Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saving Our Economy
My fetid brain | May 16, 2003 | Harpseal

Posted on 05/16/2003 4:49:38 AM PDT by harpseal

The job market for tech graduates is tight and getting tighter. People with years of technical experience are working at flipping burgers and saying “Welcome to Wal-Mart.” Outsourcing every corporate function except senior management to low wage nations such as India and China has become the latest fashion in the executive suites. There are many reasons why this has become the fad du jour but if the USA is to remain a livable nation it is time for Government policy to change in order to maintain the American economy. Those technical jobs that remain inside the USA are being given to low cost “Guest Workers” under the H1B program or if companies have gotten squeezed by the minor contraction of the H1B program they bring in people under the L1 visa program. In the interim totally qualified Americans are pounding the pavement looking for these same jobs. The means to maintain the American economy as the engine that drives the world are there but there are some government policies that must be changed. I am proposing a ten point program that will put the American economy in the front again.

First, and foremost the H1B visa program should be eliminated today. ALL H1B VISA SHOULD BE ENDED TODAY AND THOSE PEOPLE IN THIS NATION ON THAT PROGRAM SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT FLIGHT OUT OF THE USA. If this causes a hardship for some companies, oh well, the H1B program was based on the supposition there were NO Americans who could do the job. So they lied and they should pay a price for their misrepresentation.

Second, the cost of outsourcing should reflect its true cost to these companies. Revise the tax code so that the investment tax credit does not cover any development done outside the USA unless such development can not be done inside the USA. Fraud in such certification should be considered a felony and prosecuted.

Third, get rid of section 1706 of the IRS code that made it almost impossible for the independent IT consultants to do business directly with companies.

Fourth, the temporary visas for engineers coming into the USA to learn what the jobs of current IT workers are should not be granted.

Fifth, simplify the tax and regulatory environment so that contractors can be employed more readily. (See comments on section 1706).

Sixth, tighten the L1 visa program so that it is not used as way around the H1B program. In short no L1 visas will be issued to facilitate moving American jobs offshore.

Seventh, prosecute anyone who has certified falsely that they were unable to find American workers for a job when all they were doing was trying to save money by bringing in H1B low wage guest workers. A few felony convictions in this realm will do wonders for stopping future false certifications.

Eighth, repeal all government subsidies for foreign investment, and institute tariffs against those nations which only will purchase American products if we build facilities in their nations. Such restrictions by foreign nations are an infringement on the free market and must be fought. More factories in China will do nothing to improve the American economic condition. Now even Mexico is feeling the pinch the investment by American firms in the People’s Republic of China. In short access to the American Market should be dependant upon free access of American firms to the market in other nations. If guest workers from a nation are to be allowed in the USA then Americans must be allowed to work in that nation.

Ninth, the American system of higher education should be focused on Americans first and foremost. If foreign students wish to come to the USA to study that is fine if there is space available, but only on a space available basis. Priority must go to those students who will be graduating as American citizens and the public funding of higher education should not be expended on students from other nations who seek to come here study and take the knowledge back to another nation to compete with the USA.

Tenth, we as a nation must revise our overall tax and regulatory environment. We must get away from the soak the rich formulas. We must no longer have the legal system seek to micro manage every action of every person. Rule of law is important but the law should not concern itself with trivialities. We need to restore balance in our tax laws and regulatory system.

These ten points are based on come very sound principles and are a natural conservative agenda in my opinion. They are based on controlling our borders. They are based on not subsidizing foreign nationals at the expense of the basics of American citizens. They are based on demanding free markets from our competitors. They are based on returning sanity to our tax and regulatory systems. They are based on demanding responsibility and truth from our nation’s companies in their dealings with our immigration policies. They are based on holding companies accountable for their actions.

No, none of this is a giveaway program. They are not based upon taking away a free market but rather on expanding a free market. India and China in fact the entire world has a sound basis to become sound stable and prosperous economies at present. The USA should not experience deflation and depression to subsidize these nations.

The political implications of the above proposals should be clear to everyone. Advocacy of these proposals would appeal to a broad cross section of the American electorate. They could be enough to insure a long term governing plurality for the political party that adopted them. It is my hope that the Republican Party will take them to heart.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: foreigntrade; freemarket; hightech; jobmarket; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 next last
To: Mr. Bird
No offense, but how do we demand "free markets" from our competitors while closing our labor market at the same time?

Frankly, I don't believe we have the right to "demand" free markets in any sovereign foreign nation. They have sovereign jurisdiction over their domestic market the same as we have sovereign jurisdiction over ours. They have the right to establish a set of rules and regulations that they deem beneficial to their own citizenry just as we have the right to establish our own set of rules and regulations. Where do we get the "right" to "demand" that they change THEIR rules? That sounds just as obnoxious as giving some door-to-door salesman the right to bust down your front door to force you to endure his vacuum cleaner demonstration. Dang intrusive peddlers should be locked in jail instead.

51 posted on 05/16/2003 10:01:55 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I used to do "verification." Grunt work to some, but I had to work hard and pay my way through nightschool over the course of several years to get to that level. Never made 70k, never mind the 200k mentioned. A lifetime of struggle to get that far, only to be flushed down the bowl.

Might have been tedious, but beat the hell out of hanging commercial drywall and working in a bar at night.

There's a major problem in this country for which I have no solution better than the gillman's.

52 posted on 05/16/2003 10:14:00 AM PDT by Garrisson Lee (Yorktown? Georgetown is more like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
The overriding point to this is that in both cases, governments are trying to do what is best for it's people's financially.

So why do object for governments doing what is best for its people financially in other envirornments most especially when it helps promote an actual free market. I guess it is becuase you think it might cost you something that you feel entitled to by what I wonder?

53 posted on 05/16/2003 10:29:22 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
So why do object for governments doing what is best for its people financially in other envirornments most especially when it helps promote an actual free market. I guess it is becuase you think it might cost you something that you feel entitled to by what I wonder?

Would you try rereading this question.

54 posted on 05/16/2003 10:35:12 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
So why do you object to our government doing what is best for its people financially in other envirornments most especially when it helps promote an actual free market. Specifaclly the IT and manufacturing sectors. I would also include the financial sector because that is the next target of outsourcing.

I guess it is becuase you think it might cost you something that you feel entitled to. By what right do you feel this entitlement I wonder?

55 posted on 05/16/2003 10:38:59 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The demand for free markets is only because other nations are having free access to our markets I am just asking for full reciprocity or as my grandmother use to say Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
56 posted on 05/16/2003 10:40:46 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
The demand for free markets is only because other nations are having free access to our markets I am just asking for full reciprocity

Policy based on "reciprocity" is a bureaucratic nightmare.
There are 191 nations who are members of the UN.
It's simply a pain in the butt keeping tabs on each and every one, even if they organize themselves into a variety of different trade groups. That just shifts diputes into those groups for resolution and judgement in a manner that violates our nation's sovereignty.

It's much simpler and more efficient to dispense with such nonsense and retain our own, one-size-fits-all trade policy with respect to other nations.

"We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.

Protectionist tariffs or tariff exemptions that target or favor the special interests of different countries or industries should be banned.

However, as our Founding Fathers preferred, a relatively low, flat-rate "revenue tariff" of 10~15% should be levied on ALL imported goods, regardless of nation of origin. Revenues derived from such a tariff could be used to offset reductions in other forms of domestic taxation.

57 posted on 05/16/2003 11:01:39 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
That just shifts diputes into those groups for resolution and judgement in a manner that violates our nation's sovereignty.

No we simply implement the policy and when and if they come to our terms they gain free acess to our markets. they can engage in bilateral negotions with the soverign USA and deal with the results. This should lead to a straight revenue type tarriff you favor.

58 posted on 05/16/2003 11:07:37 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
"Regarding point 7 the prosecution for perjury of those who perjured themmselves seems to me to be a fair thing to do."

Provided the question they are asked has an objective answer that can be determined empirically with little cost. I'm confident the actual effect, once prosecution were vigorously pursued, would be to end all employment based on H1-B -- not because everyone employing someone via H1-B is guilty, but because the standard of culpability will in practice be arbitrary, as well as difficult and costly to defend against. That is almost always the case when government back-seat drives employment decisions.

Affirmative action demonstrates the same mechanism, with the opposite effect. The supporters of the 1964 Civil Rights act assured all that quotas would not result, but those turned out to be the only practical means of enforcement and defense.

"Regarding point 8 it is in order to open up markets for US goods and service that tarriffs have their most effect."

The key modifier there is "in order to". The main effects of laws quite frequently have nothing to do with their stated purpose. It is very difficult, in practice, to remain true to the original purpose once any departure from uniformity has been granted.

I'm not at all concerned whether some country grants us free access or not; they are sovereigns, and it is their business. We are not entitled to reciprocity, and in the aggregate free trade is in the economic interest of the nation, regardless of whether it is reciprocal. However, I am concerned about the distribution of the effects of free trade within our nation. The individual costs attending a free trade policy are not uniformly distributed, but poltical power is, through the franchise. Free trade is therefore politically destablizing and dangerous.

Like the country-specific tariff, the uniform tariff distributes the individual costs of trade policy in a more egalitarian fashion. But the uniform tariff has four great virtues that the country-specific tariff does not.

1) It does not require a mechanism for determining country-of-origin. In the case of raw materials it is typically easy to determine that, but in the case of finished products it frequently is not. If a finished good has parts produced in countries A and B, is assembled in C and passes through country D as its last stop before reaching the USA, what is its country of origin? Any formula to resolve that is going to be arbitrary, arcane, and subject to endless revision -- and revised also for reasons having nothing to do with the original purpose. This fails several tests of good law.

2) By being uniform, there is no hierarchy of angels and devils in trade policy; our trade policy can only serve trade, and not other ends (but exceptions for war are likely prudent.) In peace, our trade policy could only elicit the general, rather than the specific discontent of other nations, and is therefore more conducive to peace than the current arrangement.

3) By being uniform, it can be lower.

4) By being lower and uniform it will be cheaper to enforce. It will be cheaper because the cost attending the discovery and documentation of country origin simply does not exist; voluntary compliance will be much higher; attempts at circumvention or outright smuggling much lower.

IMO, these four advantages are overwhelming.

59 posted on 05/16/2003 11:10:33 AM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
they can engage in bilateral negotions with the soverign USA and deal with the results.

Our policies should strictly be based on what is best for our own citizenry. They shoud NOT be subject to negotiation with foreign governments. The revenue tariff should be imposed unilaterally. Foreign nations are free to deal with that, or not, as they choose.

Frankly, a unilateral, nondiscriminatory flat-rate revenue tariff is more in line with the principles of true "free trade" than anything that is micromanaged by negotiated trade agreements.

60 posted on 05/16/2003 11:18:47 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I'm not a fan of outsourcing. I think Bush's economic plan is great and may well produce jobs, but for whom? American's or the Third World Countries?

However, I have watched our PC society/governement force American companies become social service organizations. I watched it at Boeing and know that it goes on at Exxon-Mobil and IBM, just to name a few.

Mandatory ethics (that used to be taught at home and school didn't it - and was expected to be part of one's good character??), diversity training, etc. Women take 8 weeks off prior to delivery of a child under 'disability' and then get paid for 6 weeks or so after delivery of the child. Companies worry about being sued (and losing) if one of their management employees say or exhibit any behavior considered anti PC.

And lets' not forget programs like the Black Engineers Award (nothing specifically for Greek, Italian, etc. engineers) and the payouts to certain groups to satisfy PC claims that they were underpaid, passed over for promotions, etc.

Companies are either businesses or social organizations. If I was running a business, I would take my work where the company could concentrate on business and not have to incorporate the cost of implementing PC programs into my workday. After all, who pays for all these training sessions and the time the employees are not working?

As an employee I detest outsourcing, but as a logical, thinking person I can certainly understand why business is getting driven out of this country.

61 posted on 05/16/2003 11:24:53 AM PDT by chit*chat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Hi Harpseal, thanks for the post.

"Kicking them out of the country will do actual harm to regular Americans. -
This assertion needs proof before we maintain H1B workers in this nation."

That is ordnance on target.

Despite the often repeated assertion that H1B's actually represent free market competition, they are an artificial manipulation of the labor market. The original purpose was to alleviate shortages in some high demand professions - there is no shortage of programmers and engineers after the whopping loss of over 1.6 million jobs in the last few years.

This doesn't even begin to address the security concerns of having a South Asian or Chinese programmer working on software used by banks, government, insurance, credit and defense institutions.
62 posted on 05/16/2003 11:47:29 AM PDT by Thisiswhoweare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chit*chat
As an employee I detest outsourcing, but as a logical, thinking person I can certainly understand why business is getting driven out of this country.

My ten points are merely a modest proposal to try to rectify the situation by taking some of the government off the backs of businesses and dealing with the legitimate Federal issues of control of our borders, international relations and an attempt to maintain free and open markets everywhere.

63 posted on 05/16/2003 12:03:03 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Thisiswhoweare
I was not trying to get that deeply into things I am merely making a modest proposal to rectify a situation cause by government intervention in otherwise free markets.
64 posted on 05/16/2003 12:04:38 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I understand that, I just wanted to throw that in as well.

Also on target was your comment to the aerospace worker that by throwing the low end work out to the Chinese, they were depriving American engineers of the opportunity to grow into senior engineers.

We have to watch the crocidile we are feeding here. Soon, we won't even be able to reverse the trend, we will HAVE to go overseas to find the skills.

In some ways, losing high tech is more dangerous than losing factories. We perform some our most sensitive business, financial and government operations based on the software infrastructure programmed by state sponsered individuals from our good friends: China, Russia and India.
65 posted on 05/16/2003 12:33:41 PM PDT by Thisiswhoweare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Thisiswhoweare
The deprivation of opportunity for recent grads is perhaps the worst part of this entire problem. We are talking software and hardware engineering which constitues the badis not just for our economy but for our military. Our future engineers need a place to start and grow so that they can become the people that develop the coming generations of technology.

Our current aerospace engineers needed the chance to grow into their jobs and yes they hated the verification grunt work they were first assigned but without excelling on those projects do they think they would have gotten to where they are today. Likewise one of the things we found was our command and control in the recent campaign in Iraq was such that our military was markedly superior to the foe.

The software had a lot to do with that. Future generations of software will be needed and it does not make sense to go abroad looking for those developers. If we have no pool of software deveopers in the USA then we will not have new software.

66 posted on 05/16/2003 12:43:48 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; sit-rep
maybe this will be of interest to you gentlemen.
67 posted on 05/16/2003 12:45:35 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; Willie Green
Perhaps the posters would like to consider the following: The Wealth of This Nation (FR post) Thanks for the reply... "If we have no pool of software developers in the USA then we will not have new software. " Sure we will have new software...we can always buy the Chinese clone...which will promptly download that new Boeing design to the PLA ;) Which is already happening (but not in that instance).
68 posted on 05/16/2003 1:08:41 PM PDT by Thisiswhoweare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Thisiswhoweare
In the light of this new reality, Americans must begin doing what they must in the name of their security, their jobs, their political, social and economic progress and our national cohesion including the well being of the United States of America

Many on Free Republic do not wish to hear it but it is the truth. my paltry thread was merely a few steps on the road to getting us producing the things we must to stay a free nation.

69 posted on 05/16/2003 1:29:56 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Knowing the truth is where it all begins...FR is a great 'engine' of awareness.
70 posted on 05/16/2003 3:01:18 PM PDT by Thisiswhoweare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Your essay is just about right... I tried to enter the field, but could not do it. So I'm back on my knees layin Tile, Marble and Terrazzo.

Since Globalism is so "In", guess I'll wait till we're all "even" before I get have a better chance.

71 posted on 05/16/2003 5:15:27 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Since Globalism is so "In", guess I'll wait till we're all "even" before I get have a better chance.
72 posted on 05/16/2003 5:22:00 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Since Globalism is so "In", guess I'll wait till we're all "even" before I get have a better chance.

(cough...)

73 posted on 05/16/2003 5:23:06 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Cacophonous; Poohbah; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; ...
What is needed is creativity. If you want to be a standard IT worker, you're going to be treated like a textile worker, because you are now a dime a dozen. Create, innovate, do something different: that's what the market will reward.

The creative people are a minority and this cannot be learned. The rest of the people who are not independently rich (ie who have to sell their labor) will have to live on the level of the poor in the Third World, if the nationality or borders are to be erased and labor is to become a mere commodity.

The new globalist world will be divided into three casts - those who own the wealth and hire others, those who are lucky or creative and can command high wages and the rest.

Those in the middle will live in constant fear to fall into the lower class and hope/struggle to join the upper privileged class.

The rich class will be cosmopolitan, corrupt and free from worry for economical survival, the middle class will be mobile, uprooted and servile, the lower class will be alienated, passive and demoralised.

To preserve such system the economical development will have to be inhibited in order to control the middle and to keep the poor down.

74 posted on 05/16/2003 5:39:07 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Such a society as you describe can not maintain its stability. it will become a breeding ground for revolution.
75 posted on 05/16/2003 7:39:53 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Such a society as you describe can not maintain its stability. it will become a breeding ground for revolution.

Marx wanted exactly such society to come.

76 posted on 05/16/2003 7:49:28 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Besides Communist China, which country is doing well from globalism?
77 posted on 05/16/2003 8:03:24 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Very excellent question. I thought maybe Portugal or Spain because the English fisheries have been shut down so that they can fish more. But I don't think they are doing especially well.

When you think of all the money China has invested in our politicians, and how our politicians have invested in China (Dick Blum Mr Diane Feinstein for one) you can see why China has most favored nation status.
78 posted on 05/16/2003 8:35:31 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The new globalist world will be divided into three casts - those who own the wealth and hire others, those who are lucky or creative and can command high wages and the rest.

"A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!" Rev 6:6

79 posted on 05/16/2003 9:10:49 PM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
An IT worker willing to relocate has a good chance of landing a job. An IT worker wanting a job to come to him has no room to complain.

That's crap. Our company has been downsizing and outsourcing for the past two years. HR has been providing what limited assistance they can (or choose to) to provide the displaced workers with job leads. I help coordinate that program.

Not one former IT employee has gotten so much as a nibble. They are actively seeking employment, many on a nationwide basis. That is, those who haven't dropped off the map because they've been out of work for two years.

80 posted on 05/16/2003 11:23:54 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
If you want to be a standard IT worker, you're going to be treated like a textile worker, because you are now a dime a dozen. Create, innovate, do something different: that's what the market will reward.

Now that's something I can agree with. The only future for displaced IT workers is to show the kind of imagination you mentioned. The problem is, technical expertise and innovation do not necessarily go hand in glove.

81 posted on 05/16/2003 11:26:11 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The new globalist world will be divided into three casts - those who own the wealth and hire others, those who are lucky or creative and can command high wages and the rest

As Wilhelm Roepke pointed out, in order for a society to be stable, a worker should be a property owner (say, owner of a house and a garden,) otherwise the workers have nothing to lose and go Communist. It may happen in the world you described.

82 posted on 05/17/2003 4:27:14 AM PDT by Feldkurat_Katz (if they are gay, why are they always complaining?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
...There is legal recourse for what you are alleging, and yet not once have I seen someone seek redress.

Suppose you do want to seek legal redress? Let's take a look at the problems:

(1) Try finding a lawyer to take this on continency. Good luck. They want money up front and by the hour. But you are unemployed, right? And what is going to be your payoff? This is not like a personal injury suit.
(2) If you win, what do you get? A job with the prospective employer you just sued and won? Oh, that'll be great. Talk about a hostile work environment.
(3) And how do you prove your case? Most corporations aren't hiring H-1Bs directly. No, the H-1Bs work for body shops (mainly Indian) who then make the workers available for contracts. The corporations have figured out is cheaper to hire workers on 3 to 6 month contracts rather than as full time employees. Try basing your case on saying that they should hire you instead of contractors. Good luck.

Legal redress is useless -- for the most part, everything being done is legal (for the American companies.) For those Indian bodyshops, they have all kinds of legal violations, but you don't have "standing" to make a case against them. The government does (specifically the Labor department) but does not seem interested.

83 posted on 05/17/2003 8:12:39 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
People in IT support are the new Landscapers. Soon to ALL be replaced with foreign replacements for 1/2 the cost. Corps. Do not care about keeping the users happy and serviced. In fact they don't care about the users at all!
84 posted on 05/17/2003 8:17:29 AM PDT by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
(1) Try finding a lawyer to take this on continency. Good luck. They want money up front and by the hour. But you are unemployed, right? And what is going to be your payoff? This is not like a personal injury suit.

Labor attorneys will work on contingency, especially if the prospects of a solid win are good. Absent that, there are several non-profits (including the AFL-CIO) that would be willing to take a legitimate case pro bono. See below for what the attorney can get in a contingency arrangement

(2) If you win, what do you get? A job with the prospective employer you just sued and won? Oh, that'll be great. Talk about a hostile work environment.

More than likely, the award would be the offer of a job as well as lost wages and opportunity costs for the wronged citizen. The plaintiff could likely argue that a hostile work environment would work against the judgement, and a typical award in lieu of employment would be 5,000 hours of wages, on top of those lost.

(3) And how do you prove your case? Most corporations aren't hiring H-1Bs directly. No, the H-1Bs work for body shops (mainly Indian) who then make the workers available for contracts. The corporations have figured out is cheaper to hire workers on 3 to 6 month contracts rather than as full time employees. Try basing your case on saying that they should hire you instead of contractors. Good luck.

The H1B holder is either a regular, full-time employee of the American corporation, or they are not employed in the U.S. Your scenario may be valid, but it is not described in accurate terms.

85 posted on 05/17/2003 3:52:47 PM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
The H1B holder is either a regular, full-time employee of the American corporation, or they are not employed in the U.S. Your scenario may be valid, but it is not described in accurate terms.

On the contrary, it is completely accurate. The way it works is this. A company (call it "Indian Consulting") hires H-1Bs. Thus they are full time employees -- of "Indian Consulting" -- which operates in the US as as US based corporation.

Other American corporations then post contract jobs where they need someone for 3 to 6 months as an hourly contractor. The contract is offered to "Indian Consulting", which then staffs one of their H-1Bs on the jobs. The American corporation has clean hands, legally -- the H-1B is not their employee at all. But once on the job they can continue to extend the contract, continuously, even for different work. This process is called "change orders". So they can in effect have someone who works for them for years, just like an employee would, but who is technically not their employee, but is rather an employee of "Indian Consulting".

However, the contract may be for $50/hour to "Indian Consulting", which then pays their H-1B employee an hourly wage as a "W-2" (not 1099). If for any 2 to 4 week period that H-1B cannot "get staffed" on a contract -- back to India they go. Cost to American corporation -- $100K per year; but they pay no Social Security, no health benefits, no 401K, no bonuses, no fringe benefits whatsoever, plus they can dump the person at any time and either ask for a replacement or simply terminate the contract. This is good business for the American corporation. No HR problems. No worries about being sued for any reason if they want to get rid of the contractor.

"Indian Consulting" violates a bunch of laws -- just spend some time talking with the H-1Bs. Mainly, they lie to the US consulate about having jobs lined up "that no American is qualified to do". They lie to the H-1Bs to get them on board. They pay them late -- sometimes 12 weeks in arrears. They make them take mandatory "training" and then deduct the cost from their salaries. All kinds of stuff -- these H-1Bs are taken advantage of in so many ways. Yet each one of them takes a job away from an American because no matter how low the American is willing to go for the job in salary, "Indian Consulting" can beat the cost. And remember -- the American corporation using the services of "Indian Consulting" likes it because they have a flexible labor pool. Need 10 people tomorrow? Just pick up the phone, no interviewing required, no paperwork at all. Need to lay off 30 people for a month to make the quarterly budget? Just pick up the phone, and whoosh -- tomorrow 30 less bodies show up.

86 posted on 05/18/2003 9:01:44 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
The republicans and the democrats both want american factories to be closed and replaced by foreign ones,......

Look on the bright side at all the industrial pollution that will eliminate in the USA. Now, that should make someone happy, at least ;-)

87 posted on 05/18/2003 9:43:41 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.
88 posted on 05/19/2003 3:06:53 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
A step in the right direction would be for US companies to pay the missing overhead that H1Bs dont account for now. SS, medicare, workers comp et. al. That one equalizer in the law would make most companies conclude that it isnt worth the bother to import.
89 posted on 05/19/2003 3:19:45 AM PDT by doosee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Amen, bro. Great post.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

90 posted on 05/19/2003 3:31:54 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wku man
Thank you for your kind words. I have given a great deal of thought to the issue of Nurse H1B visas. If we are to allow any H1B visas then this may be a field where we could allow such for a very limited amount of time until the economics of paying for the additional nurses needed could be worked out. If the nurses are so vital then the economy must find a way of paying sufficient wages to attract people to the field. There can be a lag time that H1B visas can help with but I would prefer that regular immigrants who will stay and be productive citizens be used to fill these slots. Certainly there is no shortage of people waiting to get into the USA.
91 posted on 05/19/2003 5:04:42 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
See my comments regarding the Nursing shortage and H1B visas. First, I would much prefer if a health care facility needs additional nursing staff they go with regular immigrants who will stay in the USA and become citizens here. Sponsoring an immigrant this way makes a great deal more sense from the nation's standpoint we get an educated productive citizen who has a reason to invest and spend in the economy where they will live. H1B visas if used at all should be a very very temporary measure only used until the schools have enough time to turn out a sufficiently trained staff and the health care regulators can accomodate the higher cost structure for the industry.

Being a nurse requires some considerable sacrifices. Nursing staffs need to be there 24 hours a day seven days a week. There are some not inconsiderable risks in the profession including such things as an accidental needle stick (see HIV and many other diseases). That requires compensation.

The starting salary for an associate at a top law firm is six figures for someone just out of school. I ahve heard many argue that Chelsea Clinton getting a starting salary of six figures is reasonable. Some teachers in CT make over $75,000/year.

With nursing one is talking of a hard dangerous job that requires education and training the pay should be commensurate with the demands. It is probable that the attorney for your operation makes more than any nurse employed there. That may or may not accurately reflect what the free market for wages would reflect. One may also be certain that the MD's attending the patients make much more than the nurses. Usually MD's have better hours and working conditions. Nurses need malpractice insurance and continuing education. That will tend to increase the cost of employing a nurse.

The unreasonable health care regulations are the big problem here and that is where your focus should be not on maintaining a harmful program such as H1B for other than a very very short term amelioration of a longer term problem.

92 posted on 05/19/2003 5:22:28 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
BTTT
93 posted on 05/19/2003 1:41:27 PM PDT by Lazamataz ( "People that quote themselves in their taglines bother me." - Lazamataz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Now I'm scared. I've just started doing AutoCAD drafting on a contract basis, but haven't been to an accountant yet. What does 1706 say? Am I screwed?
94 posted on 05/19/2003 1:50:16 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Re: your #44. Bravo! My wife works at a hospital where less than half of the "customers" pay. The other half pick up the tab and then bitch that "the free market has failed".
95 posted on 05/19/2003 1:56:14 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I would suggest you consult your tax attorney for detailed information as how it is applied to draftsmen. But in general as part of the tax reform act of 1986 they repealed the "usual business practice exemption for determining who exactly is a contractor in these named fields. I do not give tax advice but it really screwed up teh market for people who had been independant contracts in the IT area.
96 posted on 05/19/2003 2:25:19 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Good to see you posting again. I guess signing onto Free Republic is not so attractive any more when compared with the attractiveness of your bride. Say hello to technochick for me also.
97 posted on 05/19/2003 3:15:31 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Feldkurat_Katz
Hillaire Belloc made much the same point: that our system should be called proletarianist rather than capitallist, since it is based upon the existence of a majority class of proletarians ( = people who have no means of generating income except selling their labor). As Belloc points out, Marx was correct in saying that the working class has nothing to lose but its chains; unrestricted, capitalism always tends toward a monopoly of capital and credit and a spiral of ever-lessening wages. In the end, when jobs vanish and wages drop below subsistence, those with nothing but their labor to sell are left with nowhere to turn but to the Reds; revolution, riot, and ruin follow as the 'workers' vanguard" expropriates the monopolists and centralizes all capital and credit under the control of the all-powerful State. Therefore we see that any society in which the majority of the people have nothing but their labor to sell is not a capitalist society, since the very bedrock of that society -- the average citizen -- possesses no capital at all.

A truly capitalist society would be one in which capital (= property capable of generating income) was distributed across the majority of the population instead of being concentrated in the hands of a small number of industrial giants and financiers. This is why Belloc and others advocated the revival of the Guild system, a syndicalist, distributist political economy in which industry would be controlled and regulated by guilds made up of small independent capitalists. The guilds would regulate prices, limit competition, and manage capital on behalf of the industry as a whole, with their purpose being to maintain the widest possible distribution of capital across the population and thus eliminate the existence of the proletarian class altogether. No proletariat, no eventual communist revolution.
98 posted on 05/19/2003 10:36:26 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Thanks. Now I understand. I was working as an independent contractor in the early eighties, and well remember TEFRA. Based upon TEFRA, the IRS came up with a long list of conditions that one had to meet to be an "independent contractor" for tax purposes. I thought this was some new thing...
99 posted on 05/20/2003 4:07:42 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: chit*chat
I think Bush's economic plan is great and may well produce jobs, but for whom?

and bush's plan may also help corporate profits in the short term, due to much lower labor costs, less business expenses, less regulation in china and india, cheaper building rent, no epa regulations, etc.

100 posted on 05/20/2003 5:21:48 AM PDT by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson