McDonald's violated no laws because they didn't hire any H-1Bs. They contracted with an outside company to perform their accounting functions, thus eliminating 70 jobs. It is the outsoucing company, Genpact, that is bringing in the H-1Bs and that's probably just for knowledge transfer. Within a year or so 95% of the work will be done in India.
They contracted with an outside company to perform their accounting functions, thus eliminating 70 jobs. It is the outsoucing company, Genpact, that is bringing in the H-1Bs and that’s probably just for knowledge transfer.
*******************
So an illegal straw man in the form of “Genpact” is A-OK with you... this still violates the H1-b visa laws.
I'm sure you remember this exchange from the Disney thread from last December:
Is there any validity to the claim of RICO? Can a "box" be drawn around both the company and the staffing agency to claim that they, together as a unit, conspired to violate American visa laws?
It is a violation.
RICO laws were amended in 1996 to include illegal immigration as part of the statute.
A case was brought against Mohawk (Carpet/flooring manufacture) where Mohawk fired many of their employees (and reduced pay for others) and then used a temp agency, staffed with illegals to fill the now vacant spots.
The former employees sued under RICO and won.
The box was drawn around Mohawk and the temp agency as a ‘corrupt organization’.
In the Disney case, the IT workers should only be brought over on H1-B’s if those positions/skills cannot be filled by people by citizens or people with legal status to be here. The fact that Disney had their own skilled employees train their unskilled replacement means that it was visa fraud on the part of the contracting firm to bring over the people on the H1-B’s. Disney is not insulated ... the box is drawn around Disney and the contracting firm.
The parallels with Mohawk are there. RICO applies and by statue, the former employees are due treble damages and other civil penalties.
Mo
Let's use the analogy of a jewelry thief and a jewelry store "fence." If the fence receives jewelry thought to be stolen, but the fence himself did not steal the jewelry, is the fence guilty if he then resells the jewelry even though he did not steal the jewelry himself? Or are the thief and the fence co-conspirators in the theft?
In the case of McDonald's and Disney, one would have to claim that they had no idea that the workers brought to them by the temp agency were not legally permitted to fill those positions because capable American workers were available to hold those jobs (and were already incumbent in them). Otherwise, they were both, together as a unit, co-conspirators in visa abuse.
-PJ