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.