At a couple of companies I was at, an Indian jobs shop had somehow gotten their mitts into our HR types and we were indundated with candidates who showed up with books like "Learn Java in 12 hours" or "Windows Device Drivers for N00bs" under their arms. Very junior types, without exception. Our interview questions were fed back, and I had to change them a fair amount. Not a problem.
"The guy at XYZZY will ask about hash tables, so..." and I'd ask them questions about something else, like concurrency, to very obvious consternation. Halfway through an interview, one candidate even asked when I was going to ask about hash tables.
"Fine. We can talk about concurrency and hash tables."
There was an undercurrent of expectation. Their handler / manager (the relationship was never really made clear) called me one day and said "We expect you to give a job to several of our people. You keep changing your questions. What is the problem?" And I would explain that I wasn't going to hire someone junior, who we would have to teach how to do engineering, for a senior wage.
Eventually they stopped coming, presumably having found better pastures.
I had a similar experience 7 or 8 years ago, except that I was working for a small company and doing both the recruiting and the interviewing. I would screen a person by phone, and they would pass a basic screen. Then the person would come in and be completely incompetent, openly bringing a basic book in the language that he or she was expected to already know.
After this happened a couple of times I got wise to the strategy. The phone screen was useless. Someone would prompt the person with the right answer. The resume and references also useless, filled with unconfirmable or suspect information.
I gained a little appreciation for what HR professionals have to do and lost a bit of my naivete that people won't try to represent expertise to someone who actually has that expertise.
Indian here and can confirm some of the agencies do this and is not exactly considered ethically/morally wrong,(am mentioning because some reddit Americans seemed to call it cheating).
In either case, I think this coaching for interview questions is not practical strategy in the long-run. It definitely works in the short-run if you play the numbers game and interview enough number of times.
My first thought was: I can't image how anyone could work for a place like that. That HR person should have been fired on the spot.
My tolerance for bullshit this is quite low and luckily I work for a start-up where I have to take very little of it. When stories like this come up, I keep shaking my head.
I am not sure if your response is relevant to the article, but I felt that there is some level of superiority complex that you and many fellow humans posses (in this case, about your superior knowledge and intellect).
Perhaps the biggest difference between you and someone applying for the job through the h1b visa program was that they were born in a different set of circumstances than you were. They were likely born in India whereas you were born I the United States. As a result of being born in India, they went to a local school there which didn't teach them about hash tables and concurrency. Your school did, and you had a better education. This person from India is trying to make a better life for himself despite starting at a disadvantage in life(being born in a poor country with access to lesser educational opportunities than you). You are welcome to reject him for the job(you can do so at the resume screening state, especially if they don't have the relevant skills and experience) but I think it would be useful to remember that the other person is a human, likely disadvantaged, and express some human empathy.
I'm perfectly happy interviewing people for junior positions. We did this quite a bit at larger companies where junior engineers were desirable, and there was structure that let them succeed.
But when I'm dealing with a professional organization that is basically trying to scam my company into doing mis-hires, that's when my empathy goes dry. I have a duty to my co-workers and my investors to not screw up hires. I see gaming the system as a legitimate opportunity to criticize someone else's behavior.
I agree, these junior level people are in a tough position. They're being mis-represented and taken advantage of. It sucks. I want people to succeed. But I don't do handouts, and the practices I've seen make me mad.
Everyone in this industry sees many, many resumes from people who cannot do the job. Everyone interviews people who don't pass. Probably everyone has seen people fired because they couldn't perform or were doing damage. This happens. It's not going away. And it's not pleasant.
So while it might not come across in what I wrote above, every time I affect someone's life like this -- every time I send a "Sorry, we're not going to proceed" email, or tell someone in an interview that we're cutting things short today -- I feel bad about it. Sometimes a little bad, sometimes a lot. Sometimes I agonize over a resume (and we spent quite a bit of time on a candidate the other day, trying to come up with reasons to proceed). But the alternatives (job charity? keeping someone on who does negative work?) are worse. Much worse.
And given all the people who should be given a chance, I won't countenance fraud. That makes me write responses that are direct and forceful and unapologetic. These job shops are poisoning the well for the individuals who are truly deserving, and that should make everyone mad.
Yes there is certain luck bestowed upon you when you are born in US. But you still need to do lots of work to get a good job.
Big multinational don't care about your visa status, several of my friend has been in Zurich (Google), Dubin (Google), London (FB) if they didn't make cut in H1B lottery system after they cleared the interview process.
Don't confuse empathy with competence. Are you looking for charity when you interview with the companies ?
Work hard, raise your competence level and you will have no problem finding a good job in any part of the world.
Your response has nothing to do with his post. He said he's looking for senior devs and keeps getting sent rookies. It doesn't matter what their background is, they clearly shouldn't be applying for something they can't do.
"You are welcome to reject him for the job(you can do so at the resume screening state, especially if they don't have the relevant skills and experience) but I think it would be useful to remember that the other person is a human, likely disadvantaged, and express some human empathy."
It is hard to do both when so many of the candidates in question are lying on their resume, lying during the interview, and they are lying to themselves about whether or not they are qualified for the job. Oh, and their recruiter was lying to since before you met them.
You are exhorting greater empathy from one side, while ignoring the entire lack of empathy from the other. Whenever I've seen people do this, it has usually been because they were fostering in-group biases they wouldn't admit to.
I admire and support immigrants who wish to better their lives. But if (as you state) the people receiving these work visas aren't especially skilled or educated, why treat them differently from the 1.2+ million immigrants who come freely to the US every year? Why not tell employers who are looking for IT help that they're free to hire anyone currently authorized to work in the US just like every other segment of the economy?
Worked with one big Indian company here in Malaysia last time and I see intimidation as common means of dealing with employees. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work well here, since most of people have a lot of choices moving around.
I've been pushed to accept work that has a minimum wage in a different country, despite my experience and the fact I can't possibly survive with my family there. I've had my resume jacked up multiple times when they sent my resume to the client, up to the point that I had to deny I had never put certain things on my resume.
For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company. Except for the fact that the first year salary of said fresh grad are being paid in full by the Malaysian government (in exchange of hiring certain number of locals per year). Some of the trainings are subsidized by the government too.
Which explained how they can force employees to take a much less pay than what they are getting in other countries, where the cost of living is higher, because they can intimidate.
Malaysia job market is much smaller than India, and such tactic didn't bode well, since there are not much replacement to come by when people are quitting, and smaller market means once you had bad reputation, new hires slowed to trickle.
Now, I am not generalizing all Indian companies, there bad apples around the world, but I am just sharing my experience on how intimidation come about. I just find it disgusting that such practices are being practice somewhere in the world.
"For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company."
No, that is not ever reasonable anywhere in any situation. May be typical, but not reasonable.
Could you describe what rights are being violated and the framework in which the rights are couched? I certainly agree that the practice is wrong, but I was unaware of the existence of that degree of specificity in currently-accepted definitions of human rights. Is there a body of case law that is supposed to aid in the interpretation of questions like what exactly constitutes slavery?
The UHDR states that individuals should be free from discrimination, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean when applied universally.
I don't even know what a 'right' is in this context. Are we speaking in the same sense as they are defined in the US Constitution, that governments must respect the laws but private enterprises do not? Or is it meant in a stronger sense, that private enterprises must do so as well, or even individuals? If the latter, how are we supposed to interpret the prohibition against violating a person's free speech rights?
> Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Does this mean that we are now setting education policy across the whole Earth? How strong is this policy supposed to be? Does one class on human rights during secondary school satisfy the requirement?
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
•(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
•(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
•(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
And if you just want to limit to just to the US constitution the 13th amendment
The US government does the same thing to the American students they give "CyberCorps" scholarships to. They have an obligation to remain in government jobs for the same number of years that they received the scholarship for and if they want to leave early they have to repay the scholarship.
For private companies in the US, I've never encountered having to repay training expenses. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if there were obligations around getting a degree program paid for and that sort of thing; I've never been in that sort of situation.) However, I have seen a company go after relocation expenses from someone who was moved cross-country and, shortly thereafter, quit.
Sort of... But not the same, especially when the training is glorified or nonexistent in the case of the body shops. In the go ernment case, there's a formula to calculate balance owed which is for a recognized form of education that is marketable and tangible.
For an entry level government job the scholarship probably is equivalent to a year of salary. Point being this sort of service requirement for scholarship is pretty common and isn't some practice relegated to shady companies on the other side of the world.
Not really. If one drops out of a service academy or ROTC before the beginning of junior (3rd) year, one owes nothing. Also, the rules about this are spelled out in explicit detail, not just in the fine print in a caveat-emptor kind of way, but to one's face in a way that is impossible to misinterpret. I very highly doubt the same is true for people coming to the US on H1-B visas.
Charging people for company-specific training is exploitative. It's not a charitable act on the company's part; it's necessary to create, maintain, and grow a competent workforce. Also, training is often marketed as compensation, and companies can't have it two ways: it's either compensation or it's not, and if you market it as such then clawing back the "value" of training is as unethical as clawing back the cash you paid the employee for the time they were there.
I've had a few experiences interviewing South Asian guys on H1-B visas where they were trying to game the interview really hard and it was awkward at the time and I was angry after the fact that this person had made it past a phone screen. Reading what life is like for these guys, I'll have a little more empathy next time.
It strikes me as a debatable point, which is what I believe fadzlan is saying. The company gets particularly cheap labor, the fresh grad gets training and real experience they can put on their resume. Plenty of people in the US are willing to work for free (intern) to get the latter.
Working for free is completely different, because you're never in a trap where you owe the employer any repayment. I don't really see how you could claim these scenarios are the same at all.
These type of debt bond contracts are the foundation that has been used to legally justify modern slavery for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It's still the legal foundation of slavery in the many places where it's practiced today. Add to that, do you realize the extend to which it's still legally possible to enforce debt repayment in many countries? "Debt" is an extremely bad condition to be in, that can legally allow all kinds of terrible things to happen to you, if you're in certain countries.
Employees should absolutely never be put into the situation where they owe monetary repayment to an employer, in any conditions, except for if the employees break some kind of universal criminal law.
Debt bond in a country where that's not dischargeable or otherwise evadable is indeed such a legal foundation. From the way fadzlan portrayed Malaysia I didn't get the impression it was so dire there.
All I'm saying is that it's a debatable point, to which I'll add the caveat of your slavery point. Per the article some US courts agree, even the win described at the end of it meant the case wasn't struck down as a matter of law, a jury was required for fact finding.
Having worked with an brilliant exploited H-1B holder before at Lucent, earning 60% what I was for a job he was arguably as qualified for, you can guess on which side of the debate I'm on.
> "For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company."
Even by Malaysian standards this is just ridiculous. The tech scene in Malaysia is growing - people really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.
This is de rigor in India. Keep a job for less than a year, you pay the company. Its the most bizarre thing I've heard. Sure, many companies here will ask for their signing bonus back if you quit early into this job, but this is literally garnishing one's wages.
I've heard the same. However I see many companies making employees signing bonds openly, including big ones such as Infosys, Accenture. Is there some loophole in law?
There is no legal loophole. The lawsuits in India (in majority of the cases) carry on for eternity and that's the endemic characteristic which companies exploit. That said, you yourself can try to use a legal threat as a means to turn the tides in your favor. In my personal experience, it has worked. I have made a detailed comment on the relevant laws [0].
I wouldn't prefer the legal gun option. You can show salary slips from your previous employer to show your proof of employment to your prospective employer(s) should you ever land in a bond-like situation and want to quit. Most prospective employers have no problem accepting that as a proof of employment in the previous firm. The issues arise when your "bonded" employer asks to deposit money in escrow accounts, educational certificates etc. with them. However, these are very good indicator(s) to avoid such firms. Keep in mind, that by law - it is illegal to withhold such certificates, money etc. to the vulnerability of the employee [0]. The MD of the company and the immediate manager can go to prison or have to pay fine or both for this stunt.
Thanks for reply. Can you shed some light on notice period policy by companies? Many companies have reasonable period like 2 weeks to a month, however some ask for like 2-3 months.
Notice period policies is a mutual decision between the employee and the employer, the law does not put in any limitations. Of course, the notice period should be reasonable and should not violate basic civil rights. Therefore, the exact duration is open to interpretation.
Practically, 3 months would not seem unreasonable.
Bonded labor, as some call it, is still quite alive in many/most countries. Sad that every single employee and manager doesn't refuse to continue the practice. I can see what's making it difficult to fight it in unison in some places.
It is illegal in India too. However, companies use different coercive tactics (like TCS in the article) to ensure pay up. The letter of law states that it is illegal.
Eh, happens even to the best companies in US. Microsoft employment agreement stipulates that if you quit earlier than one year, you have to pay back all relocation expenses (visas, temporary housing, etc). Easily tens of thousands of dollars.
The end result is that you are on the hook for $10k+ if you decide to quit Microsoft - very similar to the amount charged by Indian outsourcing companies in the article. There are legitimate expenses beyond visa fees that companies incur to import foreign worker and any company will want to be compensated for them if employee quit early.
I have been in that situation and it was made crystal clear by the documents that I was signing that I was on the hook for a big chunk o' cash (signing bonus + relocation costs to move me halfway across the country) if I decided to leave before a year was up. That's a situation I willingly entered into, having many alternate choices. This wasn't something that was just thrust on me the day I showed up at the new job; I knew about it before I turned in my notice at the old one.
Many (most?) of the people in this situation don't have that luxury of choice and freedom.
it sounds to me that the relocation money never passes through the employee's hands - microsoft probably deals with relocation vendors directly (most likely have long-standing relationships), and it is not part of your compensation. it's an expense that you may or may not choose to incur, with stipulations.
How do they get them to pay a years worth of salary if they quit? I doubt this ever happens. Though I don't doubt fresh grads believing them and sticking it out.
Typically the employee's father (or some similarly close relative) will sign a legal agreement with the employer promising to pay back the employee's wages if the employee disappears. (Legally I believe this is similar to a guarantor for a bank loan.)
Though this probably won't stand up in court, most employees wouldn't risk putting their own father through the trouble of finding out.
Ha, this isn't even as severe as what goes on. Some companies ask to pay upto 75% of their annual salary as a security deposit (refundable on quitting with some T&C).
When I graduated from colllege I started working at a top tech company on a contract to hire.
The company was paid 50/hr fore and I was paid 20 an hour. When I asked for more, the indian-born Indian CEO of the company went apeshit on me.
No real story only that almost everyone is scum. It's not just the companies. When I told the director of my org what I was getting paid she hired me full time right away at a competitive salary. And I was just lucky that she happened to like me. Other people who complained simply got let go.
I sense there is something else at play here
IT work isn't that hard, yet for some reason instead of increasing awareness that there is huge demand for these jobs, we fly people in from india. We pay 150 bucks an hour for them, when an eager college kid can do and would do the same job with a bit of training for a fraction of the cost. Something else is going on here.
There are two reasons (both sort of hard to fix) for why contracting is screwed up.
1. Co-employment- Large companies like Google or Apple would love to hire contractors directly but are very scared of being sued by contractors that can claim they were actually employees-not contractors because of the unclear rules around who is/is not an employee. So they introduce a staffing agency in between to become the 'employer of record' and offset the risk.
Things like hiring and paying contractors directly, giving them laptops, keeping them for long terms, training them, etc. actually makes a stronger case for contractors that might want to sue them, which is why you see the weird ways these companies treat contractors (not allowing them into morale events, restricting how long they can work, etc.)
How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers. New labor marketplaces like Taskrabbit, Homejoy, Workmarket, etc. will push lawmakers into doing something soon, but this is going to be tough given how strongly labor unions are against this.
2. Non-transparency. Large companies don't like to advertise that they hire contractors. They instead give their open jobs to staffing agencies, who are not allowed to disclose the client name when they advertise the job on job boards. The staffing agencies are incentivized to provide the lowest cost engineer that meets the minimum bar and these are usually the engineers on visas that need to find a project soon or leave the country.
How to Fix- If large companies publicly share all their current contract job openings (reqs) just like they do their full-time jobs. If that happens, anyone can apply to those jobs and even nominate the staffing agencies they'd be willing to work through. They already have Vendor Management Systems (VMS) that they use to share their reqs with staffing agencies, so its just a matter of will.
In the meantime, we (http://www.oncontracting.com) are trying to solve this non-transparency by crowd-sourcing the list of preferred staffing agencies for the Fortune 1000 companies. Contractors can avoid bad labor brokers and instead discover who the preferred staffing agencies for any Fortune 1000 company are and approach them directly.
>How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers.
Except that the entire reason these laws exist is because tech companies have been caught using people as contractors permanently, "laying them off" on a consistent seasonable basis, and then "rehiring" them again as "contractors". A permanently-employed worker needs to legally be considered a full-time employee and be taxed/benefited as such.
I believe these laws were first put in place to prevent factory owners from exploiting poorly paid workers- and weren't really meant for highly paid tech workers. The problem with requiring companies to hire everyone as employees is exactly the reason companies try to find ways to dodge it in my opinion. If the Govt has a problem collecting taxes from contractors that is a different problem and should be addressed separately.
What's wrong with that? Lots of people love working seasonally. Teachers, fishermen, hospitality workers, and forest rangers can work seasonally. Why should programmers be denied the privilege by law?
I'm not aware of how it works in those fields, but as I see it, trying to burden companies with unclear laws and force artificial behavior is what is causing the problem in this case.
For example- A large company needs a contractor and is willing to pay $75/hr for 12 months.
Option 1- Hires you as a contractor directly for $75/hr on 1099. You get paid well, but if they are not very savvy about independent contractor compliance, you can still go after them in the future stating you should have been an employee for various reasons. The IRS could also go after them for not classifying you correctly and claim taxes missed.
Good for you- Risky for Client.
Option 2- Give the req to their staffing agencies and offer to pay them the $75/hr. A Staffing agency finds and hires you as a permanent employee- pays you $40/hr with benefits. Terminates you after 12 months. Large Company ended up paying the same but has much lower risk of being considered employer because the staffing agency was paying you and taking care of your healthcare, etc.
Same deal for Client but low risk- Bad deal for you - Good deal for Staffing Agency.
In the quest to try and force the law upon a company, we successfully complicated and introduced a middle-man into this process.
There's already plenty of laws to regulate them and they work pretty well for the most part.
The problem is if a large company wants to hire contractors directly- and not use a staffing agency. Thats where the laws are unclear and contractors are the ones paying for it.
Is common in games, what has happened to people I know is they get a job and then build the mechanics of a game, they then get fired while the art is discussed and worked on, then rehired to finish the work as nobody else knows how it fits together anyway.
What's wrong about it? You should just charge more in expectations that the job won't last long and you can work at different company on different game mechanics after getting fired. Employing people you do not need is not efficient for both the company and economy.
Companies are also scared the IRS will come after them with a rusty knife for hiring "contractors" that per the 1986 law that removed the safe harbor are really employees. That's probably more of a threat than losing a "permatemp" lawsuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp).
They don't want job-seekers cherry picking or getting confused between full-time jobs and contract jobs (You can sometimes get a higher pay-rate contracting than as a full-time at the same company). I think, they also fear it reduces their recruiting brand. They want to make it appear that getting a job at X is really hard, which is why they boast about their low acceptance rate, etc. If people discovered there are hundred or thousands of contract jobs at the company, it reduces the allure. Use of contractors is also often not deemed as a 'good' workforce practice - similar to outsourcing, mainly because of stories of exploitation, etc. It also leads to complications- think customers buying some sophisticated or sensitive equipment or service from you discovering that you had a bunch of contractors building it.
The college kid presumably could also keep looking for jobs and if bullied to work 60, 70 hours per week would go look for another one. Someone wrapped up in the H1B visa paperwork will be put up with a lot more abuse. So perhaps it is "pay same amount but get more guaranteed work out of it" deal?
Isn't the "something else" just money? The employer gets an employee who is afraid to ask for a raise, since that might mean losing immigration status and returning to a (not as comfortable) life in their home country. With the green card process taking a few good years, the employer has an indentured servant. Indian born CEO or American born, money is money to them.
Immigration reform is essential. If someone on a temporary visa asks "for more" like you did, they might just get fired and replaced with another temporary visa worker. So, they don't end up asking for raises, which means that the labor rate is artificially depressed. If H1Bs were not tied to employers, then this would not happen. BUT this is not in the employer's interest, so I don't think this has a chance of changing.
No. Frequently it is more expensive to outsource and this is well known beforehand by management.
There are plenty of companies out there who choose the outsourcing/H1B route in spite of the higher cost, not out of sheer stupidity, but because they feel better able to control their workers and are willing to sacrifice margin for that.
Anybody who has seen incredulously watched an outsourcing project come to fruition despite knowing that it would never end up being worth it should recognize this. It happens all the time.
So there's a high initial cost involved, but then the company can wage suppress the employee over the next 5-6 years, and in the end turn a profit? Wow.
Individual wages are always lower, but the following can and often do end up ballooning the overall cost of the venture:
* Lower quality net result (& higher support costs).
* Additional headcount
* Higher coordination costs (e.g. paying these bloodsuckers)
The point is that it goes ahead even when it makes no financial sense even 5-6 years out because management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce.
> management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce
I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?
Who said a docile workforce is lucrative for the companies? There are many reasons they may not be. However, in most cases, "the company" doesn't make these decisions - managers do. And plenty of managers prefer a docile workforce whether or not it's good for the bottom line.
>what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies
It is not just about the money. It is about the power, too.
It is peculiar naivete unique to our dominant school of economics to think that the bottom line is at the heart of every decision made by C level executives.
It's not necessarily lucrative at all. Many managers confuse personal power with collective profit, and are crafting their departments to be lord over a fiefdom rather than to contribute maximally to the business.
People are not rational market actors, especially not deep within organizations.
I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit repeated over and over again. Let me say this once: H1B workers are not tied down to a particular employer.
It used to be the case that the were, but in 2000, Congress passed a law (known as "AC21") which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again.
>I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit repeated over and over again. Let me say this once: H1B workers are not tied down to a particular employer.
>
>It used to be the case that the were, but in 2000, Congress passed a law (known as "AC21") which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again.
If you are fired or laid off there is no grace period to find a new job. So, if you are lucky and you time it right you can transfer to a new employer. If you don't, hard luck and get out.
So it is false to say that you are not tied to your employer. The tie is there, it is has just weakened since 2000.
EDIT: AC21 is for those who are applying for a green card (I-485 pending). How the heck is AC21 even connected to H1B? Source/link please?
EDIT2: H1B transfer does not seem to involve AC21. All that happens is that the new employer will need to apply for a H1B petition all over again. So you are simply tied to the new employer, instead of your old employer.
AC21 is not free, there are legal fees and processing times involved. There is a non-zero cost involved. If this cost did not exist, if an employee could just switch jobs WITHOUT needing the receiving company to do anything, then obviously there would be no wage suppression. Employee can ask for a raise, and simply leave if refused.
>The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[33]
>Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers' incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs.
>However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. 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 they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140
That is related to a green card. And yes, employers typically try to file your I-140 under EB-3. This means that you need to wait 10+ years before your priority date becomes current. Once the PD is current, you can file your I-485. After another 6 months elapse, ONLY THEN can you invoke AC21. In effect, the employee is tied to the employer for 10+ years since companies only file for your green card after you spend ~6 years on H1B. The decision of EB-3 vs EB-2 (about 5 years shorter) lies with the employer. These two categories of green card cannot be self petitioned, only an employer can do it.
EDIT: So to summarize, the employee usually is first locked in during the 6 years on H1B, with the hope that the employer will apply for a green card (i.e. file the I-140).
Then, the employee is locked in for another 10 years, waiting for the PD to become current. And then, after 6 more months, the employee is finally free to change employers.
I don't understand how this isn't indentured servitude.
My understanding was that while you wait your priority date to become current, you are not locked to your current employer. I think this was one of things that AC21 fixed. There is a 180-day period following your I-140 approval during which you are locked to the employer that filed your I-140, but after that you are free to switch to another employer, as long as your new position will be substantially similar to the one for which the I-140 was filed. Changing employers after 180 days have elapsed should not affect the underlying approved I-140.
I've tried sift through the legalese of AC21 and discern as much as I can, and this is my understanding. I might be wrong. Here's the full text of the Act: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/s2045/text It's fairly short. I just wish they hyperlinked the references to other laws and acts.
> Changing employers after 180 days have elapsed should not affect the underlying approved I-140.
Employers can actually withdraw the I-140 if you switch jobs BEFORE filing I-485 and letting 6 months elapse - and then you have to start all over again.
The I-485 AC21 provision is not related to the H1B other than most people affected by it also have H1Bs. However the H1B is pretty portable in practice: even though there is no formal grace period, practically, you have about 3 months to find a job and just do an easy transfer (you get a new I-90) and if it takes more then you might need to leave the country to get a new H1B stamped and receive a new I-90 at the border.
Also, the AC21, I believe, allows to start working on H1B as soon as you've filed a reasonable H1B app (provided you are already in the country legally, of course, so it applies mostly to the COS/AOS process).
Source: I had been laid of on H1B twice, one time I started working on the new company immediately after filing the new H1B, the other time I had to wait ~3 months for the application to pass through.
> AC21 is not free, there are legal fees and processing times involved. There is a non-zero cost involved. If this cost did not exist, if an employee could just switch jobs WITHOUT needing the receiving company to do anything, then obviously there would be no wage suppression. Employee can ask for a raise, and simply leave if refused.
In the tech industry, most companies are willing to do an H1B transfer. The cost of doing it is small compared to what they'll be paying you. You can start working right away, as AC21 states that you don't have to wait for USCIS to process and approve the petition before starting work. (A caveat to this is that if USCIS denies your company's petition for you, then you'll effectively be deported. This is unlikely though, if you work for a reputable company.)
This bullying persists at the bottom of a complex system
that supplies workers to some of America’s richest and
most successful companies, such as Cisco Systems, Verizon
and Apple.
I find this extremely confusing, why companies like Facebook and Apple and others in SV, that're sitting on an unbelievable shitload of cash take filthy shortcuts like this, screw the very people that work for them so badly. I mean, seriously, I'm at a loss for words. Why? Why not just pay them a reasonable wage when you are more than capable enough to?
Excessive money (== power == domination of your peers) corrupts everybody. We don't need any new studies to prove this.
That's the sick part of our economic culture - the "natural" tendency of concentration of money/power (instead of spreading it as equally as possible).
Efficiency. Its not Tim Cook's or any middle manager's personal money, it's the money of the shareholders. Besides, overpaying drives all salaries up and can spark a wage war between companies that only benefits the employees.
There's some saying about rich people being cheap is what made them rich in the first place, but I'm not super convinced this carries over into business.
It is extremely frustrating that a lot of tech companies have ended up like so many other companies : caring only about that dollar metric, and not considering the human aspect. So what if it costs more? At least you can feel better about yourself for not treating people as slaves.
For a while I was naive enough to think that SV, being so awash with cash, would not feel the need to become filled with money-grubbers.
"Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed. "
This doesn't explain which way the causality flows, but my own experience with silicon valley glitterati suggests that they start out nice (or at least pretty normal) and the money and power very, very gradually turns them into assholes.
Why on Earth would a for-profit, capitalist corporation not force down labor wages to maximize profits? Maximizing profits is their sole imperative. They do not love you, nor do they hate you, but your labor has a market value they can use for something else ;-).
Most people in the programming business are quite okay un-unionized and with capitalist corporations employing them, because while said corporations are quite willing to push down wages to save money, there are also plenty willing to push up wages if that's what it takes to hire someone decent. That's why talented senior people in New York and San Francisco can make $150,000/yr. It works both ways.
The problem with the H1-B slave is that he doesn't properly have the option of employers competing on any level, because of Immigration Regime Legal Shenanigans.
For the record, Facebook, at least, says that it does not use labor brokers:
Some companies say they shun labor brokers; a Facebook official told CIR that
her company does not use them. Others who rely on them renounce the abuses but
are quick to deflect responsibility.
Facebook, Microsoft and others do end up using consulting firms like Cognizant, which generally provide them H1-B immigrant workers. The conditions of their employment, at least in my eyes, are similarly predatorial in nature.
These little power hungry kings are the monsters we made. These kings have one job and just one job, keep raising the stock price.
One of the quickest way to get liquid, meet your projections and so on, is to liquidate jobs. Get all that $$ back on the books. 10 ppl isn't just (assuming they make 100k each) 1m, its also the training and benefits, and social security, health 401k..etc.
A few dips in the stock price == dethronement, possibly disinterest and the looming specter of irrelevance/demise.
All corporations are about profit. All stockholders want them to be. All people, who often are also stockholders, find this at odds with being a reasonable, nurturing workplace
All employers resent their employees and are seeking to exploit them as much as possible for as little money as possible. Always. Every single one of them. Every second of every day.
Make no mistake- that air hockey table is a ruse to steal your money.
I don't the tech companies do this because they want to. They just try to get a contractor in and because the market is filled with these scum companies they inevitably get into all the companies.
What actually happened in the story is Wipro Indian overpaid their employee and when they discovered the error the employee refused to return the money.
There are some bad actors here but I found that particular anecdote unconvincing.
He was on the staff of Wipro USA when he worked in the
United States on a software project for Apple in 2011, for
roughly $100,000 per year. During a visit to India, he
continued working on the project.
When the project was complete, Wipro told Paul that a
mistake had been made: While he was away, he should have
been switched to Wipro India for lower Indian wages,
according to emails Paul shared with CIR.
A company representative asked him in one email to sign backdated
agreements and return salary he’d already been paid. When Paul
refused, he said Wipro withheld pay, benefits and documents he needed
to maintain his immigration status – and threatened to hold his visa
hostage.
“They wanted to take all my salary,” Paul said. “I was forced and
coerced.”
I've been overpaid by my employer in the past, usually the money just disappears from my account a few days later with no intervention on my part (like a partial ACH reversal). It wasn't my money to begin with, so I had no right to contest it. Even though it was nice to see the extra balance for those few days, it wasn't mine to keep.
If I had transferred the money out such that the reversal was not possible, I'm sure it just would have been withheld from my next check (a.k.a withholding pay/benefits). Now the part about withholding documents sounds illegal, but so is keeping the ill-gotten salary. This of course assumes that Paul was in fact over-paid, which is what TFA says, so safe to assume.
Several of the anecdotes in the story have weird details like this where it's not 100% clear who is screwing who. That does not in any way excuse what some employers are doing.
* s/Indian/India/ in my parent post -- too late to Edit
As bad as some of these stories are, H1-B is way better than an L1 visa. Talk about indentured servitude. With an H1-B visa, an employee can at least change jobs and find another employer to work for. All the other employer has to do is transfer the H1 sponsorship, which is a few thousand dollars in fees but no legal hassles and not much delay. So with H1, you have decent job mobility. With the L-1 visa, which is almost never discussed in the media covering immigration, there is ZERO job mobility. You can only work for the company that got you to the United States from abroad where you were working for the same company. And for Indians who are here LEGALLY, the wait for a green card can be up to 9 years. A lot of companies make their employees wait before even applying for a green card. So they get a good 10 years of indentured servitude legally here in the United Sates.
This is neither unique for tech workers nor unique for the US. It has been happening in many professions for decades.
Tech is just specifically vulnerable, because despite all evidence to the contrary (wage suppression, the huge discrepancy between reported talent shortage and actual salaries) we drank the industry kool-aid and believe we don't need no stinkin' unions and government regulation, and that we techies are part of the lucky middle class that will remain. Most of this complacency is caused by the fact that we still have pretty decent salaries compared to most other workers, but of course that is also what makes us a nice big juicy target for dubious practices.
The H1-B system is designed for this. If it wasn't, visas would be auctioned off by the government, with the highest proposed salaries winning the first visas. Visas would thus go to the most productive and talented foreign workers employed by the most productive and talented companies.
Much of our current economy is designed to maximize the exploitation and domination of labor, even when that runs against maximizing productivity and economic output.
Worse than that, it also destroys the local talent pool. Employers use visas as a club against local talent, so you go without equity, work 3 times as many hours as you're paid for and when the company is sold you're out of a job. Not to mention taking "hair cuts" so you work without pay and do without basic necessities to make someone else rich, this shit has ruined my life being a coder in Los Angeles, yes I survive but I can't even afford a computer for myself, the employers game the system until you have to go without food to make someone else rich, forget about the dream of being able to own your own computer.
I see no evidence that H-1Bs are destroying the local talent pool in SF. I can't speak to LA myself, but from what I hear it's not doing that either.
H-1Bs aren't the reason you've think you've "ruined [your] life being a coder in Los Angeles". Your profile has you down as an Android developer: I met a co-founder based in LA last week who was bemoaning the lack of good mobile app talent. I frequently get hit up from startups in LA, and I used to consult for a major firm in the OC that's vacuuming up Android devs. I can't tell you why you're having such a hard time, and I feel for you: but blaming H-1Bs isn't productive.
Here in Germany most women prefer career paths that are paid worse than IT modulo medicine. Also, IT is not considered low-class, maybe because there are many academics in IT.
In the US it's considered low status because it's considered to have questionable long-term value, due to potential future outsourcing.
He's absolutely right. In the US, software development has always, until perhaps very recently, been considered a very low status career and with low long-term potential. That is, versus one of the classic engineering or medical jobs. By the way, in the US, IT generally means support desk job, which is seen as the lowest of the low. Only very recently has the median software development job approached anywhere near a medical specialist or the classic engineering job, and it's still far below the wage of many US doctors.
I'd say that the US general public is still expecting the imminent outsourcing of all software development, to foreigners making $2/hour somewhere far away, to occur soon. People in the field don't expect this, but that's how outsiders perceive it.
This low-status is a huge contributor to what keeps most US women from pursuing software development as a career, according to women I've talked to. It really is that simple and obvious.
This is also why there's a trend of US software developers prominently adding "scientist" or "engineer" to their job titles. Pure software development still has a low status stigma.
Interesting perspective, I would have expected the image of software professionals in the US to be way better due to companies such as Google or Apple.
In terms of long-term potential medicine specialists are better off here, but it is not as extreme as in NA. If you are a top-tier IT freelancer, then you can easily compete with them.
Most of the H1B's I've worked with shouldn't even be in the positions they are. Some of them migMost of the H1B's I've worked with shouldn't even be in theMost of the H1B's I've worked with shouldn't even be in the positions they are. Some of them might have a "college education" in some area of technology, but are.. ah.. Useless and waste of company money and the US economy. positions they are. Some of them might have a "college education" in some area of technology, but are.. ah.. Useless and waste of company money and the US economy.ht have a "college education" in some area of technology, but are.. ah.. Useless and waste of company money and the US economy.
Can't agree more. I don't know if it will be viable to insert a clause in H1B terms which severely restricts number of available visas for companies whose sole purpose is staffing.
These scumbag companies affect startup eco-system in India too. For many engineers - the only reason to work for these companies is to get into US. They pay shitty salaries back in India, have shitty working conditions. The only reason, I have seen people sticking to them is - get enough experience and go to US on L1/H1B. And speaking from experience, many Indians will do anything to get to US. :(
Most people coming on H1B are no less talented /skilled or hardworking that an average american techie. However, the H1B worker is not aware of his rights. The average H1b worker has no one to turn to for help as the people who are most vehemently against H1B have racist and xenophobic agendas. I speak from experience : while on a H1B VISA (and in middle of a unpleasant work situation), I sought help by seeking out the people behind anti-H1B VISA web pages. Not only did those people I asked for help had no assistance for me , they hounded me with hateful racist mails, phone calls and death threats.
The focus of this article and sadly HNers is to punish and prosecute the companies. Not one opinion has been offered to make the lives of H1B better. So let me offer one.
The US consulate can brief the H1B GRANTEE on his /her rights.Maybe include an DVD or training video on youtube along with a hotline or number of labour lawyers. Make the company sponsoring H1B agree to abide by labour laws of California or whichever state the the company is located in.
I don't fully agree with "Most people coming on H1B are no less talented /skilled or hardworking that an average american techie"
Remember workers in H1B are suppose to be specialized and cream layer of workers.
Apart from few thousand people (working in Google/FB/Microsoft), others are completely replaceable by american workers, it just that H1B people will put with lot of stuff at lot less pay than there american counterparts, hence contributing to bottom line of these body shopping companies. (TCS/HCL/Wipro) are no different.
A competent person has many options regardless of visa status and nationality.
> Most people coming on H1B are no less talented /skilled or hardworking that an average american techie.
I would like to disagree on this point, however I have never conducted any long-term research nor seen any conducted. My anecdotal experiences though definitely seem to indicate otherwise.
I think it's first important to clarify that by me making the statement that an H1B is less qualified than the average American tech worker, I am not saying that due to their race. I think that the process is broken and exploitative, and it encourages and incentivizes companies to specifically bring in people who are under-qualified. Let's take two possible scenarios:
A: Shyam excelled at the top of his class while attending school in India and managed to be accepted to receive a government scholarship to attend school overseas. With much glee he heads off to the US on his student visa to get his degree from a university there and get earlier exposure to new ideas and techniques. While there, he does an internship during the summers his sophomore and junior year with a local tech company. As graduation nears, he applies for and receives a green card, choosing to permanently reside in the US. Afterwards he begins his job search, starting with a position he is hired at with the company he interned with his junior year.
B: Deepak did not do so well in school, but knows that he wants to work in the technology field because it's a good way to make money and gain social status so he can date and marry the girls he is interested in. Unfortunately, he didn't meet the requirements for an overseas scholarship, so he attends an Indian university instead. Afterwards, he goes to work for a large Indian technology firm (Infosys, Wipro, et al). During his entire professional experience to this point he and his colleagues have been slogging away doing things mostly incorrectly, but with many hours so that their clients appear to be getting a good deal. After doing this for a number of years, he realizes he's got to get out of India and this situation, so he reaches out internally and gets accepted for a staffed role through his firm. Happily heading overseas to the US he arrives in California with his shiny new H1B working at a big American tech company on behalf of the staffing firm, only to realize that he's been thrust into a position intended for somebody with 5 years of useful experience, not the 3 years of useless experience he's had. He's way under-qualified, and struggles to keep up. He tries but is just not experienced or educated enough to handle the situation well, so finds himself in the exact same slog of burning more hours to do things less efficiently to meet deadlines.
I'm kind of hamming it up here, obviously, but my point is that for the most part there is absolutely no quality control from the perspective of the people who busted their ass, proved themselves, and have succeeded in their careers who are now working alongside people who are under qualified brought in under the guise of a staffing agency hiring H1Bs.
Nobody has a problem working with Shyam from situation A, but they would have a problem working with Deepak from situation B. It's not an issue of xenophobia or race as you seem to make it out to be, and it's not that we don't care or empathize. But we're at work to get our jobs done and we all have goals. If you're an engineer at the top of your game working on some exciting new technology, the last thing you need is to have your project derailed by inefficiencies, bugs, or outright bad actions from someone who is not experienced or qualified enough to be involved, but through the foibles of management found themselves there anyway.
If you are off-shoring or out-sourcing work, you will always get Deepak. But if you are hiring an H1B , you will most likely get Shyam and here is why:
The hiring manager, the one whose project funded the salaries , can easily fire the H1B even more easily. If Deepak shows up when the hiring manager was expecting Shyam, Deepak would get canned in a less than a week.
>If you're an engineer at the top of your game working on some exciting new technology, the last thing you need is to have your project derailed by inefficiencies, bugs, or outright bad actions from someone who is not experienced or qualified enough to be involved,
...then why are you not hiring a local engineer or throwing a hissy fit when Shyam shows up and mucks up your code ? Even the worst mangers I have worked with realize that their own job is at risk when they hire a Deepak.
Your story for Shyam would be wonderful.. I want the immigration system to work like that!
However, it does not. A university graduate that is looking for an entry level position cannot just request a green card! I have been there, actually. As a graduate from a US university, with good grades, wanting to stay in the US. This is how it actually works. Without at the very least a standing offer, a foreigner can't even apply for the green card. The company has to say they can't find a qualified American, prove that the foreigner is qualified have to wait until the green card is handed out before working there. For a recent graduate that would mean an EB-3. Even if you come from Europe, the wait for that is of years. Nobody will hold the job for that long, so that route is impossible.
So this is what a foreigner with an American CS degree has to do. First he gets an F1 visa, and looks for a company that would sponsor him further. He better hope it's a good fit. In that period, he has to keep the company happy, and then get sponsored for an H1-B. Let's remember that H1-B periods are today open for 1 or 2 days a year, thanks to the H1-B mill companies. Then, once we have the H1-B, the company gets to decide if they want to sponsor for permanent residency. This will take years, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Only after that, we get back to the position where Shyam is in your story.
I am a pretty good example of the real version of Shyam story. I graduated in 2000 from a US university, and went though the immigration maze while working for a variety of US companies. I got my permanent residency in 2011. I did not go through staffing companies, but many people do, because while it provides a way worse service for your employer, it's far, far safer for the employee. If they get hit by a round of layoffs that says 'effective immediately' while getting that green card, they have to go back home, or stay illegally. The staffing company will not lay them off: they will just not pay them while they hand them another position: For all intents and purposes, they become a shell company that keeps their immigration status safe, in exchange for a very big pay cut.
In my case, there was only one close call, when my first employer lost a big contract for their product, and started doing rounds of layoffs, shrinking their workforce in the US by a factor of 10. When I saw what they were doing (and that I did not share the nationality of the company owners), I got another job 2 weeks before my department received their notice.
So If you want more stories of immigrants that come here and compete honestly, and that you'd want to have on your team, wish for better immigration legislation, because the current system actually promotes your scenario B. The immigrants don't like it either.
> As graduation nears, he applies for and receives a green card, choosing to permanently reside in the US.
While I understand your point, you are painting too rosy a picture for Shyam. Shyam will not get a green card for 6-13 years[1,2], he will also be on a H1B for all those years. And in my anecdotal experience, he faces a lot of the same prejudice/racism/xenophobia indiscriminately as Deepak in your example. This is not at the Google/Facebook (where likely you only see the Shyams), but at the remaining majority of large tech companies.
[1] depending on EB2 vs EB3, decided by whether he got a PhD/Masters or just a Bachelors from the US.
[2] due to the country-of-birth based green card quotas
> Contracting with labor brokers also benefits US employers. They can staff up swiftly for temporary jobs and slim down just as fast, with workers paid below-market rates.
I really don't understand why H1B visas aren't tied to the worker's pay. Considering that they're intended for difficult to find specialists, it should be easy enough to weed out fake applications by tying the visa to an at least average salary for the sector.
That is one approach... but I would really like the H1 to not to be tied to an employer. Let it be open with instant portability. The only obligation is the current employer (even the original sponsor) has to report the employee assignment on the first date to the DHS. And if a company tries to put bond/restrictions on that movement (either in the US or back in the home country) penalize and remove their ability to get H1's for 5 years.
The Center for Investigative Reporting did approach me since i am victim of this scam too. I chose to settle out of court sheer out of fear and lack of ideas. As per settlement terms, i am not supposed to talk about this entire episode to anyone ever. But i am still talking here on HN.
Back in 2008 I paid $330/hour (10 hours in advance as a retainer) to an attorney to file a response to the legal notice i received. I also paid other damages to my employer totaling $7500. I was literally forced to sign the "binding agreement" which was part of my joining formality after i landed in SF. Had i seen this doc earlier while still in India, chances are i wouldn't have taken that flight. I spent almost a month without pay, medical insurance (in spite of working for the client) but ultimately blinked and signed that document.
Its evil. And this ritual is here to stay until the feds really are interested in solving this problem.
I think it is terrible that companies are taking advantage of foreigners, but I also keep seeing this $20,000 number thrown around a lot. That's how much it costs for a company to apply for an H1B. The companies should not be using that to prevent people from quitting, but it is a very real, large expense to getting workers from out of the US.
The flip side of the argument isn't great either. If Softcorp or whatever pays a small fortune to get someone an H1B, that person shouldn't turn around and leave immediately either. It's just really sad that this means Softcorp, etc know they can use that as a leash and treat the worker like crap.
Someone tell me a solution to this problem given the H1B's cost so much. How do you prevent abuse? It seems like making the worker pay for the visa would fix it, but I have a feeling that is quite difficult as well. Also, it would be kind of crazy to have to pay a huge sum to take a job.
"Investigators also found that the Virginia company charged new H-1 B workers fees for training ranging from $1.000 to $2,500. Such fees are in violation of the law."
> If Softcorp or whatever pays a small fortune to get someone an H1B, that person shouldn't turn around and leave immediately either.
Then Softcorp should make their compensation competitive.
>>but I also keep seeing this $20,000 number thrown around a lot. That's how much it costs for a company to apply for an H1B.
To clarify, the actual application cost varies between $2500 and $5000[1]. The problem is that on most years, the visas are given only to a percentage of the applicants. For example, if someone is switching from OPT to H1B and they don't win the RNG game, the cost to the company can be enormous.
Only the petition fees, which are a small portion ($1500?). The lawyers fees aren't refundable.
Some lawyers do charge up to $15,000 for H1Bs, and I've heard of people reasonably paying $8000. (Good lawyers are definitely in the $4000 range, though you can bring thing down considerably by using inhouse lawyers, which is probably what big companies do).
So if we assume that lawyers cost $2000 per petition for large companies, and that there's a 33% success rate in the lottery (it was 50% last year), we're still talking only a cost of $6000 per hire.
I stand partially corrected. The visa perhaps costs between your stated numbers, but I've heard the lawyer fees push that number far higher. I worked at a company where the application was rejected at first, and the fee basically doubled to $40,000 dollars because you pay to apply, not to be accepted.
My point remains though, it is really expensive to get these visas in your hand, and the company usually fronts this cost.
There's no lease. An H1B worker can switch companies freely with little hassle. It's the L-1 visa that has a lease. Congress passed a law in 2000 called 'AC21' which brought job portability for H1B workers. I don't know why I keep hearing people on HN and elsewhere talk as though AC21 never happened over and over again. Please have the sense to do some basic research before forming your opinions. Lastly the cost to the company is actually around $4-5k.
H1B portability is a misnomer. All that happens is that the new employer applies for a new H1B for you, which is not subject to the cap. So you are just tied to the new employer. Portability here just means that you can choose which employer to be tied to.
You do realize that "tied to" implies that you can't change jobs? But that's not the case with H-1B workers. You can switch jobs at will, and even work multiple jobs (with concurrent petitions) at the same time.
Furthermore, AC21 enables you to begin working as soon as your next/future employer has filed a petition – so you don't have to wait until USCIS makes a decision. With a good employer and attorney, USCIS will generally approve the case (although I'm sure there are outliers).
In practical terms, the effect of AC21 is that (for the most part) it allows you to take up any job in that is directly related to what you major. The employer has to spend a bit on the petition and on an immigration lawyer, but in our industry it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they'll be paying you annually.
I'm 99% certain actually being on the payroll of multiple companies while on H1B is a felony. You can still be working for your original employer while your petition with the new one is underway, or start working with the new one once you receive your petition receipt, but definitely not both at the same time.
I'm not sure what industry you're in, but 20k out of a software dev's 60k-100k salary is a very very big drop, especially for a junior/fresh grad hire. And of course, 20k lump sum is out of the question for many startups.
I have switched jobs under AC21, and I have since gotten permanent residency.
While you can change jobs, your new employer has to both be one that wants to handle H1-Bs (and many smaller ones don't). On top of that, if you were applying for an employer-sponsored green card, like most H1-Bs want to do, then guess what? You have to get your new employer to sponsor you too, depending on the part of the process you are in. And while asking an H1-B to pay for his own visa costs is illegal, as far as I can tell, asking someone to compensate the company for legal fees trying to obtain a still pending green card does not. In my last job before the green card, I had a nice 20K anvil hanging over me if I left before green card +1. And that process took about 7 years, thanks to visa limits. So yeah, I could have changed jobs again, but it would not have been cheap for me.
And all of that, while knowing that getting laid off leads to either leaving, or staying in the US illegally for a small period of time, which is one of the few reasons the USCIS agents can find to end up denying a green card application.
So I am glad AC21 exists, but the freedom an American has and the one an H1-B visa holder have are nowhere near equivalent.
Is penalising early exit through contractual terms illegal? If not, then isn't this just a case of who has more leverage when negotiating the employment contract? That, and the fact that Indians are so desperate to go to the US that they're willing to sign any contract.
> A firm specializing in information technology has been ordered to pay nearly $1.7 million in back wages to H-1B non-immigrant workers following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor in a case that should sound a warning for every employer.
> Investigators also found that the Virginia company charged new H-1 B workers fees for training ranging from $1.000 to $2,500. Such fees are in violation of the law.
The companies taking advantage rely on their marks/employees being naive, so you'll be fine once you know to be careful:
1) Get direct employment with a reputable US company instead of via a contracting company.
2) Don't sign any contracts that have any penalty for quitting. You may want to hire a lawyer to review any contracts.
3) If you are in a bad contract and your employer sues you, make sure you hire a decent lawyer. The biggest victims were those that ignored the suits or tried to represent themselves and lost their cases by default.
I have been passively following this subject for past 10 years (since I graduated college). Your suggestions are all valid and with good intent. However, 'one' group of workers these labor shops exploit are in a vicious cycle and are looking for ways to escape.
The following is typical scenario for this group: A student is enrolled in a university with average or poor CS program. There is no funding/scholarship or good on-campsu jobs. So, student works, often bending the laws, off-campus for more than 60 hours to pay for college. Obviously, education takes a backseat and somehow student graduates with huge debt. They struggle to find job and due to time restrictions on F1 visa, they are forced to find an employment and hence sign for these labor shops who give them employment letter (and apply for H1B visa) and securing students stay in US. So, initially, its a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Once workers realize they are being exploited, the struggle to get out starts.
I signed up for one of these contracting companies and they were paying me $48K when most of my fellow new graduates were making over $72K. I got out after 2.5 years, but fortunately, it was hassle free.
This is a very complex web of fraud, exploitation, bending the rules, and what not. IMO, it starts with mutual agreement/need on both sides, but descends in to the scenarios the post has brought to light.
You'll be fine. Most of the time, especially if you get a MS in CS, you'll be hired directly by the employer (Apple, MS, Yahoo et al). You'll probably get a higher salary than a contractor at your level (because the staffing company doesn't eat into it). You have all the problems that comes with a H1B (like a short grace period in case you're laid off, etc), but that will be all.
SOME of these people willingly get into these situations because living in the US for a while improves their social standing (for marriage, dowry, etc) a lot. Others believe in the American dream and come here at any cost and fall into that trap. There is a large group that just cares about getting to the US, and then thinks the salary plus Amway will make them rich.
I did a MS in CS, and got a few jobs (mostly big corps, one of them Cisco, all of which offered to sponsor H1B). I now hate the bay area and its really low quality of life and am tied here only because I love my job. Just keep aiming for excellence, instead of hook or crook, that will mostly help you. The US visa situation is screwed up though, you'll find a lot of articles about it here on HN.
You can easily avoid that fate by avoiding USA. Most other countries don't pull that crap. I don't think Canada behave like this, and most or all of northern Europe is also pretty simple (or extremely simple, in some cases) to get into.
I think this is going to continue in some shape, even if it doesn't necessarily look like this, because these companies are going to India to pay less money, bottom line. Add in a large pool of people wanting to make the move, and someone will always be willing to do it for the types of contracts we're talking about here.
As has been pointed out many times here on HN, there is no shortage of qualified dev/it talent in the US. There is a surplus of companies with bad jobs that don't want to pay market rate, and look at these brokers as risk mitigation strategies to fill the head count someone said they needed.
When cutting costs is your motivation, people have a strong tendency to get hurt.
This actually happened to one of the people I know. That person had to go through a lot just to get out of the stranglehold of those people. Literally screwed. They were paying half of market and also not even paying it on time. Unfortunately its difficult to pursue a legal route against these people because of the cost to pay lawyers and also the fact that they do it in such a way that its borderline legal/illegal. The only thing you can do is to save other people who may fall into the same trap.
If someone is paying you an airfare you cannot currently afford, rather than already paying you enough before you leave a country that any paid flights are merely a courtesy, then be very suspicious.
If we have to have these visa programs, the law should be changed to only allow the actual hiring company to contract with the worker, and under no circumstances allow any intermediary to be a go-between. Then at least there can be some kind of tracking instead of everything being hidden behind closed doors.
Of course with our stupid politicians nothing will change except for the worse.
The company asks you to pay which you should NOT because it is illegal. The company however can hold you ransom to exit letter etc. which proves that you worked for the company. However, most people do not take that route. There are smart ways to avoid that coercion.
Sorry but it is. You want to say that it is practiced - sure I agree but it is illegal. Bonded labor has long been abolished in India.
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act clearly says one sided contracts are void. Most contracts in these companies are one sided in nature and of the type - if you quit, then you pay X but if we fire you then we do not pay anything. The Supreme Court of India has clarified this Superintendence Company Of India ... vs Krishan Murgai on 9 May, 1980 [0].
In fact, Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code even makes the illegal to use the common coercive tactics by firms (TCS in the article) to withhold documents [1]. The tactic amounts to "extortion" and carries a punishment of 3 years of prison or fine or both [2]
TL;DR - Bonds are illegal and so is the practice of withholding ANY valuable to enforce vulnerability. The latter is a criminal offense.
> India's economy is the 10th largest in the world, but millions of the country's workers are thought to be held in conditions little better than slavery. [...]
> "There are deep-rooted problems of business-related human rights abuse in India," says Peter Frankental, Economic Relations Programme Director of Amnesty International UK. "Much of that involves the way business is conducted, an unwillingness to enforce laws against companies, and fabricated charges and false imprisonment against activists who try to bring these issues to light."
> In India, our work focused on freeing the millions of men, women and children forced to work as bonded labourers. Regardless of their age, they work long hours labouring in quarries, brick kilns, agriculture and as domestics, receiving little or no pay in return for a loan needed for survival.
> In spite of the encompassing and seemingly progressive legislative framework, the use and abuse of Dalit bonded labourers in India remains endemic within a range of occupations and branches, both rural and urban, such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, domestic work, and cleaning. A report by Anti-Slavery International in 2008, revealed that dalit bonded labourers are employed to carry out the most physically straining and menial types of work in industries such as silk farms, rice mills, salt pans, fisheries, quarries and mines, tea and spice farming, brick-kilns, textile and domestic work(2).
> sure I agree but it is illegal. Constitutionally, Bonded labor has long been abolished in India.
I am aware of the prevalence of bonded labor in India. However, it is not the law but the law enforcement which is the issue. One of your links also mentions it
> In spite of the encompassing and seemingly progressive legislative framework,
My previous reply was to a comment who was trying to suggest that a bond or a one-sided contract was legal. It is a very common misconception in India and particularly in the IT workforce. The reason I took the liberty to omit the word because I thought it would be implicit that HN users would refer to bonded labor in technology companies. After all, that is what the original submission is about.
I have no problem encouraging people who want to be part of our country to immigrate, particularly if they have good skills. This H1B program, though - it's just got to go.
"... spending his days at a company apartment in Norcross, Georgia. His first assignment:Wait for Softech to find him a job. After languishing for 10 weeks without work or full-time pay ..."
This means free housing and paid unemployment benefit, plus the people paying you are finding you a job themselves. I'm sure there are some Americans who wouldn't mind subscribing to that service. Yes, there's a cost of not quitting before you contract's up, but for some it may be worth it, as long as they're sufficiently well informed.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, part of India’s Tata group
Even the lawyers suing these employees :
> Past president of the South Asian Bar Association of Georgia, attorney Roy Banerjee has a penchant for wearing bow ties and representing body shops. He has prevailed in many cases against Indian immigrant programmers, winning judgments or settlements from some, while others fled back to India.
"The guy at XYZZY will ask about hash tables, so..." and I'd ask them questions about something else, like concurrency, to very obvious consternation. Halfway through an interview, one candidate even asked when I was going to ask about hash tables.
"Fine. We can talk about concurrency and hash tables."
There was an undercurrent of expectation. Their handler / manager (the relationship was never really made clear) called me one day and said "We expect you to give a job to several of our people. You keep changing your questions. What is the problem?" And I would explain that I wasn't going to hire someone junior, who we would have to teach how to do engineering, for a senior wage.
Eventually they stopped coming, presumably having found better pastures.