I’ve seen the ads that I think are being descibed, however, I don’t think they’re so much to show a non-resident in general is needed as they are to show that a particular person (who, of course, is a non-resident, or it wouldn’t be necessary) is needed.The ones I’m talking about will be about three column inches long, describing in absurd detail the requirements for working behind the counter of a donut shop. The idea seems to be that only the owner’s brother-in-law will both qualify and want the job.
I can’t believe I’m getting this deep into this merd. But here goes.
First off, there would obviously be no way to prove that any particular ad is placed for the express purpose of justifying an H1-B hire. But having worked in an office that used to place these things specifically so that they could hire some student who’d overstayed his student visa, I do have some idea of what they look like. Let us compare and contrast two ads from the Times today:
Ad 1 - [X company] is looking for technology professionals to develop business applications and support the technology infrastructure in both team member and leadership roles. We offer the opportunity to work in an environment where acheivements are recognized…Multiple opportunities exist for qualified applicants in one or more of these technologies: COBOL/DB2, Visual Basic, C++, Java, Sybase, Oracle, SQL, UNIX, Windows NT, SunOS/Solaris…
Ad 2 - Test, diagnose and repair hardware & functional errors with notebook/laptop computer systems. Determine cause of computer malfunction or failure, using diagnostic tools. Test functional performance of the computer systems & subsystems. Analyze test results & compare results with specifications…2 yrs exp, 40 hrs/wk, M-F 9am-5pm, $38,393.68/yr.
Ad 1 is simply a company looking to fill some openings in programming positions. Ad 2 looks suspiciously like one of the ads I’m talking about. It meets the following criteria:
a) one opening.
b) highly detailed and extremely specific listing of job responsibilities.
c) precise specification of salary.
d) precise specification of hours and time.
e) no benefits listed.
It may or may not be such an ad. But ad 2 is what they look like. It’s a weak example, in that usually, as I said, you get this long laundry list of technologies and applications and even operating systems the person has to be familiar with, kind of like you see in ad 1, except that you have to be familiar with all of the items listed, not one or more of them. The chances of any one person actually having all of the stuff listed would be remote - unless you had someone in mind already when you were writing the ad.
To repeat: I really can’t believe you guys are being this naive. This is not, as far as I can see, a thread addressing immigration in general, which I’m actually for. It is addressing an instance of abuse of a program set up to address a situation of shortage in highly technical areas where such a shortage might be expected to exist. Simple applications programming, or, as in ad 2 above, troubleshooting a Wintel computer, is not an example of that kind of position. But H1-B’s are used for these kinds of positions, despite the fact that there is not now and never has been a shortage of applications programmers. There may be a shortage in programmers for highly specialized engineering applications, or in designing software for particular pieces of hardware, or in areas where an advanced knowledge of math or sometimes even biology is needed as well as programming. But not in business applications.
Fugazi: A couple of things:
First: Above where I said those on Active Duty could still convert, should have read “can still contribute to their VEAP if they have an account.”
Second: The fact that there are folks who got out of the Service with no educational benefits is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the allegation that the military lied about the educational benefits.
Third: You are aware that you said “date the law passed” when you should have said “date the law went into effect,” aren’t you? I did a quick web search, and also checked two Service’s web pages (Navy and Coast Guard) and got information on the bill in question.
Fourth: The last days of the run-up to the effective date of that law were busy for the unit ESO because of the folks who decided that’s a damn good deal.
Fifth: What’s also in dispute is that folks who didn’t read the information posted to them somehow weren’t at fault for not being informed.
Sixth: For Pantom: you got any proof of your assertion that there’s only one specific individual who would qualify for that ad?
Seventh: For Stormtrax: The reason, IMHO, you’re getting so much grief here is that you posted, well, inaccuracies, shall we say, about at least one of the two programs you mentioned. That tends to detract from your assertions on the other program since you mentioned them both in the same thread.
NO, I haven’t got any proof and I said so kumquat. Read the post. I have no idea if that ad is or isn’t posted specifically as an H1-B front. No idea at all.
None. Zip. Nada. Rien.
Got it?
Normal want ads, however, don’t go into excruciating details and don’t post an absolutely specific number for the salary. Such ads are typical if you already have someone in mind and are simply posting as a formality. It gets put in the documentation to be forwarded as proof that you couldn’t find anyone to perform the job posted, except for this person from some foreign clime you need to import through an H1-B visa.
Lord, first I do your homework for you guys, and then you don’t even bother to read what I post. What’s next, you want me to hold your dick while you pee?
I did read the post. Glad to see you admit you were full of it there.
Anyway, how about defining “normal want ad.” I jsut checked my local want ads (Monterey County Herald) for January 9, 2001. The first 20 want ads have 7 that don’t go into detail and 3 that it depends on your view if they’re detailed or not. So that means that out of the first 20 ads, one half of them are what you seem to consider not a normal ad. Oh, only one of them could be considered as “high tech” employment.
(a) There’s nothing unreasonable about a company recruiting for just one opening.
(b) It’s fairly detailed, but not onerously so. Every single one of the requirements listed is fairly generic (“test,” “diagnose,” “repair,” etc). Nothing in that description sticks out as being unusual or unreasonable.
(c, d) What’s wrong with listing the specific salary and time requirements? That’s a perfectly reasonable way of letting applicants know what to expect. Doing so does NOTHING to shut out U.S. citizens in favor of foreigners.
(e) Job ads seldom list the benefits in detail. This is doubtlessly because ad space is costly; besides, benefits are usually a secondary consideration. I’m sure that people are usually more concerned with job requirements and salary levels.
In other words, I don’t think this ad does anything to prove your point.
Now, sometimes companies DO write ads which are highly detailed, so that they can safely hire a specific individual. However, this is true of both foreign and American applicants. Besides, as long as the requirements listed are reasonable and accurate, there’s no real harm in being specific.
Y’see, companies who recruit foreigners can’t just write up any old job requirements. They need them approved by the Dept of Labor, to ensure that none of the requirements are unreasonable (e.g. knowledge of Sanskrit, where it’s unnecessary). If no qualified U.S. citizens step forward, then the company gets to hire a foreigner. If a qualified citizen does show up, then the company has to explain why they chose to hire the foreigner over the citizen. If they can’t defend their case, then the company is legally obligated to hire the citizen instead.
The citizen’s background doesn’t have to be an exact match for the job. If his background is a close but imperfect match, then the DoL can always confront the employer, saying, “Don’t tell us you’re going to turn away this citizen, just because he lacks <fill-in-the-blank>!” Once again, unless the employer can present a compelling case, they would be obligated to hire the citizen.
In other words, a highly detailed job description is NOT necessarily a sign of wrongdoing. Such descriptions are often the company’s way of recruiting the best person available – foreign or otherwise. If a company uses this technique to hire foreigners, there’s nothing wrong with that – AS LONG AS the job description is honest and reasonable. If someone comes close to meeting it, then the company is legally obligated to consider that person and defend their final choice.
Good reply, JTC. I’d also like to add that the ads that Pantom and Doreen are talking about are not H-1B ads, but Labor Certification ads - which are used in the green card process when a company decides to sponsor one of its employees for residency. Of course, they’d like to keep someone who’s done a good job for them for some time already, rather than hire a new person - why wouldn’t they?
Still, if the ad is too specific to an individual, it will be rejected by the DOL as “tailoring”, and companies do have to give satisfactory explanations as to why they rejected other candidates.
That’s an excellent point, ruadh. I think it would be shameful to deny them the opportunity to keep a hardworking, highly qualified employee.
If the employee is specially qualified, this will be reflected in his job description. If he isn’t, then there will be an ample number of US citizens who can apply for that job – and the company will be forced to defend its decision amidst federal scrutiny.
That’s right. The DOL goes to great lengths to ensure that US citizens are not arbitarily shut out. The DOL rejects unreasonable requirements imposed by the employer, for one thing. It also ensures that American applicants aren’t excluded due to mere technicalities (e.g. having just 1.6 years of programming experience, instead of a full two years).
No, the person in question is not necessarily a foreigner (which is different from a non-resident). Sometimes, companies advertise for these positions so as to comply with employment discrimination laws. (I’ll confess that I don’t know the details of these regulations; however, a technical recruiter assured me that such is the case.)
In addition, companies sometimes list highly detailed requirements so as to reduce the number of grossly unqualified applicants. There’s an understanding that people who don’t meet the exact requirements, but come close, are still welcome to apply. Having been involved in the hiring process before, I can attest that we received a large number of applications which didn’t quite meet our stated requirements, but which we considered nonetheless.
I believe that people that make unjustified statements like this are just assholes.
Yup, Monty, I’m full of it.
I don’t live in a world where all employers are forthright, honest, God-fearing, beautiful people. In my world, they’re out to make a profit, and the only thing they will allow to get in their way is a clear violation of the law that they can be called on.
So, you can live in your world, where no one overstays their student visa, where everyone charges a fair price for everything and pays everyone a fair wage, and I’ll live in my world, where everyone’s out to make as much as they can in whatever way they can.
And where we’re all full of it.
But, at least we know how to read. Some of us even know how to write. And how to recognize a fool.
JTC, as you well know, in a high-tech ad, a range of salaries is usually specified because everyone negotiates that, based on the experience of the person, what the company is willing to lay out, and the condition of the market at the time.
Skills are also somewhat negotiable. Generally, a company will list a bunch of stuff they want, and say which of them are required and which will give you a better chance of getting through the door.
We’re not talking about hiring a letter-carrier here. There, you expect to see a specific starting salary because it’s a union job with set salary scales. When was the last time you hired or interviewed for a union job?
Again, glad to see you admit it, albeit be your undeveloped sarcasm.
Care to provide a cite where I ever said that?
[/quote]
In my world, they’re out to make a profit, and the only thing they will allow to get in their way is a clear violation of the law that they can be called on.
[/quote]
Then you’re certainly living in a mythical land. In my experience, there’s this vast territory of “in between” of those two extremes of employers.
I have never said that nobody overstayed their student visa.
Nor did I ever mention fair price or fair wage (or unfair, for that matter).
Well, that’s a pretty bleak, and extreme, view of life. I seriously doubt it’s all that cut & dried, though.
Got a mouse in your pocket?
[quote]
But, at least we know how to read.
[quote]
Any of you able to do so with comprehension?
Any of you able to do so with valid cites?
Must be a hell of a lot of mirrors in that land!
I’m sure you meant to say “albeit by your underdeveloped sarcasm”.
Next time, develop your grammar a little bit more. Aids in comprehension, you know.
No, pantom, I meant “albeit your undeveloped sarcasm.” As in: not developed, referring to evidently stillborn sarcasm in the admission.
Dang typos!
“albeit be” obviously (for those who can read, pantom) should be “albeit by.”
Grammar’s fine and my spelling usually is.
It’s ok, we’ve already established you’re only semi-literate. That you can barely write, and don’t bother to check your typing (do you see that Preview Reply button on the bottom? Use it!) is hardly a surprise.
I believe this because I’ve heard so many people start to trash immigrants, but when I tell them I’m one they say “Not you, you’re from England.” To me, there is no explanation other than racism. I’ve never heard anyone cursing the Irish for working in bars or the French for starting restaurants, but I hear plenty of nasty comments about Mexican housekeepers, Asians and their Chinese takeouts, and Pakistanis at the 7-11.
This asshole see racism.
So, how would you explain it?
First of all, that’s not true. I frequently see ads in IEEE publications which only specify a single salary value. Many of these are for professorships and other jobs which are not normally filled by H-1B positions.
Second, even if it were true, there would still be nothing unusual about posting a single salary value – especially when that value is more or less fixed. I was recently involved in hiring for two new positions, neither of which could be legally filled by an H-1B holder. For both positions, we offered a specific salary value. (One applicant successfully negotiated a higher salary, but the point remains – our ads only mentioned a fixed value.)
So? I explicitly said that skills sets are negotiable. There’s still nothing anomalous or unethical about listing a detailed skill set. This can be used to target a specific individual – foreigner or otherwise – but it’s also a sound and reasonable hiring tactic.
Besides, I also explicitly said that the government can force employers to select the U.S. citizen if his skill set is “close enough,” and if the employer can not adequately explain why this person would be an inadequate choice.
That’s not the issue here. The issue is whether the ad you cited is anomalous or otherwise unusual. It isn’t. Even if it were used for hiring an H-1B – and there’s no good reason to believe it is – there is still nothing unreasonable or unethical in its text.
No offense, but that doesn’t do anything to address Monty’s objections to your claims regarding want ads.
Besides, Monty is right. Some employers do trample on the law to get their way, but others don’t. As Monty said, you have your two extremes, and most employers stay within the wide expanse between.
In another thread, you said that you’re only objecting to abuse of the H-1B system. Let’s assume that’s the case. Abuse certainly does exist, but none of the examples you’ve cited are clear examples thereof. With all due respect, I think you’re seeing a lot of abuse where none clearly exists.