|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/03/2003 10:41:12 PM PDT by sarcasm
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: With the number of H-1B (temporary skilled worker) visas scaled down to 65,000, attention has shifted to the L-1 (intra company transfer) visa. Lobbying by the Indian IT industry is expected to focus on preventing any changes in the norms for issuing L-1 visa.
This follows the failure of lobbying efforts with the US Congress to prevent reduction in the number of H-1B visas.
For Indian IT companies there are two concerns. One, L-1 visas are more extensively used by IT companies than H-1B visas. Second, there are more than five bills on the L-1 visa issue tabled and pending with the US Congress.
The L-1 visa and its alleged “misuse” by companies has attracted the ire of the anti-immigration lobby in the USA.
The concern is tempered by the awareness that the L-1 visa issue not only affects the Indian IT industry but a number of European and Canadian companies which also use the visa for their American subsidiaries.
Thus, the lobbying to prevent any change in the norms is likely to be fierce.
The drop in the number of H-1B visas does not affect the top Indian IT companies as they have curtailed its use and shifted to L-1 visas. The L-1 programme is intended to allow companies to transfer employees from a foreign branch or subsidiary to the company’s offices in the US.
However, US trade unions claim that the programme was being used to bring workers into the US and these workers were then being contracted out to American companies.
While this is strictly not illegal, it is not, as US lawmakers describe it, “in the spirit of the L-1 programme”. Some US lawmakers now want to plug these “loopholes”.
There is no upper limit on the number of L-1 visas which can be issued in a year, nor is there any limit on an individual company using these visas.
The application process is also much simpler as it involves an intra-company transfer from one country to US.
In ’02, 57,721 L-1 visas were issued and the figure goes up to 314,000 if one counts relatives of the workers. In the first six months of ’03, L-1 visas registered a seven percent increase over the same period in ’02.
These numbers have helped build a notion that “foreign workers are displacing American citizens and permanent residents from the work place”. This in turn has given way to a spate of Bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Several unemployed professionals have been lobbying politicians to prevent the use of L-1 visas by foreign companies.
There is bipartisan support for these bills as well as support from pro-immigration lobbies. There is a fair chance, observers say, that some form of these bills will make it to legislation.
This would have an adverse effect on Indian tech companies. Politicians who have tabled these bills include Republicans and Democrats.
These bills which are pending have been sponsored by Representative John Mica (Republican), Representative Tom Tancredo (Republican), Representative Rosa DeLauro (Democrat-Connecticut), Representative Nancy Johnson (Republican-Connecticut), Senator Christopher Dodd (Democrat-Connecticut), and Senator Saxby Chambliss (Republican).
The bills introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro and Representative Nancy Jackson are the most comprehensive and will have the maximum impact. Ms Jackson’s bill is supported by a similar bill by Senator Christopher Dodd also of Connecticut. This bill is called the ‘USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003’.
The proposed Act says that the L-1 employee will not perform duties at the worksite of another employer where there is indication of an employment relationship.
The tenor of the bills (introduced by representatives DeLauro and Jackson) is more or less the same, “protect American workers from losing jobs by preventing companies from using L-1 visas to displace American workers for foreign workers working for less money”. “This legislation strengthens domestic worker protections and puts every American company on a level-playing field, stopping the visa one-upsmanship many view as necessary to compete,” according to the bill.
All this is bound to adversely affect Indian tech companies, who have been using the L-1 programme. The bills seeks to set an annual cap on the L visa category at 35,000. At present there is no cap on the number of L visas that can be issued in a year.
Both bills propose that the ‘Blanket L’ programme be done away with. They propose an annual review of blanket petition procedures by US Human Services Department and Department of Labour. This will present a problem for Indian tech companies as it would just make the visa process a lengthy one. Currently, once companies have been approved, they can apply for the L-1 petitions en masse. If the provisions are changed, then each company employee going to the US as part of an intra-company transfer will have to apply individually.
But there could be some positives for the Indian techie as well. In its present form, there is no requirement that the L-1 foreign guest worker can be paid prevailing wages and benefits for the duration of their employment.
It is alleged that companies get in foreign workers at lower wages and as a result displace existing workers. The bill seeks to redress this as well. The bill says that the L-1 employer will provide wages that are the greater of the actual or the prevailing wage.
The employer will also have to prove that the employment of the L-1 visa holder did not displace US workers for 180 days before or after the filing of the L-1 petition. This is the practice being followed for the H-1Bs.
They suggest that the US Department of Labor will have the authority to initiate investigations into potential violations if there is reasonable cause to believe an employer hasn’t complied with the law. Under current law, in the case of L-1 visas, the DoL doesn’t have the authority to verify employer-provided information, such as wages to be paid.
The Johnson-Dodd Bill prohibits third-party subcontracting of L-1 visas (where a domestic company hires a subcontractor for the use of the subcontractor’s L-1 visas). This once again would pose a serious problem for Indian IT firms.
As of now, the L-1 visa programme requires that the guest workers must have worked for the company for one year out of the last three years prior to the transfer and the worker’s prior education, training, and employment qualifies them to perform the intended services. The visa is issued for a year and is renewable for up to five years and seven years for high level executives.
This is going to change if these bills are enacted. First, for executives to be eligible for the L visa, they would have to be employed by the company for at least two years during the three years immediately before the transfer. Second, a time limit of a maximum of three years has been proposed.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Sure it is. Uh..huh. That's why you see these adds that take half a column in a Computer trade publication, all in fine print that reads something like "Programmer wanted. Minimum requirements: PhDs in Mathmatics and Engineering. Orginal author of Java or other major language. Single handly written 2,000,000 lines of code (portfolio required)..etc. Salary: $29,000 per annum." Of course, it's awfully tough to fill this job, so this "justification" allows the employer to bring in two-dozen foreign nationals, ages 24-30, with 2-3 years experience, to fill the "unfillable" job.
Yup..all those regulations keep those L1 and H1B visa holders in line.
SFS
Now I know why our "representatives" were so willing to let H1B visas go back to pre-dot.con (yes, con) levels.
Forget chances of them acting against the interest of their constituents in India, the ones with the deep pockets.
In just over a year, Americans will go to the polls...
Hope they have the votes lined up in India...
Pretty clear who the current L-1 legislation benefits, isn't it?
Free trade bump.
I'm not sure how the law is technically worded, but it was explained to me by someone in my company who deals with this that the L1's would never be approved if the company admitted what they were using them for. The worker coming over on the L1 is supposed to have some sort of proprietary or specialized knowledge necessary to running your business.
That's been my experience with both the L-1 and the H-1b's.
I've seen US workers get laid off with a 'working severance' where they had to train their Indian replacements.
I'm on a project now where we're being asked to utilize some off-shore assets. So far, we've had two disasterous attempts.
The only thing you can get built off-shore are simple, repeatable components that don't take much independent design.
Which describes basically *nothing* in software development.
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.