Remix.run Logo
▲ tlogan 3 hours ago

It is an open secret that consulting companies (Tata, Infosys, Capgemini, etc.) are abusing the employee sponsored green cards.

But I'm surprised that Microsoft is accused doing it. I was under the impression that Microsoft will sponsor your green card but is still very strict about whom they hire and retain, regardless of immigration status. But maybe that has changed?

Tata, Infosys, HCL, and similar body shops are definitely a different story.

▲orochimaaru 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you’re laying off employees en masse and still processing green cards that in itself is a red flag.

Companies have usually gotten around it saying we r laying off in 1 division but hiring in another. Maybe that hand waving can’t be swept under the rug anymore.

▲kixiQu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That doesn't feel accurate to me. If you're laying off employees en masse while getting new h1b visas, maybe - but everybody I know who's gotten a green card from tech employment was employed and working for a long time before that process even started.

▲orochimaaru an hour ago | parent [-]

If one is just waiting on a status change that’s ok. The labor certification is complete. If labor certification is being applied for as layoffs happen or if large tranches of new H1B are applied for at about the same time - that’s clearly an issue.

▲digitaltrees 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if the category of employees is different. You are assuming all candidates and roles are fungible.

▲bpodgursky 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is it hand waving? It's literally true a large corporation can fire a customer support agent while sponsoring a software engineer, it is not interchangeable talent

▲dec0dedab0de 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we had a union we would be training people from customer support to engineer.

I truly believe that software would be improved immensely if all developers spent a few years doing tech support for the elderly.

▲JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If we had a union we would be training people from customer support to engineer

This, to my knowledge, very rarely works.

> software would be improved immensely if all developers spent a few years doing tech support for the elderly

This, on the other hand, absolutely does.

▲simonw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've worked with several excellent people in my career who progressed from customer support to QA to QA engineer to software engineer.

It's not common though, and I don't think it's a case of "training". Some people have the drive to figure that path out, and those people should be encouraged and supported.

▲JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Some people have the drive to figure that path out, and those people should be encouraged and supported

Totally agree. I don’t think that means institutionalizing that pipeline is likely to yield those folks. They’re rare.

▲gopher_space 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This, to my knowledge, very rarely works.

Strictly a function of management quality and experience.

▲autoexec 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not everyone is interested in programing. Some people are amazing at customer support and super extroverted and seek out jobs where they interact with customers and would be miserable looking at code all day. The opportunity should be there, but some people are just never going to be engineers. Management quality can't fix that.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲bpodgursky 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sorry but this is just absurd. Not everyone has the same aptitude for every job. For a company or country to function you have to acknowledge this and put people in jobs suited to their natural talents.

▲tracerbulletx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I doubt that's the argument they're making. They're saying they are laying of a software engineer in one org, and hiring another software engineer in a different org. Not cross functional roles.

▲penskymaterial 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The army of developers stuck working helpdesk right now because they can't find work, would like a word.

▲franktankbank 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe they weren't exactly doing that. Calling a developer something else doesn't make it so.

▲eastbound 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Talent can be trained, less across jobs (although it's often what public services ask to entrepreneurs in some European countries), much more across departments.

▲thatfrenchguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean in the LLM era you need fewer employees and you need them to be very good to not become 10x bad engineers, so you could be processing green cards for your super stars while having to do layoffs

▲mh8h 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In a lot of cases they are claiming that the layoffs are not based on performance. The government's argument is that if there are high-performing American nationals or green card holders that are being laid off, then there is no point in giving more green cards, or H1Bs.

▲ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the playbook Microsoft has been accused of running in various tech press for years, and is backed up by the fact that all of their products are going to shit. Azure, Exchange, XBox & first-party titles, just to name a few of the things I've seen takedown posts about how the departments are staffed exclusively with inexperienced devs overseen by burnt-out seniors, using Copilot to duct tape shit into a somewhat-working state.

I remember not to long ago we got a service impact email from Microsoft saying they expected exchange services to resume normal operation in a sodding WEEK. Completely unacceptable for a provider my company, a smaller one, pays six figures per year for services.

▲KellyCriterion 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> are abusing the employee sponsored green cards

As a foreigner: How does this work and what do they do?

▲chung8123 3 hours ago | parent [-]

For one thing, if you get laid off you only have two weeks to find another job or you need to leave the country. This balance of power is lop sided so the employer can get away with abusing the employee unreported.

▲afthonos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, green cards actually remove that constraint. You are a permanent resident, and you’re allowed to live in the US permanently. Irrespective of employment.

▲sarchertech 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The future green card is dangled in front of the employee as the carrot to get them to put up with this situation for years.

And depending on where you are in the green card process, you might have to start all over again if you change employers.

▲bijowo1676 2 hours ago | parent [-]

not true, you can only "dangle" the PERM which gives you an I-140 petition. PERM is usually approved within 12-24 months. That's it. You cant dangle anything and cant force a bona fide employee to be a "subservient slave labor" like some people would imagine this process.

Once the I-140 petition is approved (14 days), and I-485 is pending for 180+ days, and employee can easily leave to another employer, it only takes them to file couple forms like transfer of H1B and transfer of I-140.

So the most you can keep the employee on a leash is ~2-3 years which happens to be median tenure at tech.

the immigration discourse is filled with false information, and for this reason I prefer only immigration attorneys discuss the matter as they are the most qualified of all the quirks and nuances of the US immigration law.

▲sarchertech an hour ago | parent [-]

Employers can and do require a certain length of employment before initiating sponsorship.

Say that’s 12 months. If their I-40 is approved at 30 months, the employer can withdraw it for 180 days and the approval will be revoked.

So we’re talking 36 months until changing employers doesn’t set you back.

That is longer than the median FAANG tenure. That means you have an employee whose floor tenure is longer than the median.

And even then if at anytime the employee is fired (until they get their green card, which can take many many years), they have 60 days to find a new employer or leave the country.

▲bijowo1676 an hour ago | parent [-]

silicon valley starts PERM from day1, lower tier firms require like couple years.

that's still absolutely normal regular tenure. You work for couple years, show your performance and convince your manager to initiate the perm process.

I have never ever seen anything even close to resembling the "servitude" conditions where tech workers are kept at one company against their will. Nobody is revoking your I-140, because you just transfer it when you change jobs.

re 60 days I agree, this is brutal and should be abolished. I believe H1B workers should be able to remain until the duration of their I-94 even without the job, to seek the new employment in case of job termination

▲KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OK,got this part - this is referring to abusing the employees.

I read the former comment like that they are abusing/missusing the "technical Greencard mechanics" to get their employees past some checks/approvals/permissions/whatever or acquire whatever "special benefits" by working around whatever rules

▲ExoticPearTree 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's pretty simple: you work as much as we tell you or we fire you. And good luck finding another job super fast with another company willing to sponsor a visa. This is the abuse. Plus, I think the pay is also not that great compared to US counterparts.

▲bijowo1676 2 hours ago | parent [-]

not true, the tech is not a coal mine or a cotton farm. you cant whip your employees and keep them on a short leash.

please spare me stories of "abused tech workers" who have middle six figure comp, free lunches, unlimited PTO, bunch of perks, generous 401k matches and infinite matcha lattes.

absolutely delusional discourse.

▲RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which also "conveniently" means those employees can effectively never unionise.

▲bijowo1676 2 hours ago | parent [-]

US citizens in tech never unionized themselves, because unionization will lead to stagnation. and tech industry is the opposite of stagnation

▲russdill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The government will take action on this, but not cruise ship visas. This has nothing to do with "explotation" and everything to do with trying to end immigration, even of (or especially of) highly skilled workers.

▲Tangurena2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> trying to end immigration, even of (or especially of) highly skilled workers

It is the color of the skin of those workers that matters to this administration, not their skill levels.

▲xp84 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> trying to end immigration, even of (or especially of) highly skilled workers

No, it's not.

I know plenty of of software engineers, good ones, who can't find work. Businesses which abuse the H1B and Green card programs to import cheaper workers when there is not a shortage of same here, are acting in bad faith and they know it. They are lying that the people they're bringing over are exceptionally skilled, and they are lying that they cannot find similar workers here at any price.

There's not a shortage of workers domestically anywhere in IT. Especially not now. There's a shortage of them willing to work for the shitty wages Amazon, Microsoft, etc. wants to pay those roles. So they hire companies like Infosys etc. to supply them, which they have done for decades by means of lies and fraud.

If they were bringing over truly exceptional individuals, that would be a different story.

To be clear none of this is even a knock on the skill and integrity of these workers they're bringing over. I'm just saying they are very similar to the tons of US-citizen engineers early in their careers who are out of work, and that if we were a real country, we'd prioritize citizens' need for a job above FAANG profits, by saying "Tough shit, pay more if you can't fill a position."

▲ an hour ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As discussed upthread, the PERM process is widely understood to be a farce, so it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if the government has evidence of a Microsoft executive who wrote down that they didn’t want to replace a senior developer with 6 years of tenure. Everyone including JD Vance knows that’s a dumb outcome, but under the PERM regulations, you can only get that guy a visa if you tried and failed to replace him first.

▲xp84 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Agreed. It's a farce on all sides. Most companies abuse H1B and PERM. We could reform immigration, by A. only allowing visas for people demonstrably very talented, stealing star performers from other countries instead of just taking bulk new grads. And then B. allowing green cards just on the basis of them paying lots of taxes, advancing in their job, establishing a family, etc. Because yes! Of course it's good for the American company to keep the tenured developer who has established themselves here!

But of course Congress is inhabited by people with the maturity level of children, so one party wants us to admit anyone who doesn't like their home country, and the other party mainly just wants to impress Trump, so no one will work on or negotiate on serious policy proposals.

▲brownguytoo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From where is MS’ CEO now again?

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲cyanydeez 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's an open secret that the US administration uses regulatory system for bribes and kickbacks, and no one should take them seriously regarding any rationale.