Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers
-
Just a suggestion. But before this get's too many one votes, you might want to move it to the Soapbox. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
ednrgc wrote:
Rochester Institute of Technology
go tigers!
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Soapbox material? Probably... Having said that, I think the bill is comparing apples and oranges... The ban on visa workers should only apply if the visa workers are REPLACING the functionality of the the laid off employees. Tim
-
Just a suggestion. But before this get's too many one votes, you might want to move it to the Soapbox. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
Soapbox material? Probably... Having said that, I think the bill is comparing apples and oranges... The ban on visa workers should only apply if the visa workers are REPLACING the functionality of the the laid off employees. Tim
-
Just a suggestion. But before this get's too many one votes, you might want to move it to the Soapbox. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
Soapbox material? Probably... Having said that, I think the bill is comparing apples and oranges... The ban on visa workers should only apply if the visa workers are REPLACING the functionality of the the laid off employees. Tim
Tim Carmichael wrote:
The ban on visa workers should only apply if the visa workers are REPLACING the functionality of the the laid off employees.
except it is easily bypassed. You simply work through subsidiaries which is the primary way around most of the regulations on businesses. You lay off from one subsidiary, and apply for visa workers at another. As long as the request does not come from the parent company, you can lay off as many workers as you want and replace with as many visa workers as you want. No problem. It's just a way to make people feel more comfortable with it on paper to beef up support, but doesn't actually change anything, except for small independant businesses, having neither parents nor subsidiaries, they are the only ones the law really applies to.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
The ban on visa workers should only apply if the visa workers are REPLACING the functionality of the the laid off employees.
except it is easily bypassed. You simply work through subsidiaries which is the primary way around most of the regulations on businesses. You lay off from one subsidiary, and apply for visa workers at another. As long as the request does not come from the parent company, you can lay off as many workers as you want and replace with as many visa workers as you want. No problem. It's just a way to make people feel more comfortable with it on paper to beef up support, but doesn't actually change anything, except for small independant businesses, having neither parents nor subsidiaries, they are the only ones the law really applies to.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)