Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:31:04 -0700 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: the joys (for employers) of indentured servitude To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter So, Vivek Wadhwa and I agree once again. Though many view of him as my polar opposite, he and I do agree (or have agreed) on almost every point in the foreign tech worker debate: 1. H-1Bs tend to be underpaid, and hired with that goal. 2. The underpayment is usually done LEGALLY, using gaping loopholes in the law. 3. The abuse of the H-1B program pervades the entire industry, NOT just the Indian bodyshops. The latter should NOT be scapegoated. 4. There is no tech labor shortage. 5. The older tech workers have a problem getting work in this field--even if they have completely up-to-date skill sets. 6. The immigrant tech people are not more innovative or more entrepreneurial than the Americans. I could cite some other points of commonality, but the one I will stress in this posting is this one: 7. Employers love to exploit the de facto indentured servitude (DFIS) of the H-1Bs, especially for those waiting for green cards. DFIS is one of the key attractions of H-1B for employers in the computer industry. As I detailed in my 2003 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform article, DFIS enables the employer to handcuff the foreign worker, preventing him/her from moving to another firm in the midst of an urgent project. This is worth tons for many employers, much more important to them than underpayment of the worker. And this makes hiring the foreign worker far more attractive to the employer, compared to hiring a similarly-talented American. We're talking about mainstream Silicon Valley firms here, folks, the Intels of the industry, not just the Infosyses. The Infosyses are much more overt (and more complete) in their preferential hiring practices, but the Intels are guilty too. I reported in an earlier posting that Vivek mentioned DFIS abuse at the recent Brookings conference, pointing out that employers are "very happy" that the green card sponsoree is trapped. In his latest column, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/fear-anger-and-americas-real-immigration-problem/2012/07/30/gJQAVOOZKX_story.html Vivek adds that these workers "usually make less than what they would if they were allowed to shop around for better jobs," relating in just one thought Points 1, 2, 3 and 7 above. I gave current examples of DFIS abuse in my recent posting, http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/BrightFuture.txt Well then, why do Vivek and I disagree on the bottom line? Don't Points 1-7 cover it all? Interesting question. Vivek, you answer first. :-) A couple of the reader comments on Vivek's column were fun and interesting to read. Poking fun at Vivek's put-down of Jared Bernstein for allegedly not "talking to Silicon Valley executives" about their claimed need for foreign workers, one reader invoked the old saying, "Never ask the barber if you need a haircut." Then an H-1B gave an analysis in favor of the program, to which another reader countered, "Never ask an H-1B if American needs H-1Bs." More seriously, Donna Conroy of Bright Future Jobs added her own comment. In contrast to Vivek's statement that the Brookings study data were "conclusive," Conroy reported that BFJ's ad survey correlated highly with the Brookings study--in a negative way. BFJ found that the same cities in which Brookings found the highest use of H-1B, there were the most ads with language that in essence stated that the jobs were open only to H-1Bs. Norm