| ▲ | lumost 4 days ago |
| It’s interesting that the U.S. picked an employer-driven model, which effectively outsources immigration selection to firms. That’s efficient for demand-matching, but it concentrates bargaining power in ways that a points-based model avoids. The practical effect of an H1-B is to act as a non-compete, punitive termination clause, and a time bounded employment contract. These are very expensive terms to ask for in conventional US employment contracts - most of them are now effectively banned for standard W-2 workers. Forcing top wage earners to compete with illegal employment terms does not seem reasonable. |
|
| ▲ | overfeed 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It’s interesting that the U.S. picked an employer-driven model... Health insurance, parental leave† and retirement are also employer-driven. This seems to be a US default that incidentally gives a lot of leverage to employers. † Yes there are government mandated minimums, but when compared to other developed countries, substantive parental leave is largely left to the generosity of the employer |
| |
| ▲ | bregma 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You wrote "incidentally" but I think you meant "intentionally". There is no evidence it's a coincidence, but there is a great deal of evidence that it is not. | | |
| ▲ | nerpderp82 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This drives a lot of the opposition to single payer insurance from the corporate world. They lose leverage as it would increase wages and labor mobility. | | |
| ▲ | joquarky 4 days ago | parent [-] | | One of the main reasons why annual raises have become so miniscule is because health insurance costs are rising significantly faster than inflation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fuzztester 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | why did it work out that way in the US? | | |
| ▲ | js2 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | During WWII there were wage freezes so employers started providing benefits: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th... > In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. > This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers. > Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance. > Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means. ---- Hysterical raisins strikes again. | | | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | timeon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ideology. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ambicapter 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's right. It is in fact advantageous in many ways for companies to prefer H-1B, they have far more control over those workers than they would over americans. They can even be worse than an american and you would prefer it if you were the type of employer who prioritizes control of their workforce over excellence. |
| |
| ▲ | lithos 4 days ago | parent [-] | | H1-B are supposed to be skilled enough that losing their job isn't a problem due to combinations of skill levels, skill combination rarity, and connections. The fact that your statement is a truth indicates a problem with the program. |
|
|
| ▲ | cm2187 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But it's not like if the employee gets nothing out of this bargain. The company in exchange sponsors the visa. It's not unreasonable that they get a minimum number of years of work from the employee in exchange. |
| |
| ▲ | hx8 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the government that controls the immigration law that gives the company the authority to sponsor a visa. Of course the H1-B is mutually beneficial to both the company and the employee, that is why the program is so popular. If H1-Bs are being abused (by hiding job openings to US citizens), or seen as unfair competition for American labor, then the government has the authority to modify or terminate the program. This thread has been primarily about exploring other paradigms for enabling immigration. | |
| ▲ | me-vs-cat 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you describing H-1B or indentured servitude? | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 3 days ago | parent [-] | | As someone who's had 3 different H-1Bs, I'd say that the employer that treated me the worst treated their other employees the worst as well. I got a green card, and eventually citizenship, and the treatment I got wasn't remarkably different either. I think the "H-1B is indentured servitude" thing is a bit of a red herring, tbh. Many US employers are generally crappy. | | |
| ▲ | me-vs-cat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thank you for sharing your experience. I cannot see how to justify H-1B as a benefit the employer provides for the worker, because it just sounds exploitive, like the comment above. I can see justification only as a benefit to the employer (and the society allowing the immigration) when there are truly not enough acceptable candidates. I'm left wondering how that can be true when so many employers routinely hide postings. |
|
|
|
