Given this venue, H1-B seems on topic. Just sharing from
Greenspun.com:LUSENET:{GICC)
===============================================================
For educational purposes only
http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20000904/opinion/27812.html
Monday, September 4, 2000
Why Clinton should veto 'H1-B' By Vernon M. Briggs
Jr./Guest Columnist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad but informative letter of the Jesse Fern (Aug. 26
"Software
labor shortage") is right on target. The H1-B visa
program is a fraud. It is not intended to fill a shortage of
computer programmers. Its purpose is to
supply a greedy industry with cheap workers who cannot be
bid away in what is supposed to be a competitive labor market.
As Fern's letter indicates, as long as this phony program
is allowed to exist, very few U.S. citizens will ever be
hired. The computer industry, in all of its
myriad of forms, has found a way to legally discriminate
against the employment of U.S. citizens in their own country.
The H1-B program allows U.S. firms to hire foreign
nationals on temporary visas for up to six-year periods of
time. During this time, the foreign
workers are under contract to the U.S. employer and may
not quit in response to any offer from a competitor. They are
essentially indentured servants.
Their only option, if dissatisfied with their employer or
life in America, is to return to their homeland.
In its present manifestation, the H1-B visa was created
by the Immigration Act of 1990. It is supposed to be a way to
admit workers for employment in
"specialty organizations" where there are "temporary
shortages" of U.S. workers until the nation's education and
training system can respond by
providing sufficient job applicants.
The numbers of visas was originally capped at 65,000 a
year. In 1998, at the insistence of the computer industry, the
cap was almost doubled to
115,000 a year. Pending in Congress at this very moment
is a proposal to almost double the number again to 200,000
visas a year.
As it has evolved over the past 10 years, the H1-B
program has been converted from being a worker recruitment
program of last resort to one of first
preference and almost exclusive use.
There is no effective check made by the under-staffed and
under-funded Department of Labor that is responsible for
verifying the assertion of the
industry that they cannot find "qualified" applicants.
The industry needs only "attest" to the fact that a
shortage exists in order to have visas issued to people from
various less economically developed
countries (e.g., India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Eastern Europe,
Russia) to fill in the openings.
As a consequence, the computer industry has been able to
recruit programmers to work at wage levels considerably below
what comparably trained
workers in the U.S. feel are justified for investing in
such a career. Moreover, as Mr. Fern's letter testified, the
employers are now requiring several
years of prior experience work to be hired.
Workers in Third World nations are willing to work for
these low wages (which are higher than they receive in their
homelands) and they already have
the requisite years of work experience. As a consequence,
few young Americans are even considered should they apply for
any of the jobs that the
industry is required by law to advertise.
Moreover, as the industry is able to keep H1-B workers
for up to six years, there is no fear that the supposedly free
market will cause wages to rise in
response to competition as the industry expands.
Likewise, as more and more Americans like Mr. Fern
realize that they are not wanted despite all the hype about
the need for more programmers, there
will be more claims by the industry that American workers
are unavailable to meet their demand. But such a consequence
is entirely a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
One hopes that President Clinton will veto the pending
meritless proposal to increase the H1-B cap when it reaches
his desk. But given the fact that
both parties are so beholden to the computer industry for
financial support, I am not optimistic. The national interest
would be best served, as Mr. Fern
suggests, if this corporate labor subsidy were
terminated. But it will take an act of leadership to do it.
--- Briggs is a professor in Cornell's School of
Industrial and Labor Relations. His book, "Immigration and
American Unionism," is scheduled to be
published in the spring by Cornell University Press.
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
