I don't think the violations of H1-b law are coming from the clause you quoted.
It's coming from the parts about:
1) the employer must try to hire Americans first for the job and needs to be able to show that they haven't been able to hire Americans for the job
2) if the employer laid off people in essentially similar jobs recently before or after the H1-b application, the application is not supposed to go through
3) they need to pay the H1-bs the same wage as similar non-H1-b people at the company, or the prevailing wage of the area (whichever is greater)
I have personally seen all of these violated, would not be surprised if the vast majority of H1-bs are violating at least one of them. It's violated intentionally and everyone is doing it, because they can hire H1-bs cheaper and they have better retention (or less job mobility). Frankly it's a disgrace.
I personally am not anti-immigrant and would prefer the immigration laws to be more efficient, and spread the immigration over a wider range of jobs, instead of disproportionately affecting my profession (software engineering).
#1 - the employer must try to hire Americans first for the job - is not true. The employer need to only attest that the employment of H-1B non-immigrants does not adversely affect working conditions of workers similarly employed.
#2 - if the employer laid off people in essentially similar jobs recently before or after the H1-b application, the application is not supposed to go through - is also not true. Although, it is true that H-1Bs cannot be used to break a strike, lockout etc.
#3 - they need to pay the H1-Bs the same wage as similar non-H1-b people at the company, or the prevailing wage of the area (whichever is greater) - is true
I think you are confusing the employment-based green card with an H-1B visa (the employer must attest to #1 and #2 to apply for EB green cards).
They are requirements of the Labor Condition Application (LCA), and the LCA is a requirement for the H1-b, so it is correct to talk about them as requirements of the H1-b. It's not a green card thing. http://www.visapro.com/resources/article/h1b-labor-condition...
LCA is a requirement for H-1B, and thus you are right that it is correct to talk about requirements for LCA as requirements of the H1-B. But, you are wrong that those listed by the GP are indeed requirements for LCA. From the link you posted:
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) contains basic wage
and location information about the proposed H1B employment.
The LCA contains the rate of pay, period of employment, and
work location.
It also contains four standard attestations that the employer
must make.
Those four are listed in the link I posted earlier [1]. 2 out of the 3 the GP listed do not form part of the attestations.
Again, are you confusing LCA [2] with labor certification [3]?
It's coming from the parts about: 1) the employer must try to hire Americans first for the job and needs to be able to show that they haven't been able to hire Americans for the job 2) if the employer laid off people in essentially similar jobs recently before or after the H1-b application, the application is not supposed to go through 3) they need to pay the H1-bs the same wage as similar non-H1-b people at the company, or the prevailing wage of the area (whichever is greater)
I have personally seen all of these violated, would not be surprised if the vast majority of H1-bs are violating at least one of them. It's violated intentionally and everyone is doing it, because they can hire H1-bs cheaper and they have better retention (or less job mobility). Frankly it's a disgrace.
I personally am not anti-immigrant and would prefer the immigration laws to be more efficient, and spread the immigration over a wider range of jobs, instead of disproportionately affecting my profession (software engineering).