Fake Job Ads WTF
-
This was a presentation by a law firm that specializes in teaching employers how to eliminate U.S. workers from consideration for hi-tech jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/programmersguild
Lou Dobbs is on to them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
The scam involves placing ads in papers to prove that no Americans are available to fill jobs.
You can do you part. Sign this petition ASAP!
-
To those who will inevitably downplay this because TunnelRat posted it:
It's not about "those foreigners stealin' mah' jawbs!"
This is large-scale organized corporate fraud to deprive qualified people of jobs in their own home country. It's disgusting to watch them coldly admit to defrauding people on video like that.
-
@djork said:
To those who will inevitably downplay this because TunnelRat posted it:
It's not about "those foreigners stealin' mah' jawbs!"
This is large-scale organized corporate fraud to deprive qualified people of jobs in their own home country. It's disgusting to watch them coldly admit to defrauding people on video like that.
<sarcasm>Also because foreign labor ends up being much cheaper due to your overhead being completely absorbed in the lower salary requirements. Plus, if they start getting uppity, unionize, get another job*, etc. you can just have them deported! So much more convenient! It's like a disposable worker!</sarcasm>
(* I am aware that there are ways that green-card and H1B workers can change jobs).
-
@djork said:
To those who will inevitably downplay this because TunnelRat posted it:
It's not about "those foreigners stealin' mah' jawbs!"
This is large-scale organized corporate fraud to deprive qualified people of jobs in their own home country. It's disgusting to watch them coldly admit to defrauding people on video like that.
Thanks, I was one of those inevitable skeptics to be honest. Some of the hatred borders on racism, but this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
-
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
And this surprises anyone why exactly? They're corporations. They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else. Highly recommend the documentary "The Corporation". Then nothing like this will surprise you anymore.
-
-
@Vechni said:
@djork said:
It's not about "those foreigners stealin' mah' jawbs!"
tewk our jawbs!
<southpark>"Dey took err jerbs!"</southpark>
-
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
And this surprises anyone why exactly? They're corporations. They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else. Highly recommend the documentary "The Corporation". Then nothing like this will surprise you anymore.
I think there's a big difference between making a profit and doing whatever it takes, hurting anybody who gets in the way to make the largest possible profit. It's shameful. Remember Henry Ford? He felt that if he paid his employees well, they would purchase his cars and HELP not HINDER his profit.
-
@jetcitywoman said:
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
And this surprises anyone why exactly? They're corporations. They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else. Highly recommend the documentary "The Corporation". Then nothing like this will surprise you anymore.
I think there's a big difference between making a profit and doing whatever it takes, hurting anybody who gets in the way to make the largest possible profit.
Yes. Most of us call that difference "the US border".
-
The Real WTF is the desctiption of th youtube video "offshoring of U.S. jobs and technologies to countries that have unfair wage and labor standards"
How dare these countries have unfair wage and labor standards! Don't they know they are depriving honest-to-goodness citizens of the US of A??
-
I know a small time consultant who's actually had to use something like this. Over the years, the guy's had at most 2 programmers in his employ -- far from a "big evol corporation", to say the least.
He'd hired a kid from Europe (who was here on his own student visa, or something) to do a bit of coding -- we'll call him Dirk. Dirk did a great job -- after a year or two, the consultant and Dirk had built a solid business that employed a half-dozen local highschool and college aged kids, centered around a large, complex application that Dirk had written from the ground up.
Then, whatever visa Dirk had expired. Now, to get Dirk back on a work visa, the consultant is required to run an ad like the ones mentioned above. Sure, *technically* someone else could take Dirk's place, but obviously, no one else out there has the exact knowledge Dirk has -- since no one else has spent two years building this application and business. Any replacement would take at least a year, if not longer, to get up to speed -- there's just too much domain knowledge, and the application is very complex. A year of training, of course, translates to tens of thousands of dollars in expenses -- something the consultant just can't afford; his business doesn't make enough to be able to afford that. Not to mention the fact that he'd fall a year behind his competitors; it's a very small--but tight--market.
The consultant's been dealing with lawyers and visas for over a year now, and Dirk has continued to work for him from his home in Europe. I'm willing to bet that, in hindsight, he'd probably avoid this situation entirely, if he could do it all over again. But he doesn't have much choice, in his current situation.
So, yeah, he had to put out an ad requiring a year's experience with his proprietary application -- experience that only Dirk could possibly have -- but that's because he really *has* to have Dirk back. He can't afford to train a replacement.
-
@TunnelRat said:
This was a presentation by a law firm that specializes in teaching employers how to eliminate U.S. workers from consideration for hi-tech jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/programmersguild
Lou Dobbs is on to them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
The scam involves placing ads in papers to prove that no Americans are available to fill jobs.
You can do you part. Sign this petition ASAP!
I don't understand why the Programmer's Guild is opposed to more green cards.
On the contrary, they should encourage more H1B visa holders to get green cards.
Here's why: The only possible reasons for H1B visa holders to accept lower wages are:
-
It's still a lot more than they can make back home
-
If they lose the job and cannot get re-employed within 30 days they will have to leave the country. If they don't they will be in violation of their visa and may be blacklisted from getting a visa again for many years.
-
They know their stay is limited to 6 years and they will have to return to their home countries at that time, so they tend to keep personal expenses low and save money for that eventuality.
Once the H1B visa holder becomes a green card holder, he/she is a legal permanant resident of the USA. What this means is that:
-
The employer no longer can hold the threat of job dismissal over their heads. Losing the job does not disqualify their immigration status and there are no time limits on finding another job.
-
The USA is now HOME for the green card holder. He/she is now a bona-fide aspirant to the American Dream, i.e. a house in the suburbs, an expensive car, kids in private schools, etc. And that stuff doesn't come cheap. i.e., there is no incentive for this person to accept lower wages any more- they will now demand market wages or better.
-
In 5 years they are eligible for US citizenship. This is a land of immigrants. What gives the Programmer's Guild the right to refuse the American Dream to others?
The law firm video describes a process which comes into play long after the H1B holder is actually in the country, so it doesn't really address TunnelRat's major grievances- i.e., the curry-munching and the wage-stealing.
-
-
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else.
ORLY?
so computer companies with recycling programs or companies that donate money to local arts/sports programs et al are breaking the law? Positive community involvement is good business. mere compliance with the law while utterly disrespecting the spirit of it, is not. Nowhere in the law is there anything that states "you absolutely cant pay a penny more to your employees than the very lowest the market will bear."
Still, it's not surprising that companies are trying to make money, but it is surprising the extent to which they are going to skirt the law. So much so that it looks like the labor dept. is going to investigate. no need to re-frame the argument, we're not all a bunch of commie hippie bastards that hate money. :)
you got to wonder too, if they hadn't paid so much for the lawyers to find a way around the law, couldn't they have just afforded to hire US workers?
-
@alostpacket said:
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else.
ORLY?
so computer companies with recycling programs or companies that donate money to local arts/sports programs et al are breaking the law?
Actually, for a US company, maybe yes, kinda. They are open to a lawsuit from their shareholders for deliberately not maximising share value (although donations are usually okay because they're just a way to get a tax break - the company actually makes more money, thanks to the utterly insane US tax system). This normally only happens when the amount of money involved is huge, but it does happen.
This is a US perversion. Most of the world doesn't have it.
-
@zonker said:
I don't understand why the Programmer's Guild is opposed to more green cards.
....
While I agree with your points, and would wish these guys good luck in getting a green card, the whole H1B program was created because tech companies cried that there wasn't enough qualified local talent (not because Americans cost too much) . The government agreed (or was lobbied into agreeing) and created a system by which people could temporarily immigrate and fill the gaps. The reason for temporarily agreeing is that otherwise this would be tantamount to opening our borders to anyone and everyone for the purpose of driving down wages. I'm guessing this is why the guild is against it especially when you can see there obviously is local talent that can fill the positions. I don't think the programmers guild is anti-immigrant but rather they are anti H1B in that it was designed to be a vehicle to fill a gap that doesn't exist and is being used as a method of bringing in cheap labor. Basically, if these guys get green cards then one would think that the number of H1B visa holder could be reduced because that gap has been filled. but there is no such provision in the latest renewal of the program. I think if H1B wasn't such an abusable system but rather there were more sane paths to foreigners gaining citizenship, then it would be a non-issue.
"The employer no longer can hold the threat of job dismissal over their heads. " - if nothing else this provision should be removed period. or give the person a year to find a new job. this is probably 90% of what makes the program so abusable and attractive to slimey American corporations. without this they wouldn't have as much power to demand low wages.
-
@alostpacket said:
"The employer no longer can hold the threat of job dismissal over their heads. " - if nothing else this provision should be removed period. or give the person a year to find a new job. this is probably 90% of what makes the program so abusable and attractive to slimey American corporations. without this they wouldn't have as much power to demand low wages.
IMO it's only logical within the spirit of the H1-B that people have to return to their home country when their employment ends. After all, they have to return after at most 6 years anyway. They came to do a specific job, and now the job is done (or they were unable to do it). Giving them a year or more to find a new job would make them some kind of immigrants.
-
@alostpacket said:
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else.
ORLY?
YA RLY!
Any of the things you posted could be counted as public relations/marketing/tax write-offs. If the executives purposefully tried to loose money they could be sued by the shareholders (as someone already said) and they could even be accused of insider trading if they had sold any shares, or anyone they knew sold shares, or if they or anyone they knew sold short on the company.
-
@tster said:
Any of the things you posted could be counted as public relations/marketing/tax write-offs. If the executives purposefully tried to loose money they could be sued by the shareholders (as someone already said) and they could even be accused of insider trading if they had sold any shares, or anyone they knew sold shares, or if they or anyone they knew sold short on the company.
At least in a short term perspective, this is not true. In many cases, shareholders expect the company to grow as fast as possible; being profitable is not only unimportant, but a sign of not expanding aggressively enough.
-
Wait, since race is a hot button issue for many people, let's clarify the root problem with this by removing race from the equation.
In the U.S. you can't discriminate in job ads by asking for people who are young or only females need apply, for example. That's the law. But it's common knowledge that women generally earn less than men, so a company could theoretically increase their profit margin by employing only women. Management attends this seminar that teaches them how to place job ads that DON'T specify a gender requirement, but can say things like "nurturing, excellent communication skills, gentle", etc. Then when they interview, they are instructed to ask loaded questions like "what are your hobbies", "describe your relationship with your last boss/subordinates", etc. Not illegal questions, but ones that are inclined to highlight without just saying so that the person is female. And because we all know that the actual selection process is more intuitive and touchy-feely than science, they can eliminate all the male interviewees simply by saying they didn't seem a good "fit" for the position.
It's wrong not because they're they're favoring women (or immigrants in the real case), but because they're deliberately discriminating against a group of people. They're not looking for qualifying skills and experience at all.
-
Well, at least the law makes it less likely that companies get into a "We proudly announce our new policy to raise the shareholder value by employing young colored females only" arms race.
-
@tster said:
@alostpacket said:
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else.
ORLY?
YA RLY!
Any of the things you posted could be counted as public relations/marketing/tax write-offs. If the executives purposefully tried to loose money they could be sued by the shareholders (as someone already said) and they could even be accused of insider trading if they had sold any shares, or anyone they knew sold shares, or if they or anyone they knew sold short on the company.
It's also up to the opinion of the shareholders. "Maximizing Shareholder Value" is a very generic term. Outside of the immediate and obvious financial benefit, donations create good-will and public recognition which makes people remember the company and/or can be used as a marketing tool.
Typically, most lawsuits have to be in the frame of "this act is designed for the explicit purpose of damaging shareholder value". Otherwise, making a wrong decision could result in a successful lawsuit on the part of each and every shareholder. This could be exploited to avoid paying creditors.
-
@ShadowWolf said:
@tster said:
@alostpacket said:
@UncleChuckle said:
@alostpacket said:
this shows plainly that these companies are just trying to abuse the system to make a buck.
They are LEGALLY BOUND to make money for their shareholders above all else.
ORLY?
YA RLY!
Any of the things you posted could be counted as public relations/marketing/tax write-offs. If the executives purposefully tried to loose money they could be sued by the shareholders (as someone already said) and they could even be accused of insider trading if they had sold any shares, or anyone they knew sold shares, or if they or anyone they knew sold short on the company.
It's also up to the opinion of the shareholders. "Maximizing Shareholder Value" is a very generic term. Outside of the immediate and obvious financial benefit, donations create good-will and public recognition which makes people remember the company and/or can be used as a marketing tool.
Typically, most lawsuits have to be in the frame of "this act is designed for the explicit purpose of damaging shareholder value". Otherwise, making a wrong decision could result in a successful lawsuit on the part of each and every shareholder. This could be exploited to avoid paying creditors.
yeah, i know what you guys are saying but shareholders with a lawsuit that said that companies should be hiring H1-B employees in order to save money would get laughed out of court. you have to kind of consider this in context don't you think? At most there have been maybe a handful of lawsuits resulting from Executive compensation, but i dont think I have ever heard of something over peon compensation.
-
@alostpacket said:
yeah, i know what you guys are saying but shareholders with a lawsuit that said that companies should be hiring H1-B employees in order to save money would get laughed out of court. you have to kind of consider this in context don't you think? At most there have been maybe a handful of lawsuits resulting from Executive compensation, but i dont think I have ever heard of something over peon compensation.
You don't see these kind of lawsuits because even the executives of large companies aren't completely stupid. They only risk it when it directly benefits them (ie, the executive compensation issues).
If a company decided "Hey, we've had a great year, beating our projections by 50%. Let's give that money to our workers as a bonus, since they're the ones who made it happen" then the shareholder lawsuit would be filed before the memo had been delivered to all the employees.
Similarly, if they decided "This H1-B program is cheaper but it's bad for the economy. Let's send them all home and hire local workers", you could expect the same result.
