Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tony who wrote (7902)	1/6/2003 9:14:07 AM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Tony, I respectfully disagree. Sponsorship of an H1-B employee can be very costly and time-consuming. The cost may in fact be greater than any savings that might be realized from a lower salary. I have seen absolutely no preference for H1-B candidates in any of the companies where I worked. If there was any preference, it was for those who already had a right to work here (resident aliens and citizens). OTOH, good communication skills are critical to doing my work. The hiring preferences may be different in some technology jobs, such as programming.

To: tony who wrote (7902)	1/6/2003 12:20:11 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

My point is a) Firing citizen and keeping H1-B b) Placing false ads for jobs when it is cover up for H1-B, green card process c) I think sometimes in late 2002 H1-B hiring finally stopped otherwise H1-B were preferred over citizens. I don't agree that (a) happens, at least not systematically. Employers were desperate for IT workers of all types in the 1990s; retaining employees was the goal, no matter what type. I agree that (b) happens, but it's more of a game that the federal govt has set up where there is a wink-wink between the employer and the INS. In flush times, this system works because the H1-B job is listed at a lower salary than what most Americans were willing to take. So there was actually no American worker willing and able to take the job. In a balanced job market as we have now, it's a tougher issue, and certainly at the margins there appear to be conflicts. The fact is that people are not fungible; you can always justify hiring one person over another person on the grounds that the citizen did not have the same skill set as the H1-B. But think about it from the employer perspective: you already have an H1-B probationary employee in place able to do the work. Would you hire a person who answered a classified ad who says that they can do the work or the one who is actually doing it. I think a rational employer would always go for the one in the hand rather than the one in the bush. As for (c), I'm not sure that there is a true H1-B preference. There is certainly a preference of employers for a lower wage, higher loyalty employee. A rational employer looks at the fact that it can hire a citizen employee with better english skills (usually) and higher upside in management, or it can hire a lower wage, higher loyalty H1-B. (The higher loyalty comes from the fact that the H1-B has to stay with the job until obtaining a green card or finding another employer willing to sponsor. When you get an H1-B or some other non-resident employee, you are ensured that they won't leave after a year or two). I think employers will take the H1-B every time--not because they prefer immigrants, but because they are getting an equal employee at a lower cost. This is not discrimination or illegal or whatever, it's just how the job market works.