Companies colluding to make the life of workers worse and boost their profits, that has never happened before in the history of humanity.
Apple and Google were caught red handed for their secret anti-poaching agreement (With the Jobs/Schmidt emails leaked to prove it). All these CEOs are in the same social circles, it's not a big reach to think they chat with each other behind the scenes about things like RTO, Layoffs, etc.
Beyond that, we’re in for years of macroeconomic reckoning for unresolved asset bubbles in the 2000s and horrendously bad COVID policy. Laying off makes sense. Sometimes you hire to backfill roles or for strategic teams. Sometimes an H1b is the correct hire.
How many software developers can, in a reasonable timeframe, buy a house in the place they live and support alone a family of four people? Then the truly insane salaries you are talking about are not really that insane.
>Laying off makes sense. Sometimes you hire to backfill roles or for strategic teams. Sometimes an H1b is the correct hire.
Developers are seen by companies as over expensive peons and they have been maneuvering to turn the whole field in an low cost industry. I hope you are younger than 30 to still hold such a naïf worldview.
> Just a month after Sundar Pichai announced Google’s plan to cut 12,000 jobs around the world in January, the company filed applications for H1B visas to hire software engineers, analytical consultants, user experience researchers and other roles from outside the United States, with several requests aimed for new Google employees to join in August, the report states. Google parent Alphabet owned Waymo too has reportedly filed similar H1B applications to hire engineers.
The article fails to mention and actual H1B requests by the others, just lumps them in with the layoffs.
It's not really being submitted in good-faith. My advice is to flag submissions with edited titles, and ignore the obvious outrage porn. It seems to work, more often than not.
Also, I'd call into question the credibility of this article. Google pays H1Bs the same as Americans as far as I know. What Google is doing is hiring a large number of engineers in India. These people I assume are paid much less than American engineers.
(Edit: my also Chinese manager dealt with it very well and that person left the company after some time)
When I was in Germany, Germans even texted their SO in English in case I glance over their phones. Maybe the group I was in was exceptionally welcoming but everywhere in Europe where I lived(EU, non-EU, UK etc.) it was always considered rude to speak a language that others don't understand and everyone always tried their best to speak in English as a lingua franca.
If I happen to be in a working group that speaks multiple languages, I would definitely raise the question of speaking a common language in a work environment because you can't all be on the same page when your communications are patchy.
It's been easier for me to move to a European country where I had to learn another language.
I am wondering how did they manage to pass the Google's hiring committee?
Ie, cardholding need be blind to recruiters. Ie, insteadof <Do you have work authorization?> as the first question [no less], it need be enforceably ILLEGAL to try fish info on it.
In practice that can't be fully done without also blinding a lot of other things. but having Single Market enforced by law certainly will reduce the paygap found today in equal lvl-to-lvl comparisons (top x% vs top x%; differing only in cardholding).
re "vent" "disrespectful"; I contend that those folks actually trying to be assholes are Americans. It's likely the comparison you saw was just done in a neutral and nonhurtful manner/intention, albeit not of PC enculture.
It is possible to be impolite, ungrateful, obnoxious and correct.
This a big news to me.
Think of it as being in the shoes of a lonely non-American in the country of Americans, if that is any consolation.
It’s always the goal, after all.
That said, that same group often faces exclusion in the wider company (and coming together is often in reaction to that), so it’s kind of miserable for everyone.
It’s not “confiscating passports” level but it’s definitely exploitative.
This is madness.
I can speak based on Netherlands where I work now. If an employee is performing below expectations, then a conversation needs to be had(documented), given a chance to improve or change course. If after an extended period of attempt, the decision to let that employee go still holds, then they may.
However, the above reasoning cannot be made for several employees at once (like the layoffs that occurred).
To do an American style layoff, the government will insist on the company to document the reasons why, and in most cases, take away the choice for the company to choose which employee they can let go. Which makes it very unattractive. So, if a company wants to let go of several people at once, they typically offer good severance packages and request the employees to quit.
First, there is the initial probation period. 80% of the people who won't perform, won't perform in the initial months. You just need a veto system or objective managers and it's easy to let slackers go. A lot of managers are soft on their employees and let them pass probation even if their performance is somewhat poor and, frankly, sometimes it's obvious it will continue to be poor. This is a mistake. So long as the company doesn't make these mistakes, this solves 80% of the matter.
Secondly, employees can be put on probation again, or on personal improvement plans. Yes, it can be done for actual performance reasons, not only Google-style. They can then fail these periods if their performance doesn't improve. But once again, this needs to be done with a clear head and accountability. This solves another 10% of the matter.
Thirdly, you can demote employees so that their pay matches their effort. This probably needs some foresight as demotion requires consent from the employee, if I recall. But if that consent is given as part of the employment contract, it's another way to make things just. You pay someone who underperforms less, you use that cash to hire people who perform. This option mitigates the perceived problem in firing under-performers even more.
In short, so long as there is good evidence that the employee was underperforming, it's not a problem. There are small peculiarities around dealing with this and not exposing the company legally beyond reason. But that's true for everything. Just don't be a clueless asshole about firing employees, do it when there really is a good reason, and it will all be fine.
There are, of course, employees who are vindictive or abuse these laws. But then again, a vindictive employee or one willing to abuse the company into keeping them around is a global problem. Some small % of people will just do these things everywhere - labour protections or not.
Unless by “low performers” you mean the supposedly weakest pawn in some “feelings-based” CEO’s desperate attempt to increase profits. And when that overpaid asshole realizes that he doesn’t actually have any ideas or other ways of impressing the board (which conveniently also consist of overpaid CEOs that think that desperately squeezing employees is the only way forward), shuffling around employees whose jobs he doesn’t understand in the slightest, becomes the way to seem actionable.
It’s far easier to get rid of an employee not doing their job, than it is to get rid of a delusional billionaire CEO or boardmember.
The real question is how do we get rid of these abysmal, low performing CEOs/boardmembers who hide behind idiotic ideas that fuck around with their employees lives or depend on exploiting people from poorer countries, to cover up their own ineptitude?
(And no, “shareholders” are just an effigy, conjured to represent private equity and geriatric pension funds, represented by a handful of investment bankers. It’s by definition a dysfunctional market, because the number of actors are tiny, and contained within the same industry. I mean, Adam Smith literally warned us about this…)
The program takes jobs away from Americans and should be illegal.
I want to work with people from my town, not people from halfway across the world.
And I want to work with the brightest people from all over the world. I guess we are at an impasse and are best off leaving subjective preferences out...
Go figure, people who want to stay in the country will jump through some ridiculous hoops and we’re all worse for it.
I have never found a reason to believe any folks on H1B are smarter than their non-H1B peers. By any stat, never seen it.
Many countries offer work visas (for many good reasons), although they are often used in unintended ways. It is very much a stretch to say these programs shouldn't exist at all because they "take away" jobs.
Also, if half of the people you work with are on H1B, very likely you are not in a midwest "town" with 3,000 population, but rather a decent metropolitan area with a large immigration population, and the company you work is of decent size. I wouldn't be surprised if even half of the Americans in your company relocated from a different "town".
Finally, I like working with people that are productive and easy to communicate, instead of looking at which country they come from or their visa status. If anything that's my boss's concern.
Therefore, if you want to actually see any change, maybe (1) become the CEO of your company, fire all H1B and only hire US citizens (2) join a different company (3) start your own company, or at least (4) call your senator and advocate for anti-immigration bills, or sue USCIS, instead of posting these useless and borderline racist comments on HN.
Nobody forces you to work with people from across the world, quit your job and find one that only hires people from your town
As it is, the H1B system only benefits H1Bs in a limited manner at the cost of American citizens. All so that rich investors can make more money.
I think a better solution is to end H-1B. Nobody is forcing people to come here.
(Btw, I see your point and am not necessarily criticizing it. However, you do see that these companies operate globally and having the workforce reflect that should be considered ok?)
and then you will probably figure out yourself that you need the H-1Bs
There’s plenty of companies though that don’t do h1b. Major telcos, defense contractors (those are us citizen only), a lot of small hedge funds, etc.
Too bad people from your town are not smart enough.
Jokes aside, the irony of this assertion coming from an American is too rich. Wondering why "23andMe" was such a popular term not that long ago.
We clearly need to reform our immigration system.
Yes, that’s true but isn’t what is happening here. They’re not bringing in H1Bs for their talent, they’re firing US workers so they bring in H1Bs to do the same job, but cheaper.
Break up ALL big tech.
Generally, I'm opposed to any type of class distinction.
This could all be fixed by making H1B visas an auction system, but all the H1B legislation changes I've seen have been half-hearted at best.
My guess is that there's no clear market rate for any position. Companies can always say there's a wide range between lowest and highest paid for any given role.
H1B holders will get paid less over time due to not being able to leave companies at the drop of a hat. A similar but less significant effect holds for TN visas. I have not once seen any significant pay discrepancy for two comparable software engineers at the same company based on visa status.
Case in point, when I graduated 15 years ago. There was a big H1B software farm (Accenture maybe?) That randomly emailed. 2 year contract job, $30k/year out of NYC.
Yea....not a reasonable salary even 15 years ago lmao
No worries. If this thread has proven anything, that would be that not even Americans know, but they sure love a good flame bait.
Jokes aside, what you just said is absolutely correct and it is indeed how it works in the US. I'm an immigrant myself, and that was part of the process. Most people complaining about how this "hurts" Americans, are, unknowingly I hope, echoing the same xenophobic slogans we have been hearing for a couple decades now.
Of course, at my job I’m now surrounded by junior engineers on a very old legacy product. These juniors are very much not equipped, and struggle. I mention this will take months of training and mentoring, challenging the teams ability to execute on product in any case. It appears protecting a head count matters more than real results.
It’s saddening to watch these silly management trends take over in the industry, but, it just looks like the big companies are due for being challenged.
I’m an immigrant myself and know how the visa application process works. There are a few mechanisms in place to prevent H-1B holders to receive lower wages than their colleagues, first and foremost the PERM, which guarantees similar wages in the same occupation and area of employment.
If Google or anyone else are hiring H-1B visa holders directly, they have to pay them accordingly to their own standards.
Also, visa salaries have to be publicly available. It’s not like they could lie about it.
When people speak of visa holders as “cheap” labour, they probably think of IT consultants hired by Indian companies, which regularly are the worst offenders.
> Like a slave they might be lucky and have a good master.
Can't take this kind of hyperbole seriously.
I get paid more than every H1B I know who is a level above me in my role.
H-1B salaries are publicly available. If what you say was true, don't you think that a country as notoriously litigious as the US, wouldn't have started a massive class action lawsuit against tech companies a long time ago?
The visa is not the actual problem but the green card promise and process.
It took me 6 years to be "free" and that's considered pretty fast compared to my Indian colleagues many who are still waiting more than a decade later.
One of the teams I work with today is about 90% Indian, most from great schools like CMU, many overqualified for the job they do, all trapped in the green card promise making 1/3 of what they could be making somewhere else.
Your colleagues need to find a lawyer, then.
Visa holders don't need to stay employed in the same company to obtain a green card. And if they really are underpaid compared to other coworkers, that's a clear case of visa fraud against the employer.
You can easily verify that Open AI, for example, have made tens of H-1B applications. Also, please go check the names of authors of influential papers - many of them are from countries who don’t share a land border with the US, but work here.
Yes, there are plenty of engineers who churn out questionable code. But those are not all folks on H-1B, or are H-1B exclusively on those roles.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/executives-staffing-compa...
Yeah it's cartelization and it's illegal but we all know they do it.
H-1B hiring has dates that matter that you're lined up to do.
Go read "Important Dates" here https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
Ultimately, the Silicon Valley job market is bimodal. If you don't make $500k+ here, it's not because a H-1B worker is taking your job. It's because you're not good enough at interviewing. Because people are hiring even now.
You've got to be better off than the person described as being enslaved.
It is not uncommon that C suites don't get paid that much money: the big money that they make rather comes from bonuses.
These companies laid off a bunch of people. Some of whom were H1Bs. And they’re hiring a bunch of people. Some of whom are H1Bs.
That’s simply a commentary on large companies hiring even after doing layoffs which is pretty standard.
The article makes it sound like they are replacing Americans with low paid workers, which is absolutely false.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-layoffs-hit-h1b-visa-worke...
18 months ago i was talking to 4 recruiters in parallel, turning down jobs and making companies outbid each other.
Today the only recruiters who will return my calls are the ones who have gotten me jobs in the past and they all said they don’t have anything. One of them talked about an opportunity that might exist in 3 weeks time that he’ll put me in for if it gets the go ahead.
You mean being contractor?
And then they managed to put the two indian FAANG CEOs in the picture, without even mentioning one of their companies? This is really junk journalism...
The moneycontrol.com link is merely a summary of that.
But why does this site looks like an intranet site "best viewed with IE6"?
The main way out is worker-owned co-ops.
1) H1B's are abused 2) Immigrants, like any other people, can form cliques at work 3) Companies do layoffs while simultaneously hiring 4) H1B semi-indenture the hired immigrant
First off the bat, this is a clickbaity article. The literal implication is FANG laid off and FANG also hired H1Bs therefore FANG laid off Americans to employ lowly-skilled H1Bs. This is pure sleight of hand. Facebook's had ~20k layoffs and ~3k H1B hires. It'd be easy to claim a wholesale clean out/swap out if Facebook successfully hired ~10000 to 20k H1Bs. Secondly, H1B hires usually include a mix of net new hires (say a college grad joining facebook) and existing employee (I work at facebook and want to switch to an H1B visa). Thirdly, H1Bs are usually lodged independently of layoffs or better put, H1Bs are lodged several months in advance. A decent chunk of those H1B hires started their application process 16-18 months ago. You cannot just fire someone and immediately pick an H1B. The H1B process is independent and nondeterministic (or random because it takes several months to process an application & it all depends on the lottery). It's pretty blatant the article doesn't even mention the number of visas awarded. It also doesn't even bother backing up the 'low-salaried' claim (fun fact, all H1B salary info is public so you can actually do the math yourself and see if say Amazon's H1B salaries are 'low'/'deflated'. Spoiler, no such thing)
(I'll also add, the energy required to perform a conspiracy of multiple managers coordinating to mass replace american workers at FANG could boil the sun. I think labor collusion happens i.e. a do-not-poach from X company, but H1B would be practically infeasible at distributed semiautonomous Google/Facebook hiring teams. But hey, I guess it's doable but not worth the RoI)
Secondly, H1B abuse definitely happens and we literally know who the obvious culprits are. These are the standard offshoring culprits. I'm not going to mention them by name here but they are responsible for most of the horror stories you hear i.e. having an american train their literal replacement
Thirdly, I totally get it. Tech is a tough-to-hire industry and hiring is a zero sum game (if i were an economist, i'd argue the productivity gains from a diverse skilled workforce actually makes the pie bigger but that's for another day). If I were American I would be pissed off at the idea of a bunch of foreigners coming in and taking my jobs. But that's not what's happening in this article.
The last thing is the almost xenophobia which I don't think should be relevant to H1B hiring, but idk folks. If a PhD team is full of a bunch of folks from Bleurgh, of course the Bleurghians will clique up. It's naturally human tendency especially if you're a foreigner. I literally see Americans do this wherever they go :). But sometimes some people do experience stone-wall cliques where the Bleurghians refuse to even attempt to assimilate. That's a complicated issue, but I can see why it'd be frustrating. I once took a graduate CS class that was mostly full of Bloopians and I found it amusing when the instructor would sometimes conduct office hours in Bloopian
Honestly the best way to fix immigration is to be mad at your government and compel them to make common sense regulations. We literally know who perpetuates H1B abuse but the USCIS doesn't have the means to fully stamp it out. USCIS is woefully understaffed and inundated and like any government bureau, pretty slow. The government, because of partisanship, has been pretty much roadblocked on common-sense immigration for decades.
Do H1B workers need to live in the US to work, or they can work remotely from their country?
There are worse stuff than H1B, eg L1B. H1B has the req that you must find another sponsor within 60 days of leaving a company, but you can quit just fine otherwise.
L1B means you can only work for the sponsor company and nobody else and as soon as you get fired you are gone.
The minimum annual salary for an H1B worker is $60,000. That is higher than what tech workers get paid in most of Europe.
Cost of living, taxation, rents, electricity/gas bills and welfare are completely different.
Rent in Silicon Valley and NYC are definitely a lot higher than anywhere in Europe but those are not the only places with tech jobs.
The smart ones know what to do, hopefully they will be a majority against the ones indoctrinated into right wing market fundamentalism.
In any case, the unionization issue will sort itself out eventually, when the spoiled assholes are no longer in the industry, but damn it’s probably gonna be painful for a while.
A massive chunk of big tech exists to put others out of business, and by extension, out of jobs.
Simplest case: how many companies used to employ a team to administer their MS email solution? Outlook was once very dominant. I know my university did. Then places started jumping to Gmail because it saved money and was more reliable. You didn’t have to just trust your small onsite team.
Those jobs were cut. Yes, they found other employment usually, but that’s because of the relentless growth of tech.
A strong union would have done what? Prevented the switch to gmail?
Are you claiming people are not employed to maintain MS Exchange? That’s just a fairly simple issue of ignorance; get out of the SV tech bubble. Those jobs are not gone, albeit somewhat reduced in numbers by competitors providing better service like you say.
Unfortunately this also brings along the concept of outsourcing these jobs to countries with lower salaries because these “feelings-based” overpaid CEOs lack any other substantial ideas for reducing costs. A union that opposed this kind of globalization arbitrage, would have forced these overpaid CEOs to provide policies that actually increased profits, instead of simply exploit desperate employees in other countries. Ergo, weak unionization creates inefficiencies, who would have thought??
See also amazon drivers unionization efforts. A union would have very simply blocked the idea that drivers should be obliged to piss in bottles and shit in bags while on delivery.
I think we can safely conclude that most people enjoy deliveries NOT contaminated by feces, YMMV.
I mean, unless you are the rare tech employee who enjoys doing your toilet needs in a garbage can in the middle of your hot desked, open office. I’ll leave it as an open exercise for others to determine what’s more laughable.
Let's have lively debate over this issue.
