

Court orders three H-1B opposition sites disabled - prat
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court_orders_three_H_1B_sites_disabled

======
btilly
From my point of view the whole H-1B process is a mess.

What it boils down to is that companies are given the opportunity to hire
foreigners who are used to much lower salaries under conditions where said
foreigners will have lower job mobility. This means that companies have every
incentive to hire people more cheaply than they can hire locals. _But_ in
order to do so they have to put up a pretense of having tried to hire an
American and have to swear up and down that they can't find an American to
hire.

In short we're putting pressure on companies to lie and everyone knows it.
However it is difficult to demonstrate whether any given company has, and it
is very much _not_ in their interest to let accusations of it stand. Is there
any wonder that we get conflict over this?

What I would prefer instead is a simple market based solution. Any company
wishing to hire a foreigner can upon posting a bond for that foreigner. (To
cover expenses if that foreigner poses a problem.) The foreigner has no
obligation to their employer - if the foreigner wishes to leave a week after
arriving for a better job they are free to, but the original company still is
liable for the bond.

Under that system companies have no obligation to claim that they looked for a
local. However they have a clear incentive not to hire foreigners. Any company
that hires a foreigner regardless is demonstrating by their action that either
this foreigner is exceptionally valuable (and therefore is a good addition to
the USA economy) or else that there really is a lack of available locals to do
this job.

~~~
olegk
My friend on H1B makes $80/hr, so not all of them are "cheap".

~~~
hga
Plenty of them are. Here's a datapoint I can contribute:

Lucent in 2001 (yes, a very bad time). I'm 40 (although I look like I'm in my
early 20s), making $80K.

My best coworker is a brilliant native of a Caribbean island; he got a EE from
a respectable US university and was getting his Masters at night (showed me
his MOSIS chip at one point).

For the job we're doing, in his own areas he's as competent and productive as
I am. Immigration law requires the company to post his salary; he's making
$45K.

If he was just getting paid what I was at my second job, the first one at a
market rate, he'd be getting $63K (that's adjusted for inflation, but you
should subtract some for higher health care costs (they've risen faster than
CPI inflation)) and he'd be worth every penny.

He knew he was being exploited and wasn't happy about it, but it was useful
experience and a good path to a Green Card, at least when he signed on (Lucent
of course continued its decline and canceled the project we were working on,
which was important enough that it canceled their future as well).

The near indentured servitude aspect of the H1-B system is reason enough to
seriously reform it ... but as noted, the necessary docility of those who have
one is too attractive to too many companies.

------
cema
I think this is a troubling attack on free speech. If there is a lawyer here
who could comment it, or if someone reading this can provide helpful links,
please do!

At the same time, I feel the article does not present sufficient information
so I could make a personal judgment on the texts that caused the judge to make
such a drastic decision -- does anyone know if copies or excerpts are
available? Thank you!

------
gecko
Wait. This is a libel lawsuit in the U.S., which means that they're suing
because someone said something about them which is _false_. They then also
want the legal contract that started this whole thing taken down because _they
own the copyright on it._

Either this is atrociously bad reporting, or the judge is an idiot. Even
though we're talking about New Jersey here, I'll put my weight on the first.

~~~
tel
Libel doesn't have to be false, just damaging.

~~~
lmkg
IANAL, and libel laws vary from state to state, but in the United States if
something is true, it's not libel. However, not being true isn't necessarily
the same as being false. Or, more specifically, not being provably true is not
the same as being provably not true.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law> "...the truth
should be an absolute defense against libel charges." "Also, the truth of the
allegedly defamatory statement will always negate the claim (whether because
the plaintiff fails to meet his/her burden of proving falsity or because the
defendant proves the statement to be true)." The second quote implies a burden
of proof upon the plaintiff to prove the statements false, although the main
wikipedia article on defamation also mentions publishing with reckless
disregard for verifying the veracity. Dunno if that second category applies in
the US.

~~~
tel
I stand corrected. Obviously, also IANAL.

------
naveensundar
I checked out <http://guestworkerfraud.com/> which is still accessible. I
would not have any problem if it were just against H1B or "guest workers", but
reading through the first few posts it seems racist. For example "So much for
"high-thinking Indians" - not only are they all frauds, they are all
introlerant on top of it."

~~~
Scriptor
Even better, because Thailand apparently deported a few thousand, this site
advocates the deportation of all Indian-Americans.

It's basically a hate site. I'm not sure if there are grounds for it to be
taken down, but otherwise most of the posts sound like rants by some
unemployed goof.

------
billswift
>"Apex has an outstanding reputation in the information technology field," he
said.

>In the filing, Apex said it "has had three consultants refuse to report for
employment" as a result postings, according to legal documents.

Its reputation is good but three different people didn't "report for
employment" (whatever that means) as a result of anonymous claims on the
Internet? Apparently, somebody didn't think much of their reputation.

------
ibsulon
Let's just say that Apex doesn't have a stellar reputation in other areas
either. I personally would never recommend that anyone sub under Apex, but
considering that Apex is already doing C&D, I won't go into details.

------
vaksel
can someone explain to me how a site can be disabled over something like this?
I mean go ahead, order the content deleted, that's what the people suing
should want right?

But killing a site over some "bad" information just seems excessive.

~~~
olegk
It's kind of scary that a website can be shut down just like that. I'm sure
they will find hosting out of US jurisdiction anyway, but still, it almost
seems like violation of freedom of speech. (p.s. I don't oppose H1B program)

------
cwan
Not knowing the details of the judgement, a shut down seems a bit heavy handed
and only more likely to bring scorn/attention to Apex (this despite the fact,
I disagree with what these opposition groups are advocating).

On one hand I sympathize with Apex in that it seems fundamentally wrong that
there are those who can attack you with impunity and anonymously online -
particularly if they're lying about it. On the other, pursuing court action
especially since it is unlikely that those running these sites have deep
pockets seems like a PR disaster in the making (not to mention the fact that I
think most readers take anonymous postings with a big grain of salt anyway -
the legal suit for some will lend legitimacy to those false claims with many
suspecting that 'the lady doth protest too much' and that their point may just
be about revealing who those posters are to take retribution).

~~~
huherto
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>

I didn't even know Apex existed.

------
neuro
<http://www.vdare.com/sanchez/091227_tunnel_rat.htm>

The APEX rampage against “Tunnel Rat” began when an anonymous Indian poster
who claims to work for APEX posted a copy of an APEX employment agreement that
he asserted imposed penalties of up to $35,000 for quitting. He wrote:

“If you join a company (including any level between you and APEX) then pay
$35,000 or face a law suit, $9,000 for legal, training and guest services when
you quit. $35,000 if you quit in between a contract…etc. The legalities of the
agreement are convoluted, abstract and can/will be used against you if you
displease APEX Technology Group Inc. So once you sign that document you are at
the mercy of the employer and much worse than a bonded laborer in India."

------
sireat
Wikileaks time (once they go back to operations). This would be a good time to
donate something.

Disclaimer: I do not particularly have an opinion for or against H-1B, but
airing of dirty laundry(aka free speech) should be supported.

