Posted on 07/31/2018 9:38:04 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Labor (DOL) announced an agreement Tuesday to work together in cracking down on companies that "discriminate" against U.S. workers by hiring foreign workers.
The DOJs Civil Rights Division and the Labor Department will start sharing information on employers, refer issues to the appropriate officials at each department and offer training to each others staff under the agreement.
Acting Assistant General John Gore said in a statement that the agreement will help the civil rights divisions ability to identify employers the favor temporary visa holders over U.S. workers who can do the job.
Employers should hire workers based on their skills, experience, and authorization to work; not based on discriminatory preferences that violate the law, he said.
Rosemary Lahasky, the deputy assistant secretary for DOLs employment and training administration, said in a statement that sharing the information will help protect U.S. workers from unlawful discrimination.
DOJ and DOL say they reached the agreement to better protect U.S. workers from discrimination by employers that prefer to hire temporary visa workers over qualified U.S. workers.
President Trump has promoted an America First agenda, criticizing companies that move plants out of the U.S. and stoking concerns about immigrants taking American jobs.
Critics have hit Trump over the statements, noting that his own private properties have filed multiple requests to hire foreign workers. The properties hire the workers through the H-2B visa program, which allows American employers to bring foreign workers to the country for temporary, non-agricultural work.
The employers must be able to show there are not enough American workers able or willing to fill the seasonal jobs.
The Trump National Golf Club in Florida asked the Labor Department for permission to hire about a dozen foreign workers this month, BuzzFeed News reported.
Other properties have made similar requests, including Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Trump has defended the practice, saying in 2015 that it is "very hard to get people in Florida for seasonal jobs."
Does the human who is replaced by the robot use taxpayer resources?
The guy with the H1B is also sending the majority of his income overseas to a foreign economy.
Meanwhile, the unemployed American citizen gets unemployment that easily cancels out any taxes on the Indian labor.
Which, by the way, will be less overall tax revenue....because the Indian H1B is making less, therefore paying less.
Keep in mind that we are arguing with an individual who first claimed that H1B taking US citizens jobs wasn’t even happening.
Because you’re a dishonest shill. The wild card is ‘legal’. The laws didn’t used to allow the mass importation of Third-Worlders; and the companies benefit from the legal structure, infrastructure, and US consumer price environment for sales. But they magically want to import foreigners who are less skilled to distort the labor market in their favor. Nikes still cost $150/pair, meaning cheap labor is not required to compete on price...it’s just greed.
“The guy with the H1B is also sending the majority of his income overseas to a foreign economy.”
We have no way of knowing that.
“Which, by the way, will be less overall tax revenue....because the Indian H1B is making less, therefore paying less.”
And as a shareholder, I get greater value.
“Nikes still cost $150/pair, meaning cheap labor is not required to compete on price...its just greed.”
I have never been forced to buy a pair of $150.00 Nikes.
“Keep in mind that we are arguing with an individual who first claimed that H1B taking US citizens jobs wasnt even happening.”
I did not say that.
Citizens are not being replaced as they are not being killed, they are not being shipped out of the country.
But yes, employees have been replaced by both machines, and outsourcing.
However, companies, if they want to survive, will always hire the best worker for the job at the best price.
Meaning GOOGLE...
Moving goalposts. The high prices charged, are proof that the low cost labor is not necessary to compete in the marketplace, let alone corporate survival. Again you are a pathetically unskilled liar.
“The high prices charged, are proof that the low cost labor is not necessary to compete in the marketplace...”
No, high prices charged are only proof that consumers are willing to pay that price.
“Legal” is how many visas Microsoft can buy from Senators.
“Legal is how many visas Microsoft can buy from Senators.”
Well then, don’t elect those senators.
If consumers are willing to pay an inflated price, they are *by definition* willing to pay LESS than that price.
Therefore, the company could safely lower the price and remain in business.
Unless you are, you know, REALLY suggesting that the labor and materials for a pair of shoes, requires a retail price of $150/pair.
As to the "they should be able to hire anyone" -- it's a cultural / ethnic / religious version of the tragedy of the commons. Companies used to be able to use air, water, and land as mere externalities: free to take, regardless of the cost imposed upon others.
Importing Third Worlders is like that; they have deleterious effects upon the host country and the host culture as a whole. The companies privatizes the benefits -- lower costs for themselves: but they don't share the windfall in the form of lower prices. And they force their home country and community to live with a triple whammy. First, the citizens of their own country are burdened with a fixed price structure, based on what their income *used* to be. Even though the immigrant labor costs less, this cost does not drop consumer prices. Second, the immigrant labor replaces the US worker: they must retrain (at their own expense), on the mere chance, or hope, that they can find something comparable to their old pay (usually they can't) [*]. Third, most of the Third Worlders are basically indentured servants, both distorting the supply/demand curve for labor, and imposing all kinds of indirect social costs on the communities: lack of cohesiveness, ethnic tensions, non-Christian religions, lack of understanding of the Constitution and undermining of the body politic, and a need for all kinds of social services, from special language translators, to higher crime rates (in some cases), and with that, rises in insurance costs, insecurity, welfare payments, and the like.
But those are magically waved away with the solemn twin cries: "DIVERSITY" and "FREE MARKETS".
In the meantime, the executives who sponsor this sh*t make out like bandits, and after the company crashes, they keep all their stolen wealth. (Whatever happened to Sun Microsystems? What about GE?)
Here's a hint. Your iPhone has more computer power than the entire world did in the 1960s. Yet the US sent a man to the moon, without relying on Indiana, Pakstanis, Mexicans, or any of the other panoply of "muh DIVERSITY!" workers.
We don't need or want the Third World. Your evil masters are just greedy slime.
[*] -- and this is not a matter of drunken blue-collar sots "who deserve it" ; one example which came about was a PhD scientist who was laid off, after working on fluorescent proteins used in biological studies. He had to hand over the work to others, and had to take a job as a parking attendant at $10/hr to survive. The work led directly to a Nobel Prize.
“Therefore, the company could safely lower the price and remain in business.”
Your business model of selling products for a price which is lower than the market will bear is an unsound business practice.
Reminds me of a manager I knew once who only shopped at high-end grocery stores, even for staples, when there was a Wal-Mart across the parking lot. When I asked him why (citing the 50% markup on paper towels), he said loftily, "That's not the image I'm trying to project."
He later had to trade in his large pickup truck because he couldn't afford the gas for a 12-miles-each way commute.
And before you open your yap again -- the reason this doesn't apply to H1-Bs and illegal aliens, is that I'm not bribing Congressmen (either literally, or with campaign contributions) to change the rules in *my* favor, and then blaming the victims of my skulduggery for trying to play by open, honest, fair rules.
And, I don't make my consumers pay bloated, extortionate prices for suddenly inferior quality of workmanship and service, while lying and pretending the customer had demanded a change which was to my benefit and their detriment.
A quite reasonable way of demonstrating the lie, is simply to ask all the EXECUTIVES to go live in India and Cambodia and run the production directly from there. You know, since all cultures are equal, but shithole cultures are preferable to flyover country in the US.
“Ahh, so trying to compete on price to gain market share is unsound?”
Nike has a comfortable market share.
Now, suppose you went into the widget business, and you found that people would line up at stores to pay $150.00 for your widget and your margin was 50% per widget? In fact, you could not make enough widgets to meet consumer demand.
Now, why on earth would you lower the price of your widgets to $75.00?
Take a bow.
“A quite reasonable way of demonstrating the lie, is simply to ask all the EXECUTIVES to go live in India and Cambodia and run the production directly from there.”
No thank you.
I work as a real estate agent and own real estate in a town that might get the Amazon’s HQ2.
If so, the future is so bright!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.