
H-1B visa shift may favor tech companies - tareqak
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/H-1B-shift-may-favor-tech-companies-13434868.php
======
mavelikara
> The Department of Homeland Security wants to switch the order of these
> lotteries, it said in a notice of the proposed rule change, which would —
> somewhat counterintuitively — improve the odds for those highly educated
> workers

> ... with a master’s or doctoral degree from an American college or
> university

This is a welcome change. But this biases the playing field in favor of those
graduating from American degree mills. As a counter-measure against abuse from
those, I hope DHS also intensifies scrutiny on the many American staffing
companies who bend the H-1B rules to hire these foreign graduates. There is
indication that they have started on it, for example [1].

Also,

> The lottery change could be aimed at hindering those outsourcing firms’
> applications, Rand said. Three Indian firms, Tata Consultancy Services,
> Infosys and Wipro, have dominated H-1B applications since 2012, government
> data shows.

> “Most of the visas are snapped up by these body shops,” said Ira Mehlman, a
> spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro are _outsourcing companies_ , not
"body shops". Body shops are staffing companies - they are mostly American and
run out of places like Edison.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18425341](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18425341)

~~~
maxxxxx
Staffing companies should get no H1 visas at all. They are the biggest
abusers.

~~~
belltaco
The key problem is that the visa is given to the company, not the person,
leaving the employee at the mercy of the company, leading to abuses like
underpay and overwork in even direct jobs. If you lose your job, you lose your
green card application if it's not past a certain stage and may have to leave
the country immediately in case of layoffs, being fired. The rules are
byzantine and a bureacratic nightmare with long processing delays.

The Trump administration even tried to make it so that if you're working
legally while waiting on your extension visa(can take more than 8 months) and
it happens to get rejected, they will report you to ICE for deportation
proceedings calling the period you worked legally as being illegal, creating a
Catch-22 where you're accruing illegal stay after you have to stop working,
but cannot leave the country because you're waiting for a court date, since
not showing up in a court is another new crime in itself. You have to live
without a salary and being able to work at all, and the immigration courts are
overloaded and once you accrue 6 months of illegal stay, you can be banned
from entering the US for 10 years on any visa.

If you think that sounds too ridiculous to be true, read this:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/07/11/new-u...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/07/11/new-
uscis-policy-will-carry-harsh-consequences-for-applicants/#632d7dea4615)

This is the reason that many talented folks prefer to work for companies on a
contract through a staffing company that holds the visa that allows for easier
job hopping without losing your chance of getting a green card, or getting
fired on Friday and accruing illegal stay starting from Saturday. Otherwise,
why would you give away 40% to >50% of your hourly rate to a middleman?

In this new environment, if you somehow get caught in an ICE raid while
selling your car for pennies and puting all your belongings that dont fit in
luggage in the dumpster or whilepacking your bags, you might get shipped to
jail inspite of not violating a single law before you got fired.

The companies oppose these fixes because they will less leverage over their
employees on visas and they might job hop more if underpaid or overworked.

Fix these problems instead of creating weird custom rules against staffing
companies and the problem will fix itself for the most part.

~~~
tracer4201
Even if you give the visa to the employee, now you run the risk of employers
sizing up an employee's status (are they a citizen or an immigrant who needs a
job to stay in the country) and hiring or offering salaries based on that.
It'll still lead to the wrong behaviors.

Citizenship questions are illegal but still get asked. Are you going to outlaw
asking about an employee's immigration status? Good luck enforcing that.

~~~
belltaco
My point is that it will make it easier for employees stuck in a bad spot due
to employee abuse to switch jobs. Lets say they join the company you cite and
the boss dumps 80 hours a week worth of work every week and doesn't pay
overtime. Currently it's a huge hassle and risky to switch jobs, so that
employee may continue thus hurting the job market. If you give the employee
the visa, they can shop around for jobs like citizens and the company they
left will have to find someone else to replace them, hopefully at better
market rates this time.

The biggest leverage the companies have on immigrant labor is the threat of
being fired and deported, if you make that less costly and not turn their life
upside down in a day, the problem will be lessened and make the job market
more fair and competitive for everyone looking for jobs, and also greatly hurt
staffing companies. It also lets the employee say "No." more easily when asked
to work 80 hours for the fourth week in a row with no extra pay. This is the
reason companies lobby against making this happen.

~~~
maxxxxx
In my company most H1 workers that come from Infosys and others are mainly
there because they are cheap and not because they are "highly qualified" as
the intent of H1 is. If Infosys just had to pay market rates they would lose
competitiveness and open up visa spots for the people who truly deserve one.

~~~
mavelikara
You Infosys colleagues might be slightly underpaid than you, but not by much.
But real cost saving Infosys offers to your employer is the team that works
_offshore_. Your Infosys colleagues are acting as bridges between that team
and yours.

Infosys made almost $11B in 2018. They are not going to sweat the salary of
few H-1B engineers. If American engineers, or Indian ones having Green Card,
will do the job - liaison the communication between onshore and offshore teams
- they will hire those if H-1Bs are not available. Or, your employer might
move the whole operation to India, laying off the onshore team.

TL;DR: You are probably barking up the wrong tree. The "cheap" H-1Bs you hear
about are hired by American staffing companies, not outsourcers.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
I’ve seen the difference in pay, and it’s very large. They aren’t proxying
offshore either. Not at the big tech companies who use them for staff
augmentation anyway.

------
null000
On the one hand, screw outsourcing firms.

On the other hand, this _really_ isn't the reform these visas _need_ right
now. Lets work on the fact that visa holders live and die by their employers
whims first, giving them basically zero leverage in an already low-leverage
situation and diluting the value of native workers at the same time. This
should come first if we're going to muck with anything, considering that's the
raging dumpster fire consuming most of the towering garbage heap that is the
h1-b visa process, imo.

------
throw3322
Merit-based visa system used by Canada and Australia should be preferred.

It is better for the country (more fluid job market; more long-term high-
quality immigrants who will contribute more to social security and other
social needs; increased competitiveness of companies and startups; larger tax
base), the immigrants (more freedom to change companies), and the Americans
(less need to compete with people accepting low wage to gain corporate
sponsorship of a future permanent visa; more funding for social security).

~~~
pentae
The problem with the merit based visa system is it locks out highly talented
self-taught individuals without college degrees. There's a lot of them in
tech. Even though they have tons of experience in their respected fields the
'merit' systems are weighed heavily on education.

~~~
amf12
Well this is immigration we are talking about. Generally people without
college degrees don't even get a H1 visa to come and work in the US. So its
not really a problem with the merit based system. Infact a merit based system
which does not _require_ college degree and simply provides some points is
better suited to such individuals as they could get high score in other
factors.

~~~
pentae
I know a few of them. I was one of them but on an E3 (Australian version of a
H1-B). This is the problem with generalising, you screw over lots of people.

------
jopsen
Too little...

Wow, that change is not very ambitious. Abuse could be solved by simply
requiring a salary above 100k, and verify this with the IRS. Then banning
companies who seem to fail this.

It's crude, but simple. As for the number 100k, I suppose you could let each
state set its own number. Or let the administration change it at it sees fit.

Yeah, these ideas aren't perfect, but why let that get in the way of good.

------
oh_sigh
Why not just go to an auction system, where the group that is going to give
the highest salary gets the visa? You could adjust it for CoL so all H1Bs
don't end up in SF and NYC. What would be bad about this system?

~~~
jedberg
I thought this too, until it was pointed out to me that not every H1-B is an
engineer.

For example, if you want to bring in someone to teach a rare foreign language
at a University, they have a qualifying special skill but they certainly
aren’t making the six figure engineer salary.

~~~
ummonk
Maybe they should get paid more to teach the rare language. Supply and demand.

~~~
jedberg
I don't think you understand. Their wage _is high_ for what they do, but there
is not as much demand for a language teacher as there is for an engineer. So
even their above average salary is still low compared to an engineer. It's not
fair to put them in the same ranking system.

------
brad_Saggy
This will probably encourage more and more fake universities to offer
"Masters" programs. ex: [1]

[1]
[https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/24/international-t...](https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/24/international-
technological-university-san-jose-college-foreign-students/)

------
jefftk
We should auction these spots off, so the companies which get the most
economic value from bringing people in can do so. I like implementing this by
ordering applications by salary, but you could also have some part go to the
government.

------
Matthias247
It might decrease the chances for outsourcing shops. But it also decreases the
chance for everyone else who has not studied in the US. E.g. myself (european
degree, with various jobs at leading tech companies in their field) would have
an even worse chance than it is already at the moment.

~~~
pm90
Most countries give somewhat preferential treatment to graduates of their own
Universities (including most European ones). Why shouldn’t the US?

Foreign graduates who earn a degree from the US have:

* already contributed to the American economy * demonstrated some amount of “success” in American education and social system * likely have created social and work networks that allow them to succeed after graduation

So from the perspective of choosing folks who are both 1) Skilled and 2) Will
likely adapt/succeed in American society and economy, the case for favoring US
University degrees seems reasonable.

------
aristophenes
We have a simple system we use to determine the value of many things. Money.
Whichever applicants are bringing in the highest salary should be picked. It’s
kind of crazy that a genius with specialized skills is in the same process as
the warm bodies the outsourcing firms are dumping in there.

Salaries should be paid a year in advance to the government, who then passes
it to the workers, to ensure the high salary is real. Then, so the workers
aren’t locked, slavelike, into a particular company, they should have the
option to stay in the country for at least the amount of time they were
working, looking for a new job. Starting with a year minimum. And their visa
stays with them, not the company, subject to minimum salary requirements.

------
chillydawg
-Gather all applications, with salary information for the offered job that must be correct by law, else $lol fines for everyone.

-Sort the applications by pay, descending.

-Approve the top-k.

-Deny the rest.

Let the market sort it out.

------
screye
> The lottery change could be aimed at hindering those outsourcing firms’
> applications, Rand said. Three Indian firms, Tata Consultancy Services,
> Infosys and Wipro, have dominated H-1B applications since 2012, government
> data shows.

This would be great. Almost, all my well qualified peers (on F-1,or H1B) hate
the contract coding body shops. Even people who end up working there, hate
their time over there, and often choose it as a way to stay in the US, until
they get a "proper" job.

Assuming there isn't some hidden fine script that screws qualified people
over, this should help weed out the bad actors, without changing much else.

> In addition to the new lottery order, the department also proposed a new way
> for companies to enter their H-1B visa applicants into the lottery. Right
> now, employers have to prepare a full petition for each applicant before
> they’re picked. The proposed rule change would let employers register them
> online before the lottery, and work on their cases only if applicants are
> selected.

I wonder if this will make companies more likely to hire h1b candidates, as
the legal expense only manifests after they are picked in the lottery.

I am glad they did not put sweeping salary requirements into place. This would
have hurt many competent candidates who joined startups (where stocks > base
pay) or ones in engineering fields where salaries have historically been much
lower than that in the CS industry.

------
yholio
_> Graham said he will recommend clients prepare their full cases as they
normally would. That means hiring an immigration attorney, collecting the
necessary documents_

I don't understand, why is this whole heavy bureaucracy necessary? The
employer should pledge to pay an above average paycheck and the respective
taxes, say 100K for 5 years, and the employee should commit to maintain
employment to either his sponsor or any other employer willing to pay him at
least say 75% of the original pledge, with a decent job seeking hiatus.

This creates a nice market dinamic where only highly skilled people are
brought in, because their skills make them valuable on the labour market
guaranteing their future employment, without abusing their circumstances or
depressing the wages of lower skilled nationals.

In retrospect, this could never fly because it also affects professions with
strong lobbies, like doctors. The lobbies in tech are one-sided to the
employers interests, which of course need to sell a "tech labour crisis"
before they are allowed to depress the wages of their own laborers. Cue in
bureaucrats and bottom feeders.

------
Sreyanth
Might be an unpopular opinion, but I think H1B should slowly move to something
like an EB1, where candidates can file a self-petition (but without
immigration intent, and apply for a regular GC after a few years if they
really want to immigrate). They can set some criteria for testing 'high
skills'.

This way, a candidate can choose a company based on their interest and skill
set match, rather than filtering by whether a company sponsors a H1B.

Sure, even EB1 is being gamed, but at the very least this is a fair chance to
candidates.

\- Eliminating the not-so-random 'lottery'

\- Avoiding the body shops or the so-called fake consulting companies where
students go for their OPT

\- Eliminate the need to succumb to the whims of employers just to get a visa
sponsorship

\- Companies, big or small, need not worry about not hiring skillful
employees, just because 'it is a looong and random process'

\- Not entirely based on higher salaries. Sure, a high salary is a pseudo
metric to indicate high skill, but what about early stage startups? This
eliminates that unfair advantage

~~~
nnd
This already exists - the O-1 visa. EB1 is a green card type, you are
confusing visas with residency permits here.

~~~
Sreyanth
I don't think you can self-petition for an O-1 without job offer (at least
that is what I remember). Just checked again, just to be sure [0].

I didn't suggest a new category in EBX, I said something similar for a visa
where one can self-petition without a job offer, get the visa and work for
whichever company she wants to work for, all without a need for an employer
sponsorship. "self-petition without a job offer" being the key phrase.

[0] [https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-
worker...](https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-
workers/o-1-visa-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement)

~~~
nnd
Technically you need a registered company to "sponsor" you, but it can be your
own company, where you are CEO and have 100% ownership. In the end, it's just
a formality, the visa is granted on a personal basis. Compared to H1B where
USCIS relies on a company to establish your credibility as a skilled worker,
with O-1 they evaluate credibility themselves via multiple factors mostly
involving peer validation (i.e. publications, articles, etc).

So yes, technically you need a job offer for O-1, but it's just a formality.
Personally, I agree that it doesn't make much rational sense either, but then
again barely anything makes sense when it comes to (US) immigration laws.

------
tgsovlerkhgsel
Why this change though, instead of changing to a pay-based system (give visas
to the 85k workers with the highest salaries)?

~~~
raverbashing
Probably because it would actually solve the problem (or just give an extra
ticket per application for every 10k above a certain yearly salary value, for
example)

------
known
Too little and too late since Indians mastered the art of corruption
[https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/09/22/india-is-
the-...](https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/09/22/india-is-the-fastest-
growing-source-of-new-illegal-immigrants-to-the-u-s/) and
[http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/24/indians-
among-...](http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/24/indians-among-most-
corrupt-while-doing-business-abroad.htm)

------
gumby
I know it's a small constituency, but this makes it difficult for foreign-
language schools who want to hire teachers from the "source" country. The
timing uncertainty and calendar schedule simply doesn't work.

I am sure there are many such tiny segments.

~~~
woolvalley
If your university associated, then you have an unlimited H1-B queue! Not much
of a solution, but it is a solution that isn't available to most business
types.

------
godelmachine
They have raised the chances of folks with advanced degress getting hired by a
paltry 16%, or 5000 in number to be exact.

Is this a significant difference?

~~~
repsilat
The regulatory bang-for-buck is pretty high, though -- no complex rule-making,
no significant change in procedure, just a 16% bump for practically nothing.

~~~
godelmachine
I see, but can't they do that anytime they want?

I mean, they can do it by 50% even if they so wish, why aim for 16%?

~~~
repsilat
They're not _aiming_ for 16%. They're not changing any of the numbers
involved, they're just changing the _order_ of two dice rolls. It's a creative
little rejig they probably hadn't thought to do before (or perhaps previous
administrations hadn't _wanted_ to do it before.)

~~~
godelmachine
Now the clouds are parting. Thanks for your explaination :)

------
ourcat
Something something Sherlock.

It was not like this back in 'the day', by the way.

Not that anyone actually cares.

------
nnd
It appears that this change would only benefit holders of advanced degrees
from US universities, and make the situation worse for highly skilled
immigrants in general.

------
chrisper
Now people who graduate with a bachelors from an American University will have
even less of a chance of getting a visa?

------
chvid
There are similar policy changes being discussed and or implemented all over
the world.

In my opinion there should be a discriminatory reciprocal system based on the
country you are from.

Meaning a high income country like Norway should set up a reciprocal residency
for work program with say Australia that would have more relaxed conditions
than the general program.

Similar to how visa free travel works.

The economic incentive in migrating from a poor to a rich country are just too
dominating at the detriment of both the poor country (which looses educated
workforce) and the rich country (whose citizens face heavily skewed labor
competition in some areas).

------
loopycode
Feels like modern day complicated depressing slavery

------
jlarocco
Duh. H-1B has always favored tech companies because it increases the labor
supply and indirectly decreases salaries. Perfect example of how companies
only want free markets when it benefits them.

Honestly, I was hoping Trump would end the entire program, but who am I
kidding? Google and friends spend way too much on lobbying for that to happen.

~~~
drivebycomment
> Perfect example of how companies only want free markets when it benefits
> them.

There are many cases where corporations show hypocritical behavior, but this
criticism seems off the mark as the companies actually do want free market in
this case (i.e. free labor market where they can get a labor from anywhere),
and in this case, they are not getting it (there's a lot of legal barrier
making it difficult to import labor - thus it is a protected market). They
want less protection in this case to favor them. It sounds like you want more
protection, which is a reasonable position, but that's not a free or free-er
market.

~~~
jlarocco
No, the free market solution would be to raise wages to attract more people
into the industry. There's nothing stopping them from doing that, but instead
they're lobbying the government to let them import workers.

~~~
conanbatt
Your definition of free market requires legal restrictions on labor.

------
brucehoult
As a person from New Zealand without an advanced degree (from anywhere) but
with 30+ years industry experience (and previously granted an H-1B in 2001),
this seems like the wrong way to tackle the problem of Indian body shops.

I was selected in this year's lottery in April and am still waiting for them
to _start_ processing the case -- according to their web site it could easily
take until sometime in February, ten months after submitting the paperwork.
Thank goodness I'm able to do contract work for the company remotely in the
meantime.

As for pushing US salaries down ... my salary is well into six figures, thank
you. And was, even in my previous job, in Moscow.

If you want to hinder the Indian meat market companies, how about putting in a
per country quota, as there is for Green card?

Or, just get moving with the proposed increase in the minimum salary from $60k
to $130k. I'm above that already, but apparently most of the Indians aren't.

And the processing times are criminal. It's probably going to be a year from
submitting the paperwork until actually moving to the US -- and with six
months of the three years of the visa (starting October 1) already gone.

Getting the Russian equivalent "Highly Skilled Specialist" visa (3 years, plus
one 3 year renewal, minimum salary 2 million rubles a year) only took two
months.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Country quotas are bad. It’s not Indians that are the problem, it’s
specifically the Indian body shops. No sense penalizing the good candidates
who are doing things right.

American tech giants are the ones to blame for this problem. They are hiring
massive amounts of contractors (“vendors”) through these companies so they
don’t have to have FTEs on their balance sheet. They’ll go away on their own
once the market stops supporting them.

~~~
GordonS
This is a good point, but realistically, most of the body shops are based in
India, and that's not likely to change.

