|
|
|
|
|
by totalcrepe
3576 days ago
|
|
And the last thing you need is those recruiters finding qualified employees in the US when you hire by h1.. I find that companies are very much opposed to seriously finding those matches where the employees are convertable since longterm employees cost twice as much as the untrained new hire in a role that now uses half their abilities. Further, if they are "certified" as competent in both fields instead of eliminated from the market as tainted goods, they can be snatched by better managed rivals who know how to get full value of a programmer-accountant instead of paying for both skillsets and not being competent to consistently manage profit from either one. 401k plans managed fairness by making sure your top and lowest employees got reasonably comparable benefits. It helped, but also lead to outsourcing the low roles. In this case, I think companies should be limited to h1s that cost more than the greater of: the average inflation adjusted salary they've laid off, the average salary they still have and the average market salary for the specific role. If that's too expensive for them, maybe its fine to let them workout their problems without crying about the labor market not matching their inconsistent needs. |
|