Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers
-
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199901841 Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1. By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek Jun 6, 2007 03:00 PM A new immigration reform amendment that's being proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-V) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could make it a lot tougher for firms to plan mass layoffs of U.S. workers if those companies have also hired foreign workers on visas. The bi-partisan Sanders-Grassley amendment, which the senators hope to have "in the queue" for introduction before the Senate stops immigration reform debate, would require U.S. companies to certify to the Department of Labor that they haven't had any "mass layoffs" of American workers in the previous 12 months before they could file visa petitions with the U.S. government to hire any new foreign worker, according to Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sanders. A company that does announce mass U.S. layoffs after its received approval to hire new foreign workers must inform those foreign workers' that their visas will expire in 60 days. So in essence, the amendment would require those companies to also cut their foreign workers if planning U.S. layoffs. The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1, which are used by multi-national companies to allow foreign employees, particularly managers and executives, into the U.S. to work. The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers by companies with more than 100 employees, said Gunnels. "We should be encouraging immigration policy that prevents companies from laying off American workers" rather than promoting them to staff their U.S. workforce with people hired from outside the country, he said. The Sanders-Grassley legislation is among 100 or so immigration reform bill amendments that have been filed in recent weeks. The assortment of Senate provisions range from those that could make it more expensive for businesses to hire H-1B workers, to making it easier to hire H-1B workers. While some observers are uncertain about how much support the Sanders-Grassley amendment will get from others in Congress, "it sheds light on the dubiousness of the skills shortages being claimed by the
-
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199901841 Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1. By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek Jun 6, 2007 03:00 PM A new immigration reform amendment that's being proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-V) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could make it a lot tougher for firms to plan mass layoffs of U.S. workers if those companies have also hired foreign workers on visas. The bi-partisan Sanders-Grassley amendment, which the senators hope to have "in the queue" for introduction before the Senate stops immigration reform debate, would require U.S. companies to certify to the Department of Labor that they haven't had any "mass layoffs" of American workers in the previous 12 months before they could file visa petitions with the U.S. government to hire any new foreign worker, according to Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sanders. A company that does announce mass U.S. layoffs after its received approval to hire new foreign workers must inform those foreign workers' that their visas will expire in 60 days. So in essence, the amendment would require those companies to also cut their foreign workers if planning U.S. layoffs. The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1, which are used by multi-national companies to allow foreign employees, particularly managers and executives, into the U.S. to work. The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers by companies with more than 100 employees, said Gunnels. "We should be encouraging immigration policy that prevents companies from laying off American workers" rather than promoting them to staff their U.S. workforce with people hired from outside the country, he said. The Sanders-Grassley legislation is among 100 or so immigration reform bill amendments that have been filed in recent weeks. The assortment of Senate provisions range from those that could make it more expensive for businesses to hire H-1B workers, to making it easier to hire H-1B workers. While some observers are uncertain about how much support the Sanders-Grassley amendment will get from others in Congress, "it sheds light on the dubiousness of the skills shortages being claimed by the
Legislation that makes firing workers difficult works great. Just ask France.
-
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199901841 Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1. By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek Jun 6, 2007 03:00 PM A new immigration reform amendment that's being proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-V) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could make it a lot tougher for firms to plan mass layoffs of U.S. workers if those companies have also hired foreign workers on visas. The bi-partisan Sanders-Grassley amendment, which the senators hope to have "in the queue" for introduction before the Senate stops immigration reform debate, would require U.S. companies to certify to the Department of Labor that they haven't had any "mass layoffs" of American workers in the previous 12 months before they could file visa petitions with the U.S. government to hire any new foreign worker, according to Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sanders. A company that does announce mass U.S. layoffs after its received approval to hire new foreign workers must inform those foreign workers' that their visas will expire in 60 days. So in essence, the amendment would require those companies to also cut their foreign workers if planning U.S. layoffs. The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1, which are used by multi-national companies to allow foreign employees, particularly managers and executives, into the U.S. to work. The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers by companies with more than 100 employees, said Gunnels. "We should be encouraging immigration policy that prevents companies from laying off American workers" rather than promoting them to staff their U.S. workforce with people hired from outside the country, he said. The Sanders-Grassley legislation is among 100 or so immigration reform bill amendments that have been filed in recent weeks. The assortment of Senate provisions range from those that could make it more expensive for businesses to hire H-1B workers, to making it easier to hire H-1B workers. While some observers are uncertain about how much support the Sanders-Grassley amendment will get from others in Congress, "it sheds light on the dubiousness of the skills shortages being claimed by the
-
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199901841 Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1. By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek Jun 6, 2007 03:00 PM A new immigration reform amendment that's being proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-V) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could make it a lot tougher for firms to plan mass layoffs of U.S. workers if those companies have also hired foreign workers on visas. The bi-partisan Sanders-Grassley amendment, which the senators hope to have "in the queue" for introduction before the Senate stops immigration reform debate, would require U.S. companies to certify to the Department of Labor that they haven't had any "mass layoffs" of American workers in the previous 12 months before they could file visa petitions with the U.S. government to hire any new foreign worker, according to Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sanders. A company that does announce mass U.S. layoffs after its received approval to hire new foreign workers must inform those foreign workers' that their visas will expire in 60 days. So in essence, the amendment would require those companies to also cut their foreign workers if planning U.S. layoffs. The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1, which are used by multi-national companies to allow foreign employees, particularly managers and executives, into the U.S. to work. The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers by companies with more than 100 employees, said Gunnels. "We should be encouraging immigration policy that prevents companies from laying off American workers" rather than promoting them to staff their U.S. workforce with people hired from outside the country, he said. The Sanders-Grassley legislation is among 100 or so immigration reform bill amendments that have been filed in recent weeks. The assortment of Senate provisions range from those that could make it more expensive for businesses to hire H-1B workers, to making it easier to hire H-1B workers. While some observers are uncertain about how much support the Sanders-Grassley amendment will get from others in Congress, "it sheds light on the dubiousness of the skills shortages being claimed by the
This sounds like the first of the many 'badly thought through' laws you'll be seeing in the next few years leading up to the next stage of the NAU. I'm afraid unless you throw out both the NWO parties from your government, wholesale, you will see more and more of this no matter the outcome of elections. I can say this because in Europe we've seen it all before. We get insane laws all the time from the EU mostly in order to cause problems so that they can then propose 'more power for the EU' solutions to those same problems, take some more power away from democratic governments and then start all over again. We've had it for 30 years to the point now where our elected leaders have full soveriegnty over almost nothing except health and education.:( By the way we've had immigration ammounting to 1 million people in a country of 60 million in the last 3 years and it's all legal and none of counts as immigration :wtf:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Legislation that makes firing workers difficult works great. Just ask France.
Legislation that promotes hiring foreigners to fill US jobs works great too. Ask anyone restructured from an IT job in the last decade. Patching this bill with this Ammendment only adds insult to injury. They don't enforce the present H12-B restrictions, why should we thing they'd enforce these new ones? This is just a scam to make it seem like lifting the H1-B limits will be just hunky-dory. We need to throw all of these idiots (statring with Kennedy, McCain, and Kyl) out of office.
-
I'd love to know if there is any actual data behind this, or if the "12 months prior / 50 or more employees" limits are entirely arbitrary...
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
Since they have no intention of enforcing it, it needs no actual data to justify it. It's a red herring to make the unlimited H1-B's for graduate degrees seem just a fine idea.
-
Legislation that promotes hiring foreigners to fill US jobs works great too. Ask anyone restructured from an IT job in the last decade. Patching this bill with this Ammendment only adds insult to injury. They don't enforce the present H12-B restrictions, why should we thing they'd enforce these new ones? This is just a scam to make it seem like lifting the H1-B limits will be just hunky-dory. We need to throw all of these idiots (statring with Kennedy, McCain, and Kyl) out of office.
That's so racist. Or something.
-
Legislation that makes firing workers difficult works great. Just ask France.
Red Stateler wrote:
Legislation that makes firing workers difficult works great. Just ask France.
you've missed the point entirely, the amendment says that you can't get professional Visas if you've laid off American workers. the specific case metiond had to do with Dell who layed off 8,000 and then requested a ton of H1-B Visas. IBM did the same thing. Bernies Sanders is on point.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Legislation that makes firing workers difficult works great. Just ask France.
you've missed the point entirely, the amendment says that you can't get professional Visas if you've laid off American workers. the specific case metiond had to do with Dell who layed off 8,000 and then requested a ton of H1-B Visas. IBM did the same thing. Bernies Sanders is on point.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Then just restrict the number of H1-B Visas. Laws designed for a particular outcome often have the opposite effect. I could see Dell and others moving entire factories beyond America's borders just to avoid restrictive empoloyment laws.
-
That's so racist. Or something.
Red Stateler wrote:
Or something.
Anti-Globalist.
-
Then just restrict the number of H1-B Visas. Laws designed for a particular outcome often have the opposite effect. I could see Dell and others moving entire factories beyond America's borders just to avoid restrictive empoloyment laws.
I agree with you. Unfortunately the immigration bill as written would more than double the limit on H1-Bs for undergrad degrees, and completely eliminate limits for graduate degrees. You can thank Teddy and John Mc for that part. The whole bill should be scrapped, it's sponsors expelled from Congress for malfeasance, and all who voted for it censured. It just plain stinks.
-
I agree with you. Unfortunately the immigration bill as written would more than double the limit on H1-Bs for undergrad degrees, and completely eliminate limits for graduate degrees. You can thank Teddy and John Mc for that part. The whole bill should be scrapped, it's sponsors expelled from Congress for malfeasance, and all who voted for it censured. It just plain stinks.
From the looks of it, it will be scrapped (fortunately). Although I disagree that raising H1-B limits would necessarily be a bad thing. With the unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates and being much lower for engineers and those with advanced degrees, there is a brain drain generated by our economy that needs to somehow be filled. Perhaps we can work out some sort of people-trade agreement. For every engineer with an advanced degree India sends us, we'll send them 10 illegal Mexicans.
-
From the looks of it, it will be scrapped (fortunately). Although I disagree that raising H1-B limits would necessarily be a bad thing. With the unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates and being much lower for engineers and those with advanced degrees, there is a brain drain generated by our economy that needs to somehow be filled. Perhaps we can work out some sort of people-trade agreement. For every engineer with an advanced degree India sends us, we'll send them 10 illegal Mexicans.
Red Stateler wrote:
unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates
you're way off base. there are thousands of good programmers stocking shelves in Home Depot and your local chain grocery stores. and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
From the looks of it, it will be scrapped (fortunately). Although I disagree that raising H1-B limits would necessarily be a bad thing. With the unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates and being much lower for engineers and those with advanced degrees, there is a brain drain generated by our economy that needs to somehow be filled. Perhaps we can work out some sort of people-trade agreement. For every engineer with an advanced degree India sends us, we'll send them 10 illegal Mexicans.
Red Stateler wrote:
Perhaps we can work out some sort of people-trade agreement. For every engineer with an advanced degree India sends us, we'll send them 10 illegal Mexicans.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Red Stateler wrote:
unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates
you're way off base. there are thousands of good programmers stocking shelves in Home Depot and your local chain grocery stores. and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
you're not kidding, i wouldnt under any circumstances refer to myself as a "good programmer(not much experiance)," but after graduating a year ago with a computer engineering degree, i had to wait tables for two months before my first interview, and i didnt get an actual offer until about seven or eight months after graduating, its frustrating sitting at home trying to find a job, all the while your friends making comments like "hey college boy, whats the degree doing for you now?" It pissed me off then, but now i look back and theyre still putting up tents and delivering furniture while i sit in a comfortable chair in a semi air conditioned office at the beach...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
This sounds like the first of the many 'badly thought through' laws you'll be seeing in the next few years leading up to the next stage of the NAU. I'm afraid unless you throw out both the NWO parties from your government, wholesale, you will see more and more of this no matter the outcome of elections. I can say this because in Europe we've seen it all before. We get insane laws all the time from the EU mostly in order to cause problems so that they can then propose 'more power for the EU' solutions to those same problems, take some more power away from democratic governments and then start all over again. We've had it for 30 years to the point now where our elected leaders have full soveriegnty over almost nothing except health and education.:( By the way we've had immigration ammounting to 1 million people in a country of 60 million in the last 3 years and it's all legal and none of counts as immigration :wtf:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
NAU.
North American Union????
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm afraid unless you throw out both the NWO parties from your government
And replace them with what?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199901841 Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1. By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek Jun 6, 2007 03:00 PM A new immigration reform amendment that's being proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-V) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could make it a lot tougher for firms to plan mass layoffs of U.S. workers if those companies have also hired foreign workers on visas. The bi-partisan Sanders-Grassley amendment, which the senators hope to have "in the queue" for introduction before the Senate stops immigration reform debate, would require U.S. companies to certify to the Department of Labor that they haven't had any "mass layoffs" of American workers in the previous 12 months before they could file visa petitions with the U.S. government to hire any new foreign worker, according to Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sanders. A company that does announce mass U.S. layoffs after its received approval to hire new foreign workers must inform those foreign workers' that their visas will expire in 60 days. So in essence, the amendment would require those companies to also cut their foreign workers if planning U.S. layoffs. The amendment would cover an array of employer-based visas, including those used most frequently for hiring technology workers, especially H-1B and L-1, which are used by multi-national companies to allow foreign employees, particularly managers and executives, into the U.S. to work. The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers by companies with more than 100 employees, said Gunnels. "We should be encouraging immigration policy that prevents companies from laying off American workers" rather than promoting them to staff their U.S. workforce with people hired from outside the country, he said. The Sanders-Grassley legislation is among 100 or so immigration reform bill amendments that have been filed in recent weeks. The assortment of Senate provisions range from those that could make it more expensive for businesses to hire H-1B workers, to making it easier to hire H-1B workers. While some observers are uncertain about how much support the Sanders-Grassley amendment will get from others in Congress, "it sheds light on the dubiousness of the skills shortages being claimed by the
ednrgc wrote:
The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers...
So lay off 49, wait 6-9 months, and lay off another. The amendment seems too easy to get around.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
From the looks of it, it will be scrapped (fortunately). Although I disagree that raising H1-B limits would necessarily be a bad thing. With the unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates and being much lower for engineers and those with advanced degrees, there is a brain drain generated by our economy that needs to somehow be filled. Perhaps we can work out some sort of people-trade agreement. For every engineer with an advanced degree India sends us, we'll send them 10 illegal Mexicans.
Red Stateler wrote:
unemployment rate currently hovering around 2% for college graduates and being much lower for engineers
That statistic is a joke. They may be employed, but likely not in the field they studied in college. Most CS jobs are either outsourced or H1B'd. US graduates need not apply, their wage expectations are too high. Most Computer Science pros are telling their kids to look elsewhere, this profession is dead in the US - a direct result of the H1-B program.
-
you're not kidding, i wouldnt under any circumstances refer to myself as a "good programmer(not much experiance)," but after graduating a year ago with a computer engineering degree, i had to wait tables for two months before my first interview, and i didnt get an actual offer until about seven or eight months after graduating, its frustrating sitting at home trying to find a job, all the while your friends making comments like "hey college boy, whats the degree doing for you now?" It pissed me off then, but now i look back and theyre still putting up tents and delivering furniture while i sit in a comfortable chair in a semi air conditioned office at the beach...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
but after graduating a year ago with a computer engineering degree, i had to wait tables for two months before my first interview
I hope you get to enjoy your career for as long as I have. Some advice, to distinguish yourself choose an industry and specialize. That is what protects you from the effects of globalization an in depth knowledge of a particular industry. Mine is insurance so I can bill myself as an insurance professional with an IT speciality.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
ednrgc wrote:
The amendment would define "mass layoffs" as the dismissal of 50 or more U.S. workers...
So lay off 49, wait 6-9 months, and lay off another. The amendment seems too easy to get around.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
No need. Go ahead and lay off 100 and ask for H1B replacements. They have no more intention of enforcing this than they did any other immigration law in the past 30 years.