(1) Question: Are the H-1Bs paid the fair ``prevailing wage,'' as claimed by the industry? -- "There is a broad consensus that the H-1Bs are indeed exploited in terms of wages and working conditions." Exploitation of H-1B's
(2) Question: The industry says that it will need H-1B visas temporarily, until more programmers can be trained. Is this true? -- No, it's false and dishonest. The employers know that this labor ``shortage,'' in the manner they have defined it, will be permanent; they intend to rely heavily on H-1Bs permanently. H-1B usage not temporary
(3) Question: Why are the H-1Bs de facto indentured servants? -- Most H-1Bs hope to get U.S. permanent residency status, i.e. green cards. But during their sponsorship by employers for greencards, they are in essence indentured servants: The green-card process takes several years, so H-1Bs dare not change employers. Changing employers would mean starting the green-card clock all over again.
The legislation passed in late 2000 tempers the indentured servitude problem somewhat, but is far from a solution. Immigration attorneys estimate that H-1Bs will still typically have a period of indentured servitude of 3 or 4 years.
Starting in early 2001 (or late 2000), the industry experienced a sharp slowdown. There were now many more H-1Bs than jobs which employers wished to fill with H-1Bs. Accordingly, many employers no longer offered green card sponsorship when they hired H-1Bs. Though this would at first appear to at least give the H-1Bs more freedom of movement, they now had a new problem - deportation. If they were laid off or fired from one job, they would have to find another within 10 days, or face deportation. (Some immigration attorneys challenged this, but the INS chose not to respond.) So, it was de facto indentured servitude all over again. [This means that US citizens are competing against indentured servants who dare not ask for higher wages or anything else because they cannot change jobs. Guess who the employers prefer. --dl]
(4) Question: Since the industry says that the H-1Bs are so important to them, has it lobbied Congress to expedite the greencard process? -- Very few employers have done this. On the contrary, the ITAA's Harris Miller, in an interview with the press, said to the H-1Bs in essence, ``If you don't like it, go home'':
"They don't have to use the H-1B program They can stay in their own country or they can go to another country. They are trying to turn this into an entitlement program."
This is an amazing statement for Miller to make. He has repeatedly claimed that the H-1Bs are vital to the U.S. economy, so why would he invite them to leave the U.S.? His emotional outburst illustrates the fact that ISN's lobbying exposes the real reason why Miller's clients want H-1Bs, indentured servitude.
(5) Question: The industry says H-1Bs comprise only a small percentage of their workers. If that is true, why is there such a controversy? -- The Department of Commerce, in their report Digital Economy 2000 (June 5, 2000), found that H-1Bs now account for 28% of all information technology industry hires requiring at least a Bachelor's degree. Moreover, many of the large employers claiming that only a small proportion of ``their'' work forces consists of H-1Bs are hiding behind the fact that they ``rent'' many H-1B workers from agencies.
(6) Question: How has the high-tech slowdown since 2001 affected H-1B usage? -- Since jobs were now scarce, the H-1Bs were even more beholden to their employers than before.
The industry lobbyists, embarrassed by the fact that massive layoffs occurred almost immediately after the lobbyists got Congress to approve an increase in the H-1B quota, tried to spin the news their way. They predicted that the new larger quota would not be used, and ``therefore'' employers must be hiring Americans instead of H-1Bs. But the facts show this analysis to be incorrect.
In 2001, the number of new H-1B visas issued was up, while job openings were down. Clearly, American employers in 2001 were even more keenly interested in H-1Bs than in the past. This is apparently due to the fact that the economic tightening caused employers to have increased interest in hiring cheaper labor.
One firm, ADEA, even issued a press release in May 2001 in which it blatantly announced it would actively recruit such workers, in order to take advantage of their desperate status. Thus, although the numbers of H-1Bs hired may have been down, the percentage of new openings being filled by H-1Bs may have actually increased.
Also in 2001, in the midst of a recession, Dun and Bradstreet admitted to (legally) laying off American workers and replacing them with H-1Bs. The firm also forced the American workers to train their H-1B replacments, a common action in such situations.
The number of new H-1B visas issued did fall in 2002, but that was simply a result of the precipitous drop in job openings that year, even relative to 2002. But again this did not mean employers were acting any more responsibly than before. Indeed, a rough analysis indicated that the percentage of new IT jobs filled by H-1Bs was increasing, not decreasing.
I have posted this to prompt some FReeper discussion. I think that:
(a) IT is the point of the wedge - the H-1B program has been successful for industry for IT, so logically they will attempt to extend it to other occupations.
(b) The studies clearly show that US Citizens are being pushed out of an entire job sector by "indentured servants".
(c) The studies clearly show that older IT workers are doomed. For example: "...Five years after finishing college, about 60 percent of computer science graduates are working as programmers; at 15 years the figure drops to 34 percent, and at 20 years - when most are still only age 42 or so - it is down to 19 percent. Clearly part of this attrition is voluntary, but most are forced to seek other work when they see the handwriting on the cubicle wall: Employers do not want to hire older programmers. It should be noted that other technical fields do not show this rapid decline of work in their area. For example, consider civil engineering majors. Six years after graduation, 61% of them are working as civil engineers, and 20 years after graduation, the rate is still 52%; compare this to the decline for computer science majors from 57% to 19%..."
(d) THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!
From a politically conservative perspective, what is the solution? Do you think this is a real problem or not? Do you think it will remain only an IT issue or will it move into other areas where lobbyists may claim a "shortage"?
Thoughts? Comments?
Rather than run around lamenting their impending economic doom, why don't they get together to pool their talents and start new companies. It's the American way!