Replies

The difference, in a nutshell, is this:

The mistake or crime commited here, by a native-born IT professional,is his alone and therefore he is held responsible for it.

The mistake or crime committed by a foriegn worker in a foriegn country is MANAGEMENT'S mistake -- They hired folks, sight unseen, on another continent. And the worker usually does not work for the company, per se, but is rather (usually) someone hired by a contracted firm to work on the company's behalf. In effect, he is BEYOND the company in terms of oversight, disciplanry measures, etc., and is subject to the laws of whatever country he happens to be in, not AMERICAN law.

Yes, a sufficiently big customer can request to have the foriegn screw up sh*tcanned, but there's no guarentee that he will be. In the end, it doesn't matter because he is replaceable in the sense that there 20-50 other guys willing to work for what an American would consider slave wages without bennies.

The crux of the issue at the end of the day is what is cheaper for the firm, not neccesarily what is best for the firm. When you're getting adequate for less rather than adequate for more, you tend to be more demanding, and even more ruthless. The pain threshold is not neccesarily all that high, because in some oxymoronic way, someone, somewhere still realizes that you get what you pay for (unless it becomes necessary to think otherwise), but as long as it's adequate you do not care. You only care when you have the opportunity to make some other poor a**hole's life miserable and when you need to save your own butt.

It is great to see that you progress beyond the "duh" stage. You nice long post comes down to two points:

1. You don't like immigration (or the workplace competition that it brings). So much so that you are willing to set up a strawman for your argument.

2. You are bitter.

My suggestion (based on your next post): Since you are so much smarter than "management" and know so much about what is right for a company, start one of your own.

Best of luck.