Recent job ad: H1 transfers (Taking American Jobs)

Dice.com

[1stFreedom]

Folks,

I've been looking for a job for weeks without success. While searching on Dice.com, I found an ad targeting anyone with an H1 visa to transfer!

Whoever says workers on visas don't take jobs from Americans is smoking crack.

Foreign workers send money "home" thereby taking money out of the US economy. They take both old and new jobs away from Citizens. This might be fine during times of economic boom, but it's a shame during times like now.

Call and write your representatives in Congress asking them to, on an emergency basis, deny ALL H1 and L1 visas and related transfers. They may give you the excuse that they don't want to have the jobs shipped overseas, but don't accept that excuse. Ask them to impose heavy tarrifs or taxes on corporations that relocate thier IT work.

Tons of IT people have been out of work for some time now, and it's reached a boiling point.

I hate to say it, but I think we'll have more success with the Dems then the Pubbies.

(One thing the Pubbies are not considering is that many IT professionals are in fact incorporated and are small businesses.)

DICE Search results:

Title: H1 transfers Skills: JAVA, J2EE, EJB, oracle, DB2, SQL Server, Seibel, .net, VB, ASP, peoplesoft, CRM, Business analyst, 21 cfr PART 11, QA testers

Date: 4-7-2003 Location: Edison, NJ Area code: 732

Tax term: FULLTIME Pay rate: DOE Length: permanent

Position ID: AS202 Dice ID: 10108743

Job description: We are looking for a qualified candidates who are looking to transfer their H1. The candidates will be interviewed in their respective fields by experts and if selected will be considered for further training conducted in house. Salary will be based on skills. Local candidates preferred but is not a limitation. Good communication skills required.

Requirements: JAVA, J2EE, EJB, oracle, DB2, SQL Server, Seibel, .net, VB, ASP, peoplesoft, CRM, Business analyst, 21 cfr PART 11, QA testers Travel required: none Telecommute: no

[1stFreedom]

>>Except you want me to subsidize your labor market.

Nope. Not asking for a penny from the average person, nor corporations. No subsidies needed.

>>Tell me how that helps me?

It helps you because people who work spend money, much more then those who don't. This money is paid to businesses all the way up the distribution/supply chain. This keeps the economy going strong.

During the internet "boom" this process was masterfully illustrated. Companies grew along with people's spending.

Now we are seeing what happens when a "large" percentage of people are unemployed and/or not spending money. The money to business slows down all the way up the same distibution chains. This impacts the entire economy. Is your portfolio worth less today? If so, the IT unemployment problem has direct contribution to that devaluation. (Well, maybe you had a bad broker also).

So yes, my working does help you.

>> handout

If I wanted a handout I'd ask you to pay my rent a@@hole.

>>If a business has total sovereignty over its workforce, as it SHOULD, then it can discriminate against anyone it pleases, including Americans.

First of all, business don't have total sovereignty over anything. You are working from a faulty assumption.

Business are legal entities recognized by the States according to local, State, and Federal statutes. The State can close, punish, and regulate a business. The business entity is a creation of the State.

Second, the God Given Rights rights of citizens are enumerated. The citizens of this country have their rights recognized in the Constitution. Corporations are not citizens, do not have constitutional rights, and are not even on the same level as citizens. Corporations are recognized as legal "persons" for purposes of legal liability and taxation, not for resons of sovereignty.

>>it is infallible because it works.

It doesn't "work" extremely well. Take a good look at how people lived in early 1900 under capitalism. Capitalism by itself is an utter failure. Just like communism; on paper it sounds great but in practice it fails. Now, having said that, I would take capitalism any time over other forms of government. But not "pure" capitalism, because it doesn't work. None of the economic systems are perfect or infallible, some just work better than others.

>>you don't believe in conservative principles.

No, I just don't subscribe to what you define as conservative. You aren't the economic "pope."

>> You are a socialist.

You have no clue. I've personally lived in a socialist country and seen the poor results of socialism. I've had the "luxury" of socialized medicine by being an Army brat. (No offense to the Medical Corps, of which I was also a member). Socialism is the farthest thing from my belief system. If I were a socialist I'd be on medicare, medicade, welfare, etc and still be complaining that it wasn't enough.

In fact, I have a medical bill from an emergency room visit in Canada. I refuse to pay this bill out of principle. It is my opinion that since they sap off of our defense spending thereby allowing them to spend more of their money on socialized health care, I refuse to allow them too mooch off of me as a citizen. I consider this "debt" from them a downpayment for my contribution to the defense of the North American continent.

>>You expect government to run businesses.

No, you put those words in my mouth. Presidents, CEOs, and the lot are the ones to run the day to day business.

>>You either believe that businesses are sovereign entities or they are not.

They are not soverieng entities but creations of the State. The State, having given "life" through a corporation by recognizing and allowing it, has the absolute right to regulate the corportion. The question is not the sovereignty but the level of regulation. Conservative principles lean to very little regulation while liberal principles lean towards outrageous regulation.

>> believe companies are sovereign and should not tolerate one iota of government interference with their practice.

This is not a reasonable idea. Considering the fact that Governments provide the basis the recognition of a corporate entity, it is unresonable to think that the government has no regulating authority. And the Corporation has very little strenght in resisting a government. After all, a government has an Army, a corporation doesn't.

[dfwgator]

But the boom years we experienced in the late 90's were primarily associated with the creation of internet startup companies.

The Internet startups were a factor, but the main factors were that every company was upgrading their systems from the old mainframe paradigm to Client-Server, then to some degree to Web-based applications. Also companies used the Y2K crisis to justify overhauling all their systems in one fell swoop. That work is pretty much done now, and there isn't nearly as much necessity to upgrade corporate systems, as these companies are now happy with their current systems. Now the emphasis is on integrating systems together, but the days of rewriting old systems to accomodate the "language du jour" are pretty much over.

[1stFreedom]

>>Finally, I disagree with your assertion that GOD gives you the right to work. Who told you that?

It's the natural law my friend. You have the right to live, eat, breath. In this day and age life is sustained through work outside of agriculture. In this country, life is no longer sustainable merely through raising one's own food. That takes land, supplies, and labor. All of these cost money.

To deny you the ability to work is to deny you the ability to sustain your being. Quite naturally, you have the right to sustain that being. The way to sustain your life is to work.

[PatrioticAmerican]

That is an illegal advertisement. The H1 sponsor must always state that no American was available for the job. this ad says they only want an H1. Call the INS and report the anti-American bastards. Besides, I bet you will find it is another H1 doing the advertising.

[1stFreedom]

I believe many of the ads on job boards are questionable.

The same ads get posted month after month. Obviously, they are ads for non-existant jobs. When the employer is questioned about such ads, they often respond "oh that was closed last month. yada yad yada".

[HumbleButExceedinglyAccurate]

Most companies didn't deal with Y2K related issues until 1999. The internet boom on the other hand started up in earnest in 1996 and didn't really experience it's drastic downturn until the Janet Reno justice department won (temporarily) it's suit against Microsoft.

Here in the Seattle area (one of the hardest hit), it was staggering how many companies were running off of VC money invested by current & former MS employees. As their stock value went down, they pulled out of the internet startup market and the affect snowballed.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the days of system rewriting are over. These systems always require updates. Sometimes the changes are driven more by technology and sometimes with changing business needs, but neither of these causes have showed any signs of slowdown.

[HumbleButExceedinglyAccurate]

I don't believe in your natural law that gives you the right to a job. I think you're making it up. And your attempt to tie this right to agriculture is just goofy.

E-I-E-I-O.

[1stFreedom]

>>I don't believe in your natural law that gives you the right to a job.

Your disbelief clashes with reality.

>>I think you're making it up. And your attempt to tie this right to agriculture is just goofy.

It's a fact. For a majority of the history of humanity, man worked the land and hunted. This is not goofy but history. Today, in our culture, it's almost unrealitic to try and sustain one's life this way.

The only way to preserve your life is to work for wages, which you spend on food. If you don't have a right to work, then you don't have a right to attain the means to feed yourself.

It's a really simple concept.

[elfman2]

"I'm sorry, partner, but it is YOU who lack knowledge."

Maybe you should read backwards a post or two before you jump both feet into an argument, take a quote out of context and try (pitifully) to turn it around on the author. Take the time to see specifically why I told "traditionalist" he didn't know what he was talking about before you assumed something else and argue with it.

And don't quote "lazy Americans" at me as if I said that, even if you'd like to believe it in order to make your ignorant reply stronger.

[agarrett]

Except you want me to subsidize your labor market. Tell me how that helps me? Worse, your policy HURTS me. Not only am I forced to subsidize you because you want a handout, the fewer people in the market (as a result of the fewer immigrants) makes for smaller possibilities for division of labor.

  OK, you do realize that the H1B program is already subsidizing the cost of labor, right? They offer immigration, green card, and potential citizenship. These things all have a positive value, for which the employer is not paying. So, do you advocate doing away with this subsidy?

If a business has total sovereignty over its workforce, as it SHOULD, then it can discriminate against anyone it pleases, including Americans.

  A business does not have total sovereignty over its workforce. In fact, it doesn't have sovereignty at all. It's not a sovereign. Rather, a business may operate under the rules of the sovereign government that controls its territory. So long as they do so, they may continue to exist. If they violate the rules, they may be punished or disbanded. Repeat after me, "A business is not a sovereign."

This is exactly what I've been saying: you don't believe in conservative principles. You are a socialist.

  A conservative, as I understand it, wishes (in general) to conserve the status quo. You are the one advocating radical change in the way our laws work, to promote your view of unfettered capitalism. You may, from the views you've expressed here, legitimitely claim to be a capitalist. You may not claim to be a conservative. The two often intersect - but as you show - not always.

Drew Garrett

[GaConfed]

I am a Capitalist. I believe companies are sovereign and should not tolerate one iota of government interference with their practice. Hey pal, only nations are truly sovereign. A corporate entity that does business within a said nation is only sovereign up to the point where its practices and the laws of the nation digress. Since the corporation's business is wholly within the nation, and not the other way around, the nation's laws take presidence over the companies policies. You are like my mother's chihuaua yapping at my father's pointer; all big talk, and nothing to back it up.

[HumbleButExceedinglyAccurate]

Bottom line is this: I don't believe that God gives you the right to demand that someone else pay you to work for them, regardless of whether they want/need your services.

It's their right to decide.

If a group of 100 people were to show up at your door, would they have the right to do work at your place and demand that you pay them? No way! How could you pay these 100 people when you don't have a job yourself?

Having said all that, most people will go out of their way to help someone in genuine need.

[wku man]

I turned in a cabling company in suburban D.C. I used to work for, that had about 20 illegal scumbag aliens on their payroll. Result? Nothing. I've e-mailed and called my worthless Congresscritters and former INS more times than I can remember. Result? Nothing. The SOBs we elect, and the SOBs they appoint to run things, are worthless, and the system doesn't work anymore. Is it time to open the "third box" yet? Maybe not, but that time's drawing closer every day.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[MineralMan]

"The other problem not discussed is that if ALL the laid off
high tech workers went into sell say insurance ."

You have to be a lot more creative than selling insurance to make this work. Most successful self-employed people find small niches that are unfilled.

[ninenot]

One could add, of course, that Roman Catholic teaching on the topic is summarized by the aphorism: "Work is for man, not man for work."

Thus, treatment of workers as chess pieces who are expendable is morally wrong. The treatment of labor prior to NLRB and FLMA was morally abominable.

It is interesting that under Catholic labor principles, the more children a worker had, the more he was to be paid--to accomodate the expense of raising a family.

It goes without saying that the Church also interpreted the 7th Commandment as an injunction against laziness or non-productivity on the job...

[wku man]

"If a foreign immigrant from Taiwan wants my job and is willing to do an effective job at half my salary, I fully expect my employer to fire me and hire the immigrant."

So, by your reasoning, Americans should be willing to drop their standards of living to the same level as Indians/Pakis/Indonesians, etc. who have spent their lives sleeping on dirt floors, just to stay competitive? Sorry, pal, that ain't gonna happen. We'll grab the proverbial torches and pitchforks and march on D.C. first. Don't get in our way.

P.S. What's up with that sissy-ass French screen name?

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[ninenot]

Wrong conclusion.

What's actually happening is that the employer (or contractor) is building a database of prospective employees.

Run the ad incessantly and you'll get responses. Archive the responses until you need one of 'them.' Hire 'em, and fire 'em (you'll find a reason) when you've used them up.

THAT'S Capitalism.

[ninenot]

History began long before you were born.

Read some. It's good for you.

[Feldkurat_Katz]

As a side note, I think that you're wrong about the free market not working in today's world. Hong Kong, which has a much "freer" (if that's a word) market than the United States, and it has been one of the leading economic producers of the past 50 years

Hong Kong, while more free-market than US is still very far from libertarian. Did you know that the government owns all of the land? That's right, in HK you can lease the land, but the government is still the owner.

The government spending is about 20% of GNP; bear in mind, though that their military spending is close to nil.

And there is government-owned housing for the poor and a government-owned university too! How is that for a free market?