Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446950
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: H-1B Reform |
| Date | 2017-02-08 21:12 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o7gj27$c1n$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <efu9c5Fter0U1@mid.individual.net> <o7dsdu$q8j$1@dont-email.me> <eg0ulaFfhucU1@mid.individual.net> <o7g4f1$ssf$1@dont-email.me> <eg1kqeFk79eU1@mid.individual.net> |
On 2/8/2017 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-02-08 14:02, rickman wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 11:18 AM, Joerg wrote: >>> On 2017-02-07 17:33, rickman wrote: >>>> On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote: > > > [...] > >>>> >>>>>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has >>>>>>> been. >>>>>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this >>>>>>> law. I >>>>>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an >>>>>>> H1B >>>>>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the >>>>>>> way it >>>>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in >>>>>>> America or simply do not have enough of. >>>>>> >>>>>> My cousin was one of those people. He literally trained his >>>>>> replacement. But he wouldn't report them. In the end after six >>>>>> months >>>>>> or so they hired him back... then laid him off again later on. >>>>>> Then he >>>>>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more. You have to work >>>>>> the >>>>>> system to your benefit. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that >>>>> will hopefully end soon. >>>> >>>> I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast >>>> majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and >>>> they were not doing high level engineering work. It was more like >>>> IT or >>>> similar level work. Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply >>>> kill the entire H-1B program. >>>> >>> >>> It will not. H1B allows us to hire that specialist from overseas >>> elsewhere that brings fresh ideas into a project. It allows us to hire >>> the brightest minds to keep America at the top of high-tech. That is >>> what H1B was designed for. >> >> Except that is not what it is being used for. The proposed changes will >> eliminate abuse, but it does nothing to *encourage* proper use. >> > > It's simple: A company needs a certain talent, tries their best > domestically, can't find anyone. See, right there... that's the fallacy. Do you really think there is any skill that can't be supplied in the US? What it means is they can't find the talent at a given wage. > Then they go international, find > someone, file for the visa and pay accordingly. This is proper use. > > Improper use is what happens nowadays. Companies hire scores of coders > and others on the cheap, the whole program runs into the cap in a jiffy > and when another company desperately needs someone in August they are > screwed. Because the cap had been reached long ago. So it comes down to price... Company A was hiring H-1B workers on the cheap. So there is no reason why there wouldn't be talent for company B... unless they expect to pay that same substandard wage. > Therefore, the proposed changes setting a high minimum pay encourage > proper use by curbing improper use. Most of all it will prevent > companies from illegally displacing American workers. The high minimum wage means the program won't be used because at that $120,000 an engineer will be found in the US... unless it's in one of the very few, very high priced regions like silicon valley. I wouldn't move there no matter how much they pay. In this country, at this time, if you can't find a skill, then you simply aren't offering the right incentives. >>>> I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big. >>>> >>> >>> It is big to all those people like your cousin because it messes with >>> their making a living. >> >> My cousin was very happy. >> > > He was lucky that he got back in. Most are not so lucky and have to join > the ranks of the un- or underemployed. That is simply not what I have read. As I have said, an analysis I read (which included names of companies in the H-1B program and their numbers) showed most H-1B workers aren't really doing engineering. They are doing much lower level jobs and being paid appropriately for them. >>> H1B is a wonderful program and abolishing it like some short-sighted >>> pundits are advocating would be flat wrong. It needs to simply be >>> brought back to its original intent. All the protection measures are >>> already in the law, always have been. We as a country simply need to >>> adhere to them and that unfortunately means enforcement of rules. >> >> It is still bringing in workers where there is no shortage. >> > > Not when the min wage is $130k/year. Because that is way more than the > company has to pay for an American worker. An employer would be quite > stupid paying unnecessarily high wages. Yes, that is the point. >>>>>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a >>>>>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> departments involved. It would have been very hard to produce a >>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen >>>>>>> some. >>>>>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and >>>>>>> most of >>>>>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ >>>>>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming >>>>>>> trade >>>>>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much >>>>>>> anymore. >>>>>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to >>>>>> mean. A >>>>>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to >>>>>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, >>>>>> then >>>>>> where are they? Customers will buy what they want and if you don't >>>>>> give >>>>>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and >>>>> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they >>>>> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this >>>>> resulted in >>>>> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded >>>>> that >>>>> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design >>>>> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I >>>>> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-) >>>> >>>> I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification" >>>> comes from management. They make the rules and if they reward >>>> marketing >>>> for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault. We *all* >>>> respond to >>>> the stimulus and rewards we receive. Engineering as well. >>>> >>> >>> Marketing is usually under the VP or Sales. Sales is traditionally >>> driven by commissions. Hence ... >> >> No, marketing is *not* "under" sales in any company I've worked for. >> Regardless, ultimate control over commissions and everything else in a >> company is by management. They can create good, or create bad. >> Obviously not every company has the issues you mention, so there must be >> ways to solve the problem. >> > > Most large companies I know are like that. They are marketing-driven > which in essence results in a sales-driven company. The VP of Sales > usually has the largest pull when it comes to deciding the direction of > R&D. It is one of the reasons why I would not have remained an employee > for very long. Because this can snuff out truly visionary developments. > Those take a little longer and carry a higher risk. Most importantly for > the sales force they do not generate instant commission income. Instant > to a sales person usually means this year or even this coming quarter. Reality says otherwise. If a company is so poorly run that the departments are working counter productively and yet they are highly profitable, then that contradicts what you are saying. If they aren't highly profitable and could be run better, competitors will do that and eat their lunch. Eventually the poorly performing companies either change or go away. Companies do the things they do because it maximizes their profits. If the scenario you describe results in high profits, then you are complaining about nothing. You started by complaining about "instant gratification" and now you are talking about a year. In the real world it is not at all uncommon for development to take much more than a year. Look around, there are lots of products that took much more than a year to develop. How long did the iPhone take to go from concept to product. How about the chip sized atomic clock? The list goes on. -- Rick C
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
H-1B Reform bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 08:16 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-01-31 09:15 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Martin Riddle <martin_rid@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 20:11 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-01-31 22:49 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform dakupoto@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 22:52 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 07:23 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:02 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:49 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:18 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 10:02 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 20:21 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 08:08 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:28 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 10:05 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:13 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 12:16 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:13 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 07:19 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 13:42 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 12:06 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 03:18 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 03:17 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 07:51 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 10:08 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 10:11 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 12:53 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:36 +0000
Re: H-1B Reform Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-08 17:20 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:14 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 19:36 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 08:02 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-07 17:01 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 20:33 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 08:18 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:02 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 14:36 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:12 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 07:42 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-09 11:02 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-09 14:34 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 12:27 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-09 15:33 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 12:40 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:58 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:10 +0000
Re: H-1B Reform Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 09:24 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 18:05 +0000
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 10:18 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:41 +0000
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 13:31 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 22:05 +0000
Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:56 -0800
Re: H-1B Reform mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-05 10:32 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-05 19:15 +0100
Re: H-1B Reform mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-05 23:06 -0500
Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 03:24 -0800
csiph-web