|
|
|
|
|
|
by ep103
4218 days ago
|
|
|
>I disagree with this statement Most studies find that you are wrong though. I am sure that you and the people you know are very skilled, and worked hard to get to your current position for that reason. But overall, H1 employees are paid significantly less, and many, many firms specifically refuse to hire local talent in order to fill positions through this program. If the visa was given to the employee, not the company, then it would be a good program. But your paragraph about how difficult / chancy it can be to switch companies is exactly why it is a failed, exploitative program. |
|
|
Could you paste a link to those studies (unbiased or bipartisan) to support my wrongness. I've read opinions and emotional outbursts but am yet to find concrete evidence to support it. Until then I go by my own experience.
Yes, there are firms that get blanket visas. Yes, there are some people who deliberately abuse this sytem. But that is a generalization of few examples.Yes, giving visas to the employee rather than employer is better (Canadian, Australian systems is are an example). DOL's PERM process is what makes it more exploitative than not and is rampant with abuse. That needs to change, the H1 on its own is not indentured servitude.