Fired Americans Say Indian Firm Gave Their Jobs to H-1B Visa Holders (opens in new tab)

Why not treat this any differently than Whites preferring to hire their own?

I've worked at Silicon Valley startups that were that way. I remember thinking this is really odd how high the concentration was (probably about 70% Indian). Didn't really bother me because it was a great team and honestly one of the best companies I worked at.

It didn't really seem like they discriminated in hiring and I never felt discriminated against at work. It was just that coworkers referred people they already knew.

> In their complaints, the former employees cite comments that TCS’s global human resources head Milind Lakkad made in an interview with Indian media last year. He said TCS is trying to reduce the number of Americans it employs in the U.S. and would like to provide more opportunities to Indians there, according to the report.

> One former worker said in a complaint that TCS human-resources staff told employees in an all-hands meeting that the company planned to use money saved by closing down a unit that employed many of the American workers to provide jobs to more Indian nationals in the U.S.

That's not quite what "at will employment" in the US actually means. What it means is that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't an unlawful reason. It doesn't mean the employer doesn't have to give a reason at all, or that the employer can simply refuse to give a reason if questioned, particularly if there is an allegation that the firing was for an unlawful reason.

And even when you need intent, these people are like people who do insider trading. They tend to leave a trail. They think they're smart. Then they talk in detail about the crimes they are doing in logged chat rooms. It's hilarious.

So if you're keen to move up the US, H1B sounds amazing but then you are in quite a vulnerable position.

I left because the management team clearly valued control over competence. Every person in management either was a (white) connected executive salesperson or a member of the CEO's family.

And outsourcing does not work for these companies as their business is putting bodies into chairs on their customer's site.

Where I work about half of our contractors come in through TCS.

Probably an Industry lobbyist came up with that rule so that employees have to depend on the company.

Globalization is coming to an end. An unparalleled period of worldwide navigational stability and political stability enabled indirect access to labor markets of a vastly larger size. Why is that? Because the USA is increasingly not seeing value as the world's police, because increasing totalitarian aggression from China/Russia, from inevitable stress due to climate change.

There was also demographic bulges from the boomers in this period, compounded with both-parents/partners work that also increased the labor supply.

Re-onshoring manufacturing, combined with the demographic bombs in China, Korea, Germany, Russia and the lesser demographic shrinks virtually everywhere else will mean that labor supply will decrease, and companies better get used to paying the worker bees more and the financial wizard CEOs less.

You know, unless AI and Robotics waves their magic wand, but even then ... things are going to change.

- Wages wind up going backwards.

- Wages fail to keep up with inflation meaning lower discretionary expenditure flowing into the economy.

- You wind increasing involuntary unemployment.

- With rises in involuntary unemployment you wind up increasing crime, from petty theft through to more major crime.

- With lower returns to economy on an individual basis you economically have less to invest in things like health, education, infrastructure, creation of export businesses on a per individual basis, despite growing GDP. You've created a hole but made it look like growth.

You don't need to go full domestic industry protectionism to avert the above, but you absolutely should not be firing an existing skilled domestic workforce with the explicit intent to replace them with skilled immigration if you want to perform better as an economy.

Because individual businesses can and will try to exploit the issue, this is why it should be regulated. To fail to do so hurts the economy at large when you are not filling a genuine skills shortage.

From my experience, the best H1-Bs go to the FAANGs (or whatever we're calling them these days). The middle of the pack go to consulting companies like Accenture or Wipro. And the subpar ones are C2C consultants for dodgy sweatshops, the kind who fill our inboxes with their 'hotlists' (if you know then you know). While most of them got a STEM Master's here in the US, if you look at the resumes of the weaker ones it's generally from some college you've literally never heard of- Northern North Dakota State or something. I would imagine that they're basically running a borderline diploma mill that's profiting off of foreign families who hope their child will get a Green Card

The problem is, Indians can’t create an America. What they create is an India, and they will, inevitably, in America also. And that’s a shame.

> If anything, we should change the law to encourage much more high-skill immigration.

I don't think any reasonable person would argue argue against importing highly skilled laborers to increase GDP per capita, that is, to fill a genuine labor shortage that domestic supply cannot fill within a reasonable span of time.

That completely ignored the fact that they went out of their way to fire the American employees. If what you're saying was a reasonable answer they wouldn't have hired Americans in the first place.