on the matter. The content, if warranted, would be better suited in the Optional Practical Training article. Let's discuss it here. 009o9 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, @User:Vipul does not want to discuss consensus and has reverted twice. @User:Jfeise is active here, any comment? (I updated the link above to the actual Diff rather than the Revision) 009o9 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the latest diff. I count four citations, from three different sources, including one from the USCIS. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "sole sourced from the University of Chicago"? Moreover, the original describes the STEM extension and calls it the cap gap, when the STEM extension and the cap gap are two distinct things; this is fixed in Vipul's edit. Riceissa (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You are misinformed about the Extension and Cap Gap not being one and the same, the extension was "justified" with the "Cap Gap" human interest stories the media was circulating at the time. The rule itself is known as the "H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations" which also covers the STEM extension:

1. Extension of Post Completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) and F-1 Status for Eligible Students under the H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations
2. Looking at the Diff, User:Vipul has added two "Howto" articles from the University of Chicago and a Q&A (howto) doc from USCIS, while eliminating the historical content and the link that is provided to show what educational disciplines are (were) eligible for the 17 month extension.
3. The University of Chicago is not a an independent actor here, they actively recruit (profit from) foreign students and the colleges lobbied Congress for the extension, to sweeten the deal on their expensive tuition.
4. This is an article about H-1B, not a Howto on applying for an OPT extension.

Cheers 009o9 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OPT and "cap-gap" are part of the F-1. Since "cap-gap" is used to bridge the time until an H-1B kicks in, it deserves mentioning here. But OPT and OPT-STEM extension have no relation to the H-1B. That belongs in the F-1 or Optional Practical Training article. jfeise (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

009o9, while the cap gap regulations discuss both the cap gap extension and the OPT-STEM extension, they are still two distinct things. Namely, they are two entirely separate ways of extending the OPT. It just so happens that both the cap gap extension and the OPT-STEM extension are discussed on the same USCIS page, entitled "Cap-Gap Regulations". The article prior to Vipul's edit uses the term "cap gap" as if it were the OPT-STEM extension, without discussing the actual cap gap. What Vipul's edit does is discuss both the cap gap extension and the OPT-STEM extension, using the correct terms. I am fine with jfeise's suggestion to only talk about the cap gap and not the OPT-STEM extension; however in this case, the article should actually discuss the cap gap, not the OPT-STEM extension (disguised as the cap gap). Riceissa (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Riceissa, the Cap-Gap was a minor problem, where OPT work authorization expired before an approved H-1B took effect in October. The STEM extension broadly expanded this concept, extending to two and sometimes three H-1B seasons, but only for STEM graduates. This was justified under the guise of a STEM shortage, in the case that the H-1B applicant did not win the lottery and could continue working under OPT until they had a chance to win the next year's lottery. This is why the extension in contained within and referred to in legal circles as the "H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations". When people go around deleting content, these historical nuances are lost -- the OPT extension IS a Cap-Gap extension.

009o9 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

I've placed a few maintenance tags banners (refimprove etc.) in hope that we can get some improvements where they are needed. I feel that the 2009 WP:OR banner in the heading should be moved to the sections where OR is suspected. I would normally just remove it as a stale tag, but this was/is a controversial subject, especially when the banner was originally placed.

Additionally: The section: "Changes in the cap, number of applications received, and numbers of applications approved vs. visas issued" would probably be more readable in a Wikitable format -- it is even possible that the section is now redundant.

The section "Numbers of applications approved" is covered in two of the tables at the bottom article. The section stale and redundant. I'm going to see if I can untangle the references and delete the section.009o9 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Section Split -- "Criticisms of the program" to new article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed Section H-1B_visa#Criticisms_of_the_program should be split into a new article H-1B visa abuse. The subject is too voluminous for this article and is now extremely well documented (and therefore notable). This article, which is now approaching the 100kb limit WP:SIZESPLIT and needs reorganization, which may be impossible with the contentious topic included. In addition to the "consultant loophole" that major firms use to usurp employee protections in the law and the credential creep phenomena, there are numerous notable abuse (bribery) convictions on high visibility projects, lobbyist groups, trade associations and think-tank commentary (point counter point) references that would be more appropriate outside of an article about the H-1B visa itself. - 009o9 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Approve Hopefully this could declutter this already massive page Dolphinbud (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Approve The current article is a big mess, cluttered and incoherent. This may help fix a lot of the problems with the article. jfeise (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Would leave a POV main article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Fred, that's the point of my proposal, splitting the articles would leave us with non POV facts and data about the H-1B in a more static article and a more dynamic article where abuses could be added chronologically without contention. Removing POV from both sides is the idea for the H-1B visa article, but to make that possible, people need a place to write about the abuses. (At present, we have a completely unreadable and un-addressable mess covering two topics.)

Under the copyright rules, the "Criticisms of the program" section must remain with a description, a Template:Details, and a disambiguation (About) hat-note could also be added to the top of the H-1B visa article. I don't believe that there is anyone involved in this article who is championing abuse of the H-1B visa; however, the lede is missing a statement about original purpose of the H-1B, addressing spot labor shortages, and a point, counter-point about the employer lobby's inability to prove that there is a shortage. Finally, if you want your position (mine too) heard, "H-1B visa abuse" would likely have a search-engine result directly below "H-1B visa" - 009o9 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OpposeJake leone (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC) You can't understand the H-1b visa without first knowing the extent to which loopholes in the program have become the major way the program is being used. H-1b is referred to as the Outsourcing Visa by Officials in the Indian Government. It often seems the most common misunderstanding of the program is that companies that use the program must try to recruit Americans. But the reality is that most H-1b employers are under no such restriction. A fact that is not easy to determine by just reading the law or dry descriptions of the program.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on H-1B visa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=280890
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070107175636/http://memp.pratt.duke.edu:80/downloads/americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf to http://www.memp.pratt.duke.edu/downloads/americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Milton Friedman quotation

find the primary source for this quotation that an H1-B amounts to a subsidy. It doesn't very Friedman to me.

--- Actually it does, given that Friedman was a libertarian. Googling for the quote turns up references to it in publications like Computerworld, but I didn't research far enough to find the origin.

- - - The earliest I found was this ComputerWorld article by Paul Donnelly 2002 July: (updated link location on 9/14/2016) http://www.computerworld.com/article/2576945/it-careers/h-1b-is-just-another-gov-t--subsidy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.185.246 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) http://computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,72848,00.html http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/story/0,10801,72848,00.html

Then Gene Nelson and Frosty Wooldridge referred to it 2003 November: http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1741.shtml and again 2005 April: http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty52.htm

It may have come from a private interview of Friedman by Donnelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

jfeise (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tax status of H-1B employers

Section missing outlining the tax benefits to employer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.185.246 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There are none. Having employees on H-1B doesn't result in any tax benefits to employers. On the contrary, with the fees for H-1B petitions, it actually costs more to hire people on H-1B than what it costs to hire Americans. jfeise (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2017 H-1B employers

I made this table in my sandbox and then I looked at this page and they had a way better table already (but not up to date).

Top 25 H1B Visa Sponsors

#	Company	Employees	Pay
1	Infosys	25,405	$81,705
2	Capgemini	17,479	$93,213
3	Tata Consultancy Services	13,134	$76,099
4	IBM	12,381	$87,378
5	Wipro	10,607	$72,720
6	Accenture	9,479	$81,585
7	Tech Mahindra (Americas)	8,615	$75,879
8	Deloitte Consulting	7,645	$122,667
9	Cognizant Technology Solutions	5,370	$74,628
10	Microsoft	5,029	$129,610
11	Hcl America	4,930	$84,040
12	Google	4,897	$129,997
13	Ernst & Young	4,625	$98,722
14	Ust Global	3,170	$69,819
15	Larsen & Toubro Infotech	3,092	$76,755
16	Amazon	2,622	$121,850
17	Igate Technologies	2,197	$70,209
18	L&T Technology Services	1,853	$69,648
19	Syntel Consulting	1,847	$71,338
20	Jpmorgan Chase	1,765	$111,283
21	Apple	1,660	$141,294
22	Intel	1,647	$107,428
23	Deloitte & Touche	1,646	$75,705
24	Hexaware Technologies	1,634	$72,336
25	Ntt Data	1,253	$94,255

The Labor Condition Application (LCA) data (which MyVisaJobs queries) is from a government source that anybody can edit anonymously, it is not uncommon to find multi-million dollar entries in the data. Although the data is telling concerning the salary delta between outsourcers and legitimate employers (Apple $141k and Igate $70k), a reliable independent source should be provided as a reference. If that reference notes the aforementioned salary delta, the table should have notation that denotes the two business types. 104.174.237.94 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)