That said, I don't think it is entirely fair to pile on Oracle for this problem. Oracle doesn't seem especially atypical of the rest of the industry or even the bottom of the barrel. I saw much worse treatment at my first US employer for myself and others. Mid-tier employers and body-shop consultancy companies use underpaying people as a strategic core component of their profitability.
I had prospective employers directly say that they were pleased they could use my immigration status to pay me less, specifically that they would offer employer sponsored permanent residency application instead of paying me competitive rates, bonuses, promotions.
If you want to end the abuses decouple visas and permanent resident applications from the employer or make it much easier to maintain or continue status and applications when moving between employers.
The current system causes trouble for a lot of people in many fields not limited to tech. Some friends have had trouble getting a residency while Indian nationals who come in on H1B are favored by the Indian doctors who deal with hiring at the hospitals they did their clinicals at in NY.
What? No, it's entirely fair to sue them for being exploitative. It wouldn't be fair to blame the entirety of the industry's problems on Oracle, but it is fair to attack each and every company who operates in this way.
Offering that sponsorship has very real costs to the company, well into the thousands of dollars per year. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the employer to deduct that cost relative to what another employee who doesn’t bring those additional costs.
How much? I have a friend who just got their green card after 10 years of working at the same company. Based on the experience of others in the same situation, they estimated the company would require them to repay 10-15k in expenses if they leave immediately (they're required to stay for two more years before the company will waive the full cost). I take that to be the employer's actual immigration sponsorship cost.
If the employer were to deduct that cost from their salary (ignoring the fact the employer could be repayed in other ways), it would have amounted to about $1,000-2,000/year, which is not a level of underpayment I think many people would make much noise about at software developer salaries.
I think using sponsorship costs to justify underpaying immigrants is just a convenient excuse.
We can argue that perhaps the visa was worth the extra money (and for those people, it certainly was), but it's still pretty crap. I'm sure wherever the rules allow it you will find companies (even well known ones) trying to save money in this way.
Edit: to clarify, I've checked and either the employer and the employee can bear the financial burden of the I-140 and I-485 filings, depending on the agreement. But the PERM labor certification costs must be borne by the employer and cannot be recovered from the employee, nor can immigration status be a basis to underpay them aside from recovering the permissible costs on a one-time basis.
For the employee the situation looks more like this: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2018/09/08/visa/
The government might as well collect that surplus as tax.
Let me fix that for you:
"Purchasing that slave has very real costs to the company, well into the thousands of dollars per year. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the owner to deduct that cost relative to what another freeman who doesn’t bring those additional costs."
Remember the immigrant suffers additional liabilities and risks a citizen wouldn't. The employer in this case is in a much more powerful position to keep the employee in line.
Many, many people cannot afford to lose their jobs because they live paycheck to paycheck. Funny how they're never called slaves or referred to as having owners.
Some slaves absolutely sell themselves into it, in other to escape poverty, debt, or war. It doesn't change the fact that they do have less rights, less options, and their employer can and will abuse this as evidenced by this thread and a shitload of other HN threads. (and yes, I understand this is unpopular sentiment because the citizens want to believe they are doing a good thing and providing upward mobility and the immigrants don't want to consider themselves slaves)
Excuse me? It is perfectly fair to “pile on” Oracle for widespread illegal discrimination in their labor practices.
This right here is why they treated you like that. Capitalist alpha types dump on less aggressive types to line their own pockets. If people valued themselves more and held others to account for their bad behaviour stuff like this would rarely happen.
She ended up getting a raise and additional stock to make up for it, after her VP got involved to rectify the situation. Her boss was like "whatever."
So imagine if white women are underpaid - it is a lot worse for people for color.
To be transparent, I am a white male American citizen. Considering how private most Americans treat salary information, I know almost nothing about how much my peers have been paid versus what I was paid at previous companies. I will say that I have heard of people making amounts of money that made me drool, and those people were across the whole range of color and gender. On the other hand, I have also known (very) junior developers who were grossly underpaid - multiple white males and I suspect their females and minority counterparts were underpaid as well.
It’s a problem, for sure. Racial income inequality is a problem and then there is the added problem that some of us just are not good at income negotiation and demanding fair or market pay. We trust the employer to give us what we deserve, when in reality, if the employer has a $120k upper limit on their hiring position, and you smile ear-to-ear at the first offer when they offer $90k; well, you just saved that company $30k per year.
That's what #talkpay tried to break. And to show I am not just talking, I tweeted mine years ago at https://twitter.com/chx/status/594598659150389248
However the company does seem to be in a large transition - and as a result we’re seeing some divisions starved out, while others are getting fat and carefree. The division I work in accounts for the lions share of “blessed revenue”, yet we’re starved for resources and people. You can’t back fill positions, and don’t even think about new headcount. So as attrition happens, the picture gets worse. While the sister division accounts for a tiny fraction of “blessed revenue” but they have what seems like unlimited resources and headcount.
The point is, your fortune at Oracle depends heavily on which division you work in, and whether or not Oracle wants your revenue. If your division is out of favor, Oracle wants your line of business to deplete through attrition - so no raises, no promotions, no new headcount and of course rif’s. If your division is appreciated - you see raises, promotions, new headcount etc.
As someone else pointed out, you can’t change divisions or positions and expect a pay raise. You can’t leave and come back and expect a pay raise. If you’re at oracle you can pretty much expect stagnant career and financial growth (unless you’re TK making terrible decisions and 35mm dollars).
I’m not surprised people at Oracle don’t make market pay. Or that other people systematically make more. I don’t think it has so much to do with gender though. They do systematically hire H1b’s though so that they can pay less and get that sweet sweet employee lock in.
Not only Oracle, it's very common practices. In my first job in the UK I worked for fin-tech. My salary on start for only 5k lower than a person who worked 20 years in IT and 13 years in this company. 14 months later I got 7k pay rise.
Is your choice to conflate "interns out of college" with "joiners" deliberate? Interns are a very special class of joiners and seeing them earn more than experienced professionals in similar roles is surprising, and is news - at least to me. Yuck.
Companies behave that way to _everyone_, get used to that. When you negotiate your salary, you have your mouth. Use it. You are the only person, who really cares, whether you earn adequately to what you bring to the table.
I hear this a lot from well-paid tech workers. Just two days ago I responded to a comment here where someone said the solution was for people to "just negotiate better". Right.
That's why I am for unions. Get professionals to negotiate on the workers' behalf, and have everyone agree on precisely the factors (experience, etc) that should be used for determining salaries. Then nobody is dependent on either the goodwill of their employer or their own bargaining skills for a fair salary.
You’ll understand why I’m suspicious. If this worked reliably, why would anyone need to file a lawsuit over $400M in lost wages? Wouldn’t the company have just fixed the problem when they first saw it?
Unions exist in fields and countries where wages are more transparent, too. Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. That’s why we have a free press, but also elections and courts.
You don't depends on them but on an individual basis you can point this out and often you can correct this for yourself. They will still try to screw other employees. And yes,unions are a good way of ensuring this doesn't happen.
Instead they should get a competing offer, that pays way more, and actually leave the company.
Visas are easily transferred between companies.
Corporations have professionals bargaining on behalf of the company. Every solution I hear that doesn’t involve professionals actively bargaining for the workers is putting them right back at the mercy of the company.
Long story short, when the whole thing came out, imagine their surprise, (and delight), to discover a class of workers who would happily work for cheap. The big, BIG bosses proceeded to demand that everyone take a paycut. (Well, everyone who was making more than the average.) So a whole lot of colleagues ended up leaving and looking for other jobs etc.
In the end, it didn't really help the people on the bottom at all. I was just a lowly intern, but that experience definitely taught me a lesson about how the corporate world works.
I guess I never thought about it that way.
That's pretty weird. Usually the bosses know what everyone is making or can find out. Looking at cost is one of the main duties of a boss.
From my experience you can go to management and tell them that you think you should be paid X. If that's within the normal range you often get the raise.
At my first company in the US I was told that everybody is making as much as I was offered so I said yes. After half a year I found out that most people made 30% more. I talked to my CTO and told him that I want more and I got more than 30% without much hesitation. I wouldn't worry about asking for more. They won't fire you.
As a general economic principle, I can't really see any situation where this information asymmetry works to the benefit of the workers. It might benefit some employees in critical positions that can bridge the information gap and gain an advantage over their peers.
But on average, no, transparency reduces the leverage of the employer; else they wouldn't fight to maintain that information differential, they would promote full transparency in order to pay everyone less as you say.
How do they go about this? Through means accessible to individuals?
Shrewd people can get this data, especially if they're willing to pay for it.
It's a good question how the data is obtained. Maybe through mutual data sharing agreements in exchange for access? Anyway, I've see such reports for my country, with very detailed breakdowns for job types, seniority, broad technology area, forecasts etc.
Every company pays in a bit to cover the costs/overhead with putting together a market report, and also submit the job titles and salaries of their workers. Possibly more data too, but I'm not certain. E.g. time with the company or years of relevant experience would be very handy.
But companies aren’t just trying to maximize performance, they are also trying to minimize pay. It’s a lot easier to give someone a 20% raise if the starting salary is 50% lower.
Some people are underpaid because they don’t know how much they are worth, especially people from backgrounds where nobody makes this much money. Some people are overpaid because they are friends with the boss.
If a company is capable of paying $200k on average, salary transparency may make it harder for them to recruit people who are worth $500k. I’m paid a lot more than any company with a salary transparency calculator I’ve seen pays someone with my job title and experience. So I’m not going to try to work for those companies. I get the impression they are underpaying their employees, but their salary transparency allows them to recruit people who used to be even more underpaid.
With that said, you should always be interviewing for your next role, as you will never get a salary bump at an annual review near what you would make switching jobs. Always Be Interviewing. You are looking out for you first.
The flipside, which is largely why I am not in favor of legally enforced salary transparency, is that you ask for the salary range, they say $90-100k (or whatever), and you can justify why you should get 100 or 105 or 110 with examples. Or you can ask for $90k because you're happy with that and know you won't price yourself out of the position, or any number of other possibilities.
It just makes the entire process much less flexible, which I know a lot of us developers love, but in the business world it doesn't make much sense.
But then one senior developer would claim that they are better or different than every other senior developer, and negotiation would return. Sure, Tim might be willing to accept the average rate of $95, but Jim worked as a staff engineer at Google, and so on.
In general, you would expect salary negotiation to be worse for any given employee, because they have limited tools to research with compared to the hiring company, and far more limited (man) hours to do that research.
I would also imagine negotiation still exists, but now more emphasized on the extra benefits, eg PDOs, medical plans, bonuses, etc.
And ofc the added negative that the company can hide unfair practices, eg underpaying particular groups, or hiring someone's kid for 2x the pay, or whatever.
The main negative is that someone who was skilled at salary negotiations now makes less, but presumably most people aren't skilled, making it more a net positive. The biggest concern tbh is if the whole industry was overpaying its workers due to the fog of war, and this suddenly cleared things up, and employees across the board take a hit
No, keep the Government out of this.
It’s not clear whether that would lead to them negotiating for more money.
Nowhere with open published comp numbers has ever come close to my comp. Maybe it would work better as a system if everyone was opted in but the current data points I see don't support higher salaries for people with my skillset.
This is called salary compression, and it's not unique to just minorities. Companies have to pay market to hire. They don't have to pay market to people who might be reluctant to leave, for a variety of reasons. It's fairly common for new hires to be earning significantly more than nominally "senior" employees who have been with the company for a decade or more.
The question is: is she as good at negotiating her salary as her male friends?
Also, it sometimes happens that the market's salaries increase over time, and new employees get paid more than the old ones. It's a difficult and well known manager's dilemma - I cannot hire a new person for the same price as the current employees, but if I have to raise everyone's pay first, I won't be able to hire the new person anyway.
So, the question is - did the interns' wages differ between them according to gender? Did she earn less than female interns, or male interns? How good/aggressive are the people you compare in terms of salary negotiation?
Women are often penalized for not being "nice" in the workplace as well. It may happen in the hiring process or show up later in performance reviews. It is a delicate dance of negotiating, being strong and being "non-threatening."
I would presume no negotiation tactic has a perfect 0% or 100% success rate for any given gender expression, but I am curious about the relative rates for them and how this can best benefit all related parties.
Now I realize it's part of human nature to try and get as much as possible for as little as possible, but this takes it way too far.
You must be really daft if can you look at a bunch of stats like "women are paid 30% less than men" and then tell yourself "YES! this is a problem that I completely understand, I understand everything about this and what these people say is exactly what happens in the real world, we have to fix this".
What the hell does "as assertive as men" even mean. Is it some caricature of a man stomping his boss' desk to establish dominance? You're either assertive naturally or you're not, this applies to men or women. Fakes are easily spotted and ignored. Socially withdrawn/inept people or autistic people constantly draw the short straws when negotiating because there's no chance for them to be even close to remotely assertive even though in a STUDYYYYY the "scientists" could claim that "they were as assertive as others" just because they tried (unsuccessfully — a detail so easy to omit/ignore). You don't just go "ok now I'm going to be ASSERTIVE" and suddenly have everyone go your way, if you haven't developed that ability since childhood (or at least for a damn while), at which point you're using it by default.
Jfc, we live too relaxed lives, we have no problems so we invent some.
So, in order to show that this is not specific to gender bias, I am asking you for a negotiation tactic whose rates of success and reception do not have a correlation with gender. If you cannot provide this then I will assume your claim is sourced out of your behind, which has even less clout than the scientists you express chagrin for (at least their stuff has been peer reviewed).
Assuming the one thing that I'd be willing to give at least A BIT OF credence to, that is in the gender-related sphere, that women more commonly have personality traits that make them worse at negotiating, I still don't see why we should try to fix that on the employer's side. Educate the women to negotiate instead, from a young age. Giving rewards to those who don't deserve them will lead to sloppiness and bad quality work, and the outrage of those who deserve them.
Sounds to me like "it has to be correlated to gender" was a quick solution to get some quick stats published.
You're injecting a whole lot of assumption on how these negotiations are happening.
I deserve a raise because...3 reasons. I have accomplished xyz and want a raise.
In my younger years I said I wanted a raise of 20 percent immediately after telling my manager that I told a coworker "to go fuck himself" twice.
"Please give me a raise" is not a negotiation. To negotiate properly you need a trump card, "please give me a raise" doesn't show one.
That's not a given. Courts tend to look at end results, not how you get there.
The real question is why aggressive negotiation for doing the same job should lead to fairly different salaries. Forget gender, race, etc. If I can negotiate a higher salary than my coworker who does the same job, I'm not seeing a really good reason why I should get paid more.
If we are going to normalize this reason, then it's two faced for a company not to mention it. When it comes to the internal dialogue, performance reviews, etc, are all about the work you did, and how it impacted the company. If aggressive negotiation is a valid strategy, I would like the company to be transparent about it. List it at the same level as your work performance when listing the criteria by which you are evaluated.
Too many of us treat salaries as a game. When we play board games, we often accept rather arbitrary rules. One of the rules that many put on this salary game is: "Well, he gets more pay for the same work because he can negotiate well". Somehow, we don't accept it as a rule in the "school game": "Well, Alice got a higher grade than Bob on this essay because she negotiated better. She brings me two apples a week, and recently threatened to stop giving me apples and give them to Ms Brown of geography."
I'm not, BTW, arguing against negotiating if you're an employee. I'm arguing that companies paying significantly different for similar work just because of negotiation prowess is fundamentally an admission that "Yes, we will pay people differently for the same work." It shouldn't need to become an issue where one group (women, here) feels disadvantaged. It's a problem even if there is no systemic bias. The appropriate thing for the company to do when an employee shows that the market is paying better is to do a salary adjustment (if they can afford it) for all similar employees (barring small deltas for individual performance differences). Without this attitude, they are fundamentally creating an "us vs them" scenario ("company" vs "employees"). Sooner or later, that mentality leads to a large amount of cynicism and an unwillingness to view themselves as a cohesive group ("I'm just going to do my job - I don't care about corporate goals, and am not here to improve the company beyond what they pay me for").
Because the most effective and stable reason to use in negotiation is that you are better and more valuable than the field of other employees and applicants.
There are multiple people with the job “MLB pitcher” or “NFL quarterback” and all their salaries are public. Is it surprising that some of them make wildly more than others?
I think the range of talent and ability for people with the job “senior software engineer” is much wider than the range of talent of “NFL quarterback”.
- allow people with the same job title (e.g. "Software developer") earn different salaries
- introduce fine grained competence levels (e.g "Software developer, level 23") and require promotion, based on detailed performance review, for every single request for a raise.
I prefer the former, because I don't like bureaucracy, but non-discrimination advocates are pushing towards the latter.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
You can imagine that their mid-level manager probably didn't fight for them as hard, perhaps due to some bias. Said manager may have evaluated said employee more harshly in yearly reviews as well without realizing it.
Their peers may have essentially done the same, lowering their perceived performance. Their peers may have also essentially boxed them out, making it more difficult to succeed.
Projects may have been handed to employees that were not underrepresented. This happens often, and is a strong motivator for career growth.
The hiring manager(s) originally responsible for bringing on the employee may have used algorithms or generally biased data that showed them the potential hire could be acquired at a low salary.
These are only small pieces of the puzzle, and may or may not be part of what happened at Oracle. They're all small/insidious factors that may not even be detectable or measurable at an individual level, but if you pay attention to larger trends, you can start to see them.
Remind me why they are so widely used again?
Oracle is famous for having a corporate philosophy of "make lots of money, nothing else matters".
Larry Ellison is famous for being a selfish megalomaniac: he owns an island on which hawaiian natives labor for him as serfs, and he has made two donations to charity in his whole life: one in exchange for dropping charges in a security fraud scandal, and one to establish an anti-senescence research institute for his own use.
Don't take a job at Oracle, don't buy their products when possible, they are the back alley mobsters of silicon valley.
It is more rare for a single household to have two extremely high paid professionals, so a single income of 350-500k is not 2x of 1% income. It is in the 1% (~420-450k household or so).
Also 350-500k sounds about the right range for senior-ish at top large tech company as a software engineer.
Edit to add:
> Also 350-500k sounds about the right range for senior-ish at top large tech company as a software engineer.
Senior"-ish," implying some not-so-senior folks are making $350-500k a year is absolutely ridiculous. But even barring that, I know HN is home to many, many highly paid folks at large technical companies in SV making boatloads of money.
Most software dev jobs in the country top out in the $150-200k mark for non-managerial, senior high-level architectural type jobs. Very good senior devs in my area are $110-135. I've never personally seen a salary or heard someone claim they made anything higher than $185. Surely they exist but they're well above-market or have extremely specialized skills that make it borderline impossible to get any sort of "market rate" for.
> A salary of $185,000 in Boise, Idaho should increase to $450,797 in San Jose, California
Total comp in the $200-300k range is common for seniors at tech companies in SV. But people tend to not understand exactly what that amount of money means here because it seems like so much money. It doesn't mean people in, say, Boise are underpaid or whatever, just that everything is way, way more expensive in the Bay Area.
Who is better able to afford to put his kids through college, go skiing every year in the Swiss Alps, buy a Ferrari, or retire in luxury in Florida--a guy who spent his career making $185,000 in Boise or making $450,000 in San Jose?
More money is still more money, the cost of housing notwithstanding.
However, I feel like you're are underestimating "some personal services". I don't have the time cook all my meals, I need to commute to get affordable housing, and I don't plan on just hanging out in the park everyday. So alas I find myself paying:
$15 for a simple saled
$11 roundtrip commute on caltrain
$100 for nosebleed seats to a band that was barely even considered famous during their heyday
These things really add up quick, and if you're not constantly careful about budgeting, you'll find yourself with less money than your counterpart in Boise.
Americans and their ridiculous concept of what middle-class is, hilarious. You're rich, own it.
You are right that someone with 450k gross should be able to comfortably handle this. It is different story for the majority that make 250k or less.
Most everything is indeed more expensive. Electricity, for example is nearly twice as expensive. I just looked up gas and Costco vs Costco is $.80/gal more. Insurance is more. Property tax rates are about the same but since the value of properties is so much higher you pay a lot more in real dollars. And since the basics are more expensive, everyone’s rates go up because they have to buy the basics too.
Think of average senior engineer Bob with a 10 year career, now working at mediocre tech company Xyz in Sunnyvale. There’s no way on Earth he’s making $300k.
Hot shot ML expert Alice working at Facebook? Sure!
How many more Bobs are there than Alices? 10x? 20x?
Median(?avg?) senior comp at Google is apparently 350k, 370k at Facebook.
That is reasonable for large top tech company, which was the original statement.
The original statement I made was 350-500 is about in line with senior-ish at top large tech companies.
The levels immediately below senior brush against that boundary (I made 350k one year when the stars aligned, and wasn't senior), and the levels immediately above are averaging at the very top of that limit.
If you disagree with the data, that's fine.
Edit: dropping random extra prepositions
In particular because more comp comes from stock, it's extremely sensitive to a market downturn.
holy hell. I am need to quit my job.
What does any of that have to do with the national discussion above?
S/He replied that it's not what you're doing, it's where you're doing it.
It's why judging on these income bands makes no sense. $300k household income with kids is comfortable but not rich in SV, but you'd be living like royalty in most of the rest of the US.
I’m not familiar with the SF cost of living, but Nerd Wallet says a 2 bedroom apartment is about $4k per month. I figured $7k is more accurate so I’ll assume $96k in rent per year.
$300k is roughly taxed at 75k for an individual with no exemptions and standard deduction. That leaves $225k of actual cash to spend or save.
Ok, so after rent and taxes we’re at about $129k. I see cost of living for food and transportation is higher than Texas, but I bet you also drive less. Does that fancy tech company provide meals once per day or more? I bet they do. So, you have $125k left to spend on food, transportation, bills, entertainment, and invest.
If you invest 20% of your gross income - $60k - you’re still left with $65k to spend on those things. That’s $5400 per month or so. I’d bet that buys a lot of $15 coffees and $30 lunches. Or hookers and cocaine, if that’s what you’re into.
Everything is more expensive. Insurance is more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Movies, ubers, doctors, groceries, sales tax, you name it.
While that leftover $77k isn't exactly hand-to-mouth poor by any stretch, compare it to some other state -- what is a fairly decent middle-class family wage in the Valley is a truly bonkers amount of money almost anywhere else in the US (or world, probably)
If someone’s struggling (EDIT: just comfortable) with $300k I don’t know what to tell ya.
I haven't been to a movie in at least 4 years, so I don't really add things like that into my budgeting. Everything else.. sure, it's more expensive, but some of it is only 30-50% more expensive, and $300k is easily double the salary one would receive in most other states.
Long time employees are naturally severe underpaid - i think it is across the nation.
For instance, top law firms often pay interns the same salary as a first year associate (prorated for summer months, of course). That can be $180k/yr for some firms. My guess is that you could be a fairly senior paralegal, with arguably more responsibility and a greater impact on the firm, but still earn less than the summer associates. It would seem unfair, though I suppose the answer could be, well, go get admitted to the University of Chicago law school, give up three years salary and spend 200k on tuition, and get high enough grades to be hired into a top law firm, and we'll pay you at the rate of 180k a year.
This situation is starting to emerge in some Silicon Valley companies, where a bi-modal pay system similar to law is emerging. Just as graduates of lower ranked law firms might never earn a salary comparable to a first year associate from an elite school at a top firm, I have noticed that starting salaries for recent grads at Facebook may exceed what veteran programmers elsewhere earn. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that the intern salaries are higher than some other job titles at the company.
What I mean to say is, the article suggests that Oracle hired women and minorities to "funnel" them into low paying jobs.
What if they set a very low wage and only minorities and foreign students were willing to accept those rates. Would that be just as bad?
The difference of course is that the former is a critique of Oracle whereas the latter is a critique of the industry.
This wording struck me as odd:
Oracle “impermissibly denies equal employment opportunity to non-Asian applicants for employment, strongly preferring a workforce that it can later underpay. Once employed, women, Blacks and Asians are systematically underpaid relative to their peers,” the complaint alleges.
Does that mean that people don't know the compensation associated with the position during the hiring negotiation?
What do you mean by first move? Google, Apple, Intel, Pixar, Adobe, Lucasfilm, eBay and Intuit were all found guilty of colluding to keep engineer compensation low.
That is literally what the trial is intended to determine.
Tech company abuses H1B or other visas to underpay staff and undercut local labor market? Not surprising.
About 1.2 million immigrants come to the US every year. Unfortunately, these free folk don't appear to want to become devs in the valley at the rate Oracle thinks they should, any more than the people born in the US.
The problem is that immigration slots in the US are generally based on family reunification, and don't come close to meeting demand. But a bug can always be a feature. I think tech companies like this. It creates scarcity, which makes their control over one of the few avenues into the US very lucrative. They can use this to ensure that would-be immigrants are not in fact able to participate freely in labor markets, but are beholden to corporations for their right to stay in the US and not be deported.
They they shouldn't hire them. The H1-B program isn't meant to allow firms hire foreign workers at low salaries, even though it's abused to do that. It's meant to help fill real skills shortages (and if there's a real shortage, firms should be more than willing to pay a premium to satisfy their unmet demand).
It'd be a great way of letting the market figure out how many work visas we need, in any event, rather than having a number someone plucked out of their ass.
You're wrong on both counts, because the economy is not a fixed-size pie. Higher education benefits a lot from foreign students paying full price.
This is fairly settled economics.
Sure, let's also let some of the passengers fly the plane because hey, they did it in a video game.
Learn about it before you go and try and wreck the system.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Here are a few more
When CATO and Paul Krugman agree on something, MAYBE it's worth paying attention.
My understanding is that the law says the wage being offered must at least meet the minimum wage specified by DOL
If a company is following a bad law doesn't it make more sense to make the law better than lambaste the company for hand-wavy "abuse?"
For instance a level 1 "programmer" in SF makes about 70k. A level 4 "Software Developers, Systems Software" makes about 158k...
My point is that the argument that h1b employers must and therefore do pay the prevailing wage is incomplete with out knowing the employees skills and the wage data the employer chose to set as the prevailing wage.
Going back 10 years for this information would be pretty trivial for us. Our systems already have reports that do the above. The name, address, telephone, and personal email is basic demographic information in an HR system.
Yes, I can imagine the kind of complexity that would arise in a 25 fold increase in personnel, but, if anything, the data systems would have more historical data in them. Financial records retention typically involves manually purging records rather than the opposite. After all, you've got to store at least two years of information just to be able to handle taxes and auditing.
It's all saved in the system and date tracked appropriately. Going back longer than that would be difficult, but that's only due to records retention laws. We're not required to maintain most personnel records longer than about 7-8 years (though some go as long as 50 or more, such as the types of records that pensions require).
Then again, I'm also familiar with FOIA requests, and I'm aware than at least 50% of the cost is probably going to be the cost for lawyers to vet the information before release.
The court shouldn't care what kind of burden it is for a company whose records are a mess. Giving into that creates a moral/regulatory hazard.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of Asian students (~90% Indian and Chinese) flock to US universities for grad studies. They work hard, get a good GPA and want to continue their stay here. When they apply for jobs, the pool is very very limited because not all companies want to carry the burden of VISA/lawyers/immigration etc.
Oracle is one of the handful of big firms that feed on such students. They have the capital and resources to carry the immigration burden. And they hire students in bulk. I personally know a lot of students-turned-Oracle employees from all major universities.
At that point, the students just want to stay in the US legally, salary takes a backseat. They know the fact that if they can stay for long, money will eventually come.
Does there need to be discrimination for the result to be skewed in this way? The way I read the parent, immigrant employees are willing to do more for less due to a logical judgement about their situation, and from a pool of "Available jobs" may chose to throw a wider net, where someone who has more leeway can be pickier. (In my situation, I was making negligible money and when offered what seemed like a _mind-blowing_ salary of 3x my prior, accepted off the bat, without realizing until much later that I was being paid far below the rate of both my cohort and my experience level for the work being done)
That still sounds like the company that made you the offer was exploiting you; they took advantage of your tough situation to pay you less than they would have if you had more leverage.
Btw, all (well, most profitable) are always exploiting you - paying you less than you produce for the company. You’re also always exploiting the company - you’re making more money collaborating with pther employees than you would by yourself!
I love their salary negotiation method.
They have a top end in mind and will give the person the job if they agree on anything up to the amount.
They leave room for negotiation as some people need to feel like they negotiated well.
If you don’t negotiate your pay up to 100% the preset amount, after you accept the job they just tell you they are paying you more (the 100%).
Both people are happy in this set up.
Some candidates would reject the offer if they weren’t given the experience of negotiating more for themselves.
This strategy emerged over hundreds or thousands of hires as the founders came from bigger companies before this one.
It’s perhaps not rational, but humans aren’t always rational. So building that irrationality into your strategy is a rational thing to do ;)
It’s unclear if employees / candidates know this at all, which is why I didn’t name the company.
The incentive is to create an actual loving and supportive culture which they believe pays off. They also feel like it’s the right thing to do given their values.
They are one of the top rated corporate cultures in the world and recently valued at around $2B 10 years in.
1) For H1B, the offer made by Oracle was higher than the minimum wage guideline by DOL for those specific positions. You get a copy of the H1B petition submitted by Oracle and it includes all of this data.
2) Your salary is dependent on what you negotiated with your recruitment coordinator (Oracle will not change your figure once an offer has been sent to you). The recruitment coordinator makes an offer and you try as much as possible to counter. If you have prior work experience, you will most likely use your previous salary information as a basis for negotiation. I assume this figure you have quoted will form a basis for what Oracle will offer you. If you don't have prior work experience, then of course, they will make you an offer that they prefer.
3) Oracle pay increases are rare and typically small. This is why your starting salary is quite important because it basically forms the basis for your income for your years at Oracle
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."[0; emphasis mine]
"Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data."[0; emphasis mine]
Especially the ones that are working in the gaming industry.
Anyone know how that works exactly?
This is such a poignant and accurate way of describing this phenomenon. Thanks for this!
Just wondering how Oracle was determining past pay, just asking? Using some site?
For the common man, negotiating really isnt a skill that has been developed. My girlfriend is interviewing with tech companies right now and I'm consistently reminding her to state a higher number not only if they ask for current salary (and to first off be diligent in not providing a number), but for the eventual negotiation upon job offer.
Also, most people really aren't in a position to negotiate, especially if they are in a discriminated class.
And for what it's worth, while I am 100% on board with never discussing prior salary, I would advise against outright lying about it. On the chance that you're called out on it lying will most likely disqualify you immediately (and forever).
In my experience, I've done my best negotiating when I'm almost disinterested, which is usually when I have lots of other options. Someone in a discriminated class may not get that many offers, so they may not be able to play them against each other, or be comfortable pushing as far as they could given there's some risk of an offer being rescinded.
"According to the complaint filed today, Oracle hired around 500 people into tech jobs over a five-year period, and only five were Hispanic and only six were African American."
Correction: OP should have said 5 year period instead of 8 year period. Either way. That's averaging one black person per year.
From the body of the article, the OFCCP seems rather to be claiming that there's a differential in salary between female/black/asian employees and white male employees and that foreign-born employees on student visas worked disproportionately in entry-level jobs, which are lower-paying.
I have not seen "Latinx" receive a warm welcome in Spanish-speaking countries, but it seems to be gaining traction in the US. I think it's pronounced, in English, "latin-ecks". I'm not sure anyone has attempted a Spanish pronunciation.
Not surprised that this isn't popular where Spanish is the primary language. It seems to be a sort of "white feminist" thing, rejecting/correcting aspects of a non-Anglo culture for reasons that have no relevance in that culture.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the mental image of some silicon valley kid with a 2 million dollar house telling people who live in corrugated-roof shacks that they're 'uninclusive'. And it pisses me off unreasonably.