Posted on 02/26/2009 5:43:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Can you stimulate the economy by shutting out foreign workers? Sens. Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley think so. And for all his anti-protectionist rhetoric, President Obama has shown surprisingly little interest in stopping them.
The stimulus bill the president signed into law restricts the use of bank bailout funds (money banks get from the Financial Stability Plan, formerly known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program) to hire skilled foreign workers under the H-1B visa program.
This slap at open labor markets is downplayed as a dramatic but toothless gesture in favor of "Hire American," nice companion to the "Buy American" provisions of the same bill. Anyone who finds either of these two concepts a good idea in times of crisis has not learned anything from history. This superficially patriotic protectionism is a knee-jerk reaction, the politicians' equivalent of kids scratching a wound when they should really know better.
Even in its present form, this clause can do great damage. In this case, the Sanders-Grassley strictures mean nearly all major U.S. banks and financial institutions--all recipients of bailout cash--have to demonstrate that when they hire foreign worker, they tried to, but couldn't, hire American worker instead.
Aptitude, training and skill level become, at best, secondary concerns, and the door to lawsuits is opened wide. The restrictions don't bar foreign hires (who can legally work in America with H-1B visa), but makes them cost-ineffective in most cases and imposes prohibitive burdens on recruitment of needed talent. Banks are not the only targets: the Big Three automakers, for example, are all on the Financial Stability Plan's dole, too.
The real problem, though, is the underlying principle of the law. The idea that native Americans (or Poles, or Koreans, or Egyptians) deserve special status in hiring is deliberate slap in the face of globalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
From what I have seen, it is largely both. If you treat your employees and your customers ethically, you stay in business. It's that simple.
And I love how you skeddadle rather than address the large question - by your own admission, poor corporate management is the norm nowadays, and that poor management is driving the free labor process you support so wholeheartedly. Maybe you need to re-examine your premises - that pursuing the cheapest labor is not smart business. And it has a highly negative long-term impact on the economy because it undercuts for the short-and-mid term companies that are trying to be run well - they loose out on price competition, and by the time they are out of business, the other company is hurting as well at that point because of poor quality. So cheap labor took out two companies, not just one.
Why is anybody listening to this idiot?
DOL believes they are local. Every company that wants to import workers has to first advertise their positions at the prevailing local wage or salary rate. They then have to find creative ways to refuse to hire. Even the judge in “Miracle on 34th street had to conclude Kris was Santa.
Look; it’s tough to move for a job. This makes the supply of labor relatively fixed. It’s tough to hire from far away, easier to move the capital. The trick of business is, what guides the invisible hand of the market if the capitalist has no morals?
What did the silk road have to do with the Norsemen?
Please connect more directly
I agree that NAFTA was a bad thing, because of the end of national sovereignty and the lack of flexibility.
For the most part you cannot rely on the vital statistics provided by another country, much less their background checks. Case in point; baseball players from Latin America.
I know a company that hires 300 H1Bs from South Africa. Nothing in your points or others negative comments have been confirmed in those hires.
We had plenty of trade prior to NAFTA and we’ll have plenty of trade once it’s gone.
Canada is America’s best friend and our best trading partner but frankly they can take their complaint about our nation of orgin food labeling laws and shove it. There is no good reason to oppose food labeling other than not wanting us to know. If it’s that important to them they’re free to sell to someone else. However I suspect they’ll still sell to us because we’re willing to pay the most.
Prior to NAFTA we complained about the number of products that came from Japan (Myself included), but today I would be thrilled to get that kind of quality again.
So, so wrong.
How prevailing wages became law:
In that early industrial era, almost all jobs were low paying and worker protections were non-existent. Even worse, though the courts had ruled otherwise, those who sought change using collective action were still often viewed as part of a ”criminal conspiracy.” For workers, conditions couldn’t be worse. While the economy as whole continued to expand, most industries (and their workers) suffered from fairly regular and sometimes extreme business fluctuations – making work relationships tenuous at best and making job security an all but impossible goal to achieve.
In such an economic environment, employers were free to “bargain” with workers – primarily to see which one would work for the lowest wage. With exploitation so pervasive, workers could find themselves working up to twelve or more hours per day and seven days a week for less than subsistence. For workers with families, their economic plight often made it necessary to have more than one income – forcing both parents to work many hours each day for meager pay and often forcing children to work instead of going to school.
However, even before the end of the last century, many Americans began to question why such conditions were afflicting an ever-greater number of workers. More to the point, a growing number came to believe that, having an economic system that favored businesses which paid the least possible wages was clearly incompatible with our country’s founding principles of freedom, equality, justice, and the “pursuit of happiness.” In fact, many reformers went further, charging that it was blatantly hypocritical for America to espouse the benefits of a “free enterprise system” while the reality was increasing impoverishment
None stayed over!
Two want to start their own businesses, in the U.S., within the next several years. Who knows? Maybe they'll start the next Yahoo! or Google.
“One H1-B is one too many.”
This is a bit naive in today’s world. I have to deal with H1 and L1 visa issues on daily basis and the truth is much more complicated. First, companies are increasingly global and hiring is on global basis. In other words, team X needs to hire somebody. It advertises the position in Asia, Europe and the US. The position can be filled in any company site worldwide (where the team is operating). Eventually, it decides to hire somebody.
It is now much easier to hire somebody outside of US, rather than to deal with the visa issue in the US. The end result is that positions tend to get filled outside of US. Tax revenue goes to some other country, and the company grows elsewhere (which tend to lead further growth there, as opposed to US). I would say this is bad for US, but hey, that’s just me. Wall Street banks especially can hire people (for the same positions) easily in the UK, US, Singapore and UAE. US is now the last place to hire, unfortunately.
Second, this is only about 64,000 visas, and mostly in specialised areas for people who studied in the US (and who are likely to become citizens). My company hires best talent on global basis. Having to hire second-grade talent because of visa limitations makes no sense, and it just leads to filling the positions elsewhere, where it is legal to hire the best talent possible. Free marker principle has made this country rich. Protectionism and socialism makes this country poor.
Bailout bill specifically supported illegal aliens, but punishes legal immigrants. Crazy.
The big lie is that they set the "qualification bar" for Americans ridiculously high, and, when no Americans appear who can fly on gossamer wings and leap tall buildings with a single bound, they hire an H1-B who is nothing like the original set of qualifications they demanded.
The whole exercise is an excuse to hire someone for pennies to whom they have no obligations, owe no benefits, etc. They want a cheap, disposable, unqualified foreign worker, not an American who has rights under the law and expects benefits, etc.
According to my understanding of the law, every single H1B hire is supposed have been due to the inability to locate a similarly skilled American to fill the position. I know, I know... it doesn't work that way, but I believe technically it is intended to work exactly that way. Seems these days companies (and really individuals who work at those companies) are more than willing to lie, fudge the numbers and re-write job descriptions so specific that only the candidate they want can fill the role.
Something to think about.....
Agreed, they could....
So why do they not? And it's not always about pay either...
“The real problem, though, is the underlying principle of the law. The idea that native Americans (or Poles, or Koreans, or Egyptians) deserve special status in hiring is deliberate slap in the face of globalization.”
....deliberate slap in the face to globalization.....and that’s a bad thing???
Anecdotal success does not imply the program has worth. There is no H1B for virtue. If you want to say that many American workers bring doom on themselves because they lack the virtues of modern industrial or admin work, that’s different.
That however is not the point of the program.
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.