That's what matters if you're an Indian with an I-140 dated 2009, afraid to change his H1B job, despite salary or personnel issues. (Also, ask me about why I'm not starting up).
That one section prevents this "you can quit anytime you feel like" threat held over Indian employees by employers, because an I-140 for the employee is issued to the employer.
An employee with mobility between employers is no longer forcing the wages down.
That does not prevent a company from sending the same job to India, because it suddenly costs so much, but it does prevent the lowering of wages due to people putting up with abusive or near-illegal employment practices.
This is good for the local economy and basically makes an "outsourcing" employee irresponsible if she doesn't jump to an american firm who will do her paperwork right.
Raising the salaries all around.
(delete mini-rant about living expenses and salaries - increased pay all around isn't always what it's cracked up to be)
That section alone, shifts the balance of power between an employer and an H1b holder.
If the H1B program were abolished entirely, my compensation would shoot up there with doctors' and lawyers', and the tech billionaires would be slightly less rich.
This measure doesn't go that far, but it's a step in that direction.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703509104576328... (Infosys China Plans to Triple Staff to 10,000)
It's harder to outsource doctors because of multitude of reasons (Healthcare is country dependent, patients can't be transported, medicines are different in each country)
I am on H1b and I have noticed the body shops too, even worked for one. Bills like this doesn't address the core issue of H1b abuse and only exacerbates the issues.
There are a lot of people on this thread who don't understand how the law of supply and demand works.
---
While TCS, Infosys etc figure prominently in the H-1B debate, I think this new bill does not affect them as much as it is made out to be. The real downside is for staffing firms (popularly known as "desi consulting shops"), mostly run by Indian-Americans.
TCS employs 370K+ employees worldwide and had revenue of $16B+ in 2016. They might have gotten 3K H-1Bs each year. If they know how to run projects staffing 370K employees with 3K H-1Bs per year, they will figure out a way to run it with 500. Also, with that kind of revenue, they will pay the $130K if it comes to that.
H-1Bs, I suspect, have a power law distribution. TCS, Infosys etc top the list of H-1B visas per year, but there is a long tail of companies which get allotted few visas every year. Some of these in the long tail are high tech firms in real need of skill and are the ones paying appropriately for it (AmaFaceGoodSoft etc). But I think the larger cohort are the staffing shops which bend the rules often and pay low.
---
Curious to see how this bill would prevent the major outsources from forming a load of subsidiaries and gaming the system anyway. Maybe it's more of a bill for show, than to actually solve anything.
Also, for those jobs with lower income potential, the question still stands - can the employers find enough US citizens to take on those jobs (and do them well), given the the low salary.
Does this mean that a company can pay below the 130k if it can prove that it's not possible to hire an American even with higher wages?
To answer your question, I don't have trouble finding or keeping employment. This move will simply drive up my market value. So I'm for it.
Assumption, demand is constant: I'm talking about demand in the economic sense, i.e. The demand curve. The demand curve is left unchanged by this bill. i.e. We still need the same number of software developers, and for any $X/person companies are willing to hire Y number of people.
Assumption, Price Elasticity: For the most part this assumption holds because, fortunately, software companies do seem to be making profits. Implying, they have the means to increase wages.
All in all, this is in the best interest of any person in a profession where many H1-Bs currently hold a position, and whose company is currently profitable.
Everything mostly follows the path of least resistance. Economy, finance, etc. The actual law of the land is and will always be: profit.
H-1B was a viable way to make profit, so it became popular. Once it is not longer profitable, people will look for something else.
Will the new way be hiring American workers? maybe... Maybe it will be hiring from coding camps for less, maybe it is moving to another country, or almost anything.
It doesn't necessarily have to be hiring Americans computer science graduates. Someone will find the way and everyone will follow.
whaaaat?
What greedy, heartless, unpatriotic company do you work for? I'm sure a massive name-and-shame campaign against them will convince them to restore those 4 jobs.
And perhaps the Republicans could explore the possibility of imposing surcharges on fees paid to offshore development shops, to encourage a more "America First" mindset in greedy companies who lay off American workers and offshore the work.
Sets aside 20% of the annual allocation of H-1B visas for small and start-up employers
If you are in Zoe Lofgren's district, please send her comments here: https://lofgren.house.gov/contact/