To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter Sun Jun 30 16:34:17 PDT 2013 I am enclosing the message below, with full permission and with some redaction, from a subscriber to this e-newsletter, who wrote in response to the NYT article at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/technology/a-bill-allowing-more-foreign-wo rkers-stirs-a-tech-debate.html?_r=1& This person is someone I trust very highly, and is not someone who uses terms like "lying" casually, or who is given to extreme language in general. The author has worked at a number of brand-name electronics firms, and yes, does have an up-to-date skill set. For you Hill staffers on the list, you ought to nail hard copies of this message to your boss' door. Excuse my bluntness, but what Congress wants to do to tech workers in this country is a crying shame, and as I've said, will ultimately be harmful to the U.S. economy. Norm Archived at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/Rejected50XbyIntel.txt *********************************************************************** Hi Norm, I noticed that Intel was quoted several times in the NY Times article. In my recent job search, I submitted about 50, yes 50, job applications to Intel. They did not hire me. In the end, I was hired by [major hardware firm 1], a company that has retained many older workers, and has many design centers outside of Silicon Valley across the US. [major hardware firm 1] and a few other companies seem to be capitalizing on the longevity and loyalty of its employees. It is not uncommon to run across engineers who have worked at [major hardware firm 1] since the 80s. Interestingly, I was hired because I was experienced and could hit the ground running. That flies in the face of the notion that older workers need training. Many don't really need much training and have theoretical skills + experience which never go out of fashion. Often, older workers also have business and industry contacts that are invaluable. What older workers often don't have is a willingness to work for substandard wages. I find it very interesting that Intel did not hire me. I certainly did not need training and in the first few months on the job at [major hardware firm 1], have been doing design with state of the art tools (which I learned at the startup I was recently working at). I'm actually upgrading design platforms because the existing team I have joined is mostly too busy to learn the latest design tools. Again, I submitted at least 50 applications to Intel. I was rejected on every single one. So, in short, Intel must be lying. Intel didn't hire me because they knew they would be taking on a legal risk trying to hire me for a sub $100K a year salary. I certainly had the high demand skills Intel is seeking, as shown by the [well over $100K] salary I got from [major hardware firm 1]. (The going rate in my field for someone at staff level.) I'd also add that not only did Intel not hire me, they did not even invite me in for an interview. I managed to get an on site interview at [major hardware firm 2], [major hardware firm 3], and several startups, but not even a single phone interview from Intel, even after 50 resume applications. I cannot repeat enough times that Intel is bald face lying about not being able to find engineers with the right skills. What they can't find are engineers with the right skills who will work for $40K less than the going rate. I suspect that they also are not interested in engineers with industry business contacts. They probably want their engineers to be isolated and compliant. It's sad to see that the press does not and will not pick up on this. Best,