Michael chertoff
05-01 04:52 PM
[QUOTE=snathan;338267]Thomas Jefferson, once said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
I really believe Jefferson's worst fear is playing out in Sri Lanka.
QUOTE]
This quotation is only for Sri Lanka?? or it can be tru for india too???
MC
I really believe Jefferson's worst fear is playing out in Sri Lanka.
QUOTE]
This quotation is only for Sri Lanka?? or it can be tru for india too???
MC
wallpaper Labels: kurt cobain, Music,
Aah_GC
08-15 09:49 PM
I warn you not to start the Muslims vs rest debate here....I would say most (not all) people are fanatics will do any attrocity in the name of religion. Blame it on your fellow fanatics for this mess. Yes, you need to pay the price for 9/11. DHS and TSA are created to protect the innocent civilian and its their duty. If you dont like dont come to USA.
What SRK - global icon you are talking about. He is not leader of the nation...he is just actor. He might be god for you and does not need to be the same for others.
You might want to read this warning to yourself. I am not a Muslim myself, but solely pointing to the obscureness of the system. Even Kamal Hassan payed a price for his name, it's high time this changes, and this routine harrasment is very comparable to the H1B experience at POE.
What SRK - global icon you are talking about. He is not leader of the nation...he is just actor. He might be god for you and does not need to be the same for others.
You might want to read this warning to yourself. I am not a Muslim myself, but solely pointing to the obscureness of the system. Even Kamal Hassan payed a price for his name, it's high time this changes, and this routine harrasment is very comparable to the H1B experience at POE.
kondur_007
01-13 09:19 PM
However what we as a community should realize is this is just the first trick under the sleeves of anti-immigrants supported by grassley and co. Once consulting companies are out of the picture, they will target permanent employers with conditions like "the company should not have fired any US citizen in the past 6 months or plan to layoff any citizen in the upcoming 6 months." They could come up with additional restrictions for direct employers as well.
Exactly my point.
Exactly my point.
2011 In memory of Kurt Cobain
acecupid
07-17 11:25 AM
Even after seeing Aug �08 bulletin are you still saying that it is just a speculation? If that makes you happy - be happy, but unfortunately horizontal spill-over is the fact now. Let us wait and see whether it is a permanent approach or not.
Let you be the master of INA law; give me the source where it says differently.
Read my earlier posts for source. Ofcourse it is speculation if you are thinking EB2 will be current in one year :) I would be more than happy if USCIS did that, but try to think logically than expecting miracles to happen. As you said, its a wait-n-watch for results.
Let you be the master of INA law; give me the source where it says differently.
Read my earlier posts for source. Ofcourse it is speculation if you are thinking EB2 will be current in one year :) I would be more than happy if USCIS did that, but try to think logically than expecting miracles to happen. As you said, its a wait-n-watch for results.
more...
tikka
07-04 12:15 AM
Tikka,
Most of the folks probably went to sleep... so the last two digs which are opened recently are moving very slow...
Anyone from west coast - please help ...!!!
lets focus on this one..
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
the faster it gets to 100 DIGS the popular the article will be. Will help give our issue exposure
thank you !!
Most of the folks probably went to sleep... so the last two digs which are opened recently are moving very slow...
Anyone from west coast - please help ...!!!
lets focus on this one..
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
the faster it gets to 100 DIGS the popular the article will be. Will help give our issue exposure
thank you !!
trramesh
06-01 02:09 PM
Guys,
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
more...
GreenCardLegion
08-16 03:47 AM
I am a patriotic Indian. Why the hell cant this Khan guy go through the same ordeal as an ordinary Indian or any other passenger. Why all the fuss? Is he god??? Hell NO...I would just tell him to shut up and carry on with life. He is an idiot and just doing this for more publicity. How many Indian muslims go through this shit everyday? Why cant he tolerate this 2 hr ordeal like an ordinary Indian muslim or for that matter hindu? Racial profiling is for everyone who is colored and non-US citizen. He is not a good guy as he cant even take a 2 hr ordeal as an ordinary citizen because he thinks he is GOD...when in fact he is as ordinary as anybody. Just because he has money, name and fame should be become god? no way. I dont mind if the Indian airport security frisked Tom Cruise or any other actor. Who cares!! Its our countrys security, but you know what India wont do that as all the airport officials incl. security are so corrupt and also if they see white skin they will just allow them freely thinking they are god!! thats our stupidity not the americans???
I am glad this happened to the so called "King Khan" as he is king only in his mind. Not for me because for me he is a talented actor other than that he is not GOD but just a mere human being..
I am glad this happened to the so called "King Khan" as he is king only in his mind. Not for me because for me he is a talented actor other than that he is not GOD but just a mere human being..
2010 Nirvana-kurt-cobain-040-
shukla77
05-29 03:05 PM
Can not agree more.
We get engaged in all kinds of discussions EB1 Vs EB2, EB-I Vs EB ROW. bulletin predictions...But we all skilled immigrants can not figure out how to unite and resolve the big issue of backlog. When one person suggests any initiative( flower campaign, call campaign, letter campaign etc.) more 20 people hammer him or her and spend their full energy in proving how suggested idea will not work. Next time the guy does not even think about suggesting anything. On top of that some will come up with their line" Have you contributed, If not then do that first".Our lack of unity will keep us here for a long time to come. In coming months and years, some people will lose interest, stop visiting this site and move on. Others will come to see if there is any POSITIVE news and some will still keep fighting over the issues of EB1 vs EB2 vs India vs China Vs ROW.
Good Luck
to the others who are bitching and moaning about EB1's, a few months back we were worried about the EB3 converting to EB2..before that we were worried that EB3's were getting more visas than EB2's and so on.....we will keep fighting about the handfull of misallocated visas or work towards recapture.
We get engaged in all kinds of discussions EB1 Vs EB2, EB-I Vs EB ROW. bulletin predictions...But we all skilled immigrants can not figure out how to unite and resolve the big issue of backlog. When one person suggests any initiative( flower campaign, call campaign, letter campaign etc.) more 20 people hammer him or her and spend their full energy in proving how suggested idea will not work. Next time the guy does not even think about suggesting anything. On top of that some will come up with their line" Have you contributed, If not then do that first".Our lack of unity will keep us here for a long time to come. In coming months and years, some people will lose interest, stop visiting this site and move on. Others will come to see if there is any POSITIVE news and some will still keep fighting over the issues of EB1 vs EB2 vs India vs China Vs ROW.
Good Luck
to the others who are bitching and moaning about EB1's, a few months back we were worried about the EB3 converting to EB2..before that we were worried that EB3's were getting more visas than EB2's and so on.....we will keep fighting about the handfull of misallocated visas or work towards recapture.
more...
matreen
02-13 12:53 AM
I think the entire community should align behind Administrative reforms with a laser-focus. This initiative is a digression.
IV has had it's own share of success with it's approach. No other methods have succeeded so far .
Also, from my little IV volunteering experience I can vouch that our community has very high inertia and is difficult to organize. people are afraid to send letters to president...good luck in getting them to sue USCIS.
community does not have the bandwidth to take multiple initiatives.
I see no wisdom in doing this. USCIS/DOS can screw us worse , if they wish to . This is not being timid but being pragmatic...anyway the bravado talk also needs to be followed up by multiple clear paths to victory.
How long do you think we are going to live like this, without hope. CIS already screwing us...what else to afriad......I disagree with CHMUR...
IV has had it's own share of success with it's approach. No other methods have succeeded so far .
Also, from my little IV volunteering experience I can vouch that our community has very high inertia and is difficult to organize. people are afraid to send letters to president...good luck in getting them to sue USCIS.
community does not have the bandwidth to take multiple initiatives.
I see no wisdom in doing this. USCIS/DOS can screw us worse , if they wish to . This is not being timid but being pragmatic...anyway the bravado talk also needs to be followed up by multiple clear paths to victory.
How long do you think we are going to live like this, without hope. CIS already screwing us...what else to afriad......I disagree with CHMUR...
hair Some of my favourite cats
actaccord
01-13 10:10 PM
to some of your points, but
is the response from amitjoey not enough to understand why PlainSpeak's view won't work ?
amitjoey response is good, correct, to the point and more civil than any one else. As you said there are more silent readers who if don't see amitjoey's response will consider IV is trying to do something wrong by harsh response (through their senior members/donors). Just read all comments except amitjoey's the thread will give different view (-ve to IV forum).
When some one reads uncivilized comments they don't just think bad about the person but also get -ve impression about the forum. You are missing important point, just because some one wants to give comments so that silent readers find abt people like plainspeak/gcperm but in reality it works just against the forum nothing else.
And when we want to create a professional forum for a reason/cause, as a forum member we need to maintain some professionalism in our comments. If anyone find any thread is not appropriate respond perfectly like amitjoey or report it to moderator.
As a new member (joined just 2008 and read only reasonable threads) I never know someone GCPerm and anything about his/her good/bad threads. So, it doesn't add any value if senior members fighting on who is who.
I am speaking for benefit of this forum which will benefit every person who join/participate. But if a member doesn't bother or care about what kind of -ve impression they are leaving then what is the real benefit of having that member. Just because that member don't care about having more members doesn't reflect the forum core members view.
You don't agree to my views but your response is nice and civilized and that is what I am talking about. I would say amitjoey's way of response (so do your response to my comment) would help both PlainSpeak and every members who reads the thread to understand what is good/bad for us as group.
One thing I disagree is your rough reality, in the name of rough reality we don't have to write rough wording in a forum where we need more people to join for a cause. You may not want any more member but I don't think that could be the case with IV core members. Why, mostly (not all) people who are in this forum will stop working for the forum after getting GC and we always need new members (may be 1 in 10000) who will add value to the forum.
And I haven't responded to PlainSpeak because I have no knowledge about that topic and I am still understanding/learning it. Also amitjoey's response is more than enough which is civilized and perfect (at least to me). Unless I have something to add to his point I can just keep quiet instead of leaving -ve impression abt the forum.
For any cause as a group we can fight with violence (uncivilized) and without violence (civilized). There is always people for both approach, but as a forum member we need to follow the core members way rather than our own way. And part of user registration we all agree to the terms and one of it is "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
I had my own experience in this forum about hateful comments towards me by a senior member/donor. But that particular thread got removed because of so much hateful comments. Once we start accepting hateful comments it won't stop at any level and the forum will be filled with hateful comments. If you feel some thread/comment is not good better respond properly or report to moderator. Why we need to fill this forum with hateful comments when we have tools to avoid it.
actaccord: I also want to see civilized discussion. But that is not possible with people like PlainSpeak/GCPerm. I know this person. He has always tried to create Eb2/Eb3 divide. The problem is not with language of some of the posts you referred as "uncivilized", the problem is that for every post there are hundreds of people silently reading each posts. Each post influences those silent readers. If unanswered snakes like GCPerm can cause a lot of damage.
In an open anonymous forum you need to develop a thick skin. Person of every strip and belief can post anything. If you cannot handle this, it is better for you to resign from accessing any or all websites.For a period of time, I felt the same way as you did but it does not work that way. Stop this nonsense of political correctness when snakes like GCPerm spit venom to divide everyone.
A forum is a combination of all sorts of ideas and expression. You may like some and you may not like some. If you or your friends find it so difficult to stand this expression, then please sit quietly in your home because you cannot join hands with anyone in this real and rough world. How long are we going to " try to gain confidence" of more members? How long? I do not want to gain confidence of anyone anymore. If I was to make a decision, I would say that I don't need those members who cannot stand a little bit of rough reality. I am not going to do anything to "gain confidence" of others. If you want to work then good for you. If you don't want to work on the issue affecting your family, then so be it. You are doing a favor to no one but yourself when you speak with your Congressman. So Good luck and Good bye. But don't preach civility to everyone if you cannot first respond to PlainSpeak. I hate this Eb2/Eb3 fight.
is the response from amitjoey not enough to understand why PlainSpeak's view won't work ?
amitjoey response is good, correct, to the point and more civil than any one else. As you said there are more silent readers who if don't see amitjoey's response will consider IV is trying to do something wrong by harsh response (through their senior members/donors). Just read all comments except amitjoey's the thread will give different view (-ve to IV forum).
When some one reads uncivilized comments they don't just think bad about the person but also get -ve impression about the forum. You are missing important point, just because some one wants to give comments so that silent readers find abt people like plainspeak/gcperm but in reality it works just against the forum nothing else.
And when we want to create a professional forum for a reason/cause, as a forum member we need to maintain some professionalism in our comments. If anyone find any thread is not appropriate respond perfectly like amitjoey or report it to moderator.
As a new member (joined just 2008 and read only reasonable threads) I never know someone GCPerm and anything about his/her good/bad threads. So, it doesn't add any value if senior members fighting on who is who.
I am speaking for benefit of this forum which will benefit every person who join/participate. But if a member doesn't bother or care about what kind of -ve impression they are leaving then what is the real benefit of having that member. Just because that member don't care about having more members doesn't reflect the forum core members view.
You don't agree to my views but your response is nice and civilized and that is what I am talking about. I would say amitjoey's way of response (so do your response to my comment) would help both PlainSpeak and every members who reads the thread to understand what is good/bad for us as group.
One thing I disagree is your rough reality, in the name of rough reality we don't have to write rough wording in a forum where we need more people to join for a cause. You may not want any more member but I don't think that could be the case with IV core members. Why, mostly (not all) people who are in this forum will stop working for the forum after getting GC and we always need new members (may be 1 in 10000) who will add value to the forum.
And I haven't responded to PlainSpeak because I have no knowledge about that topic and I am still understanding/learning it. Also amitjoey's response is more than enough which is civilized and perfect (at least to me). Unless I have something to add to his point I can just keep quiet instead of leaving -ve impression abt the forum.
For any cause as a group we can fight with violence (uncivilized) and without violence (civilized). There is always people for both approach, but as a forum member we need to follow the core members way rather than our own way. And part of user registration we all agree to the terms and one of it is "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
I had my own experience in this forum about hateful comments towards me by a senior member/donor. But that particular thread got removed because of so much hateful comments. Once we start accepting hateful comments it won't stop at any level and the forum will be filled with hateful comments. If you feel some thread/comment is not good better respond properly or report to moderator. Why we need to fill this forum with hateful comments when we have tools to avoid it.
actaccord: I also want to see civilized discussion. But that is not possible with people like PlainSpeak/GCPerm. I know this person. He has always tried to create Eb2/Eb3 divide. The problem is not with language of some of the posts you referred as "uncivilized", the problem is that for every post there are hundreds of people silently reading each posts. Each post influences those silent readers. If unanswered snakes like GCPerm can cause a lot of damage.
In an open anonymous forum you need to develop a thick skin. Person of every strip and belief can post anything. If you cannot handle this, it is better for you to resign from accessing any or all websites.For a period of time, I felt the same way as you did but it does not work that way. Stop this nonsense of political correctness when snakes like GCPerm spit venom to divide everyone.
A forum is a combination of all sorts of ideas and expression. You may like some and you may not like some. If you or your friends find it so difficult to stand this expression, then please sit quietly in your home because you cannot join hands with anyone in this real and rough world. How long are we going to " try to gain confidence" of more members? How long? I do not want to gain confidence of anyone anymore. If I was to make a decision, I would say that I don't need those members who cannot stand a little bit of rough reality. I am not going to do anything to "gain confidence" of others. If you want to work then good for you. If you don't want to work on the issue affecting your family, then so be it. You are doing a favor to no one but yourself when you speak with your Congressman. So Good luck and Good bye. But don't preach civility to everyone if you cannot first respond to PlainSpeak. I hate this Eb2/Eb3 fight.
more...
desi3933
06-16 04:33 PM
Where did you get that 80k number? You think 80k is good salary for that job, someone else may say 65k, I may say 90k. The salary, among other things, is determined by market forces. If you can't find enough people with xyz then company will be forced to offer more.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
hot Kurt Cobain wallpaper
Jerrome
05-12 02:16 PM
Just like the jews, tamils practice their culture and language in sri lanka without been discriminated. You don't see Jews armed with weapons asking for part of USA for themselves.
Don't you know about Israel? Don't tell me tamils are not discriminated in SL. It it outright lie and read my earlier posts with references.
Don't you know about Israel? Don't tell me tamils are not discriminated in SL. It it outright lie and read my earlier posts with references.
more...
house Kurt Cobain - Bio | Pics
matreen
08-17 08:55 PM
Excellent reply.
Excellent and brilliant answer and I agree to this.
Excellent and brilliant answer and I agree to this.
tattoo Kurt Cobain Collage Stylish
mundada
12-13 02:00 PM
I think you have made a great argument. The original intention of diversity quota was to prevent people from certain European countries from becoming a dominant race in the US in 1920s.
However, the Civil Rights Act that protects national origin came into effect in 1964.
I am not a lawyer but have been taking business law course. I therefore believe if national origin discrimination is not allowed in the employment then unusually high (5 years) green card delays for certain nationalities is promoting national origin discrimination by detering employers from hiring people born in certain countries.
I think this argument will fly. I am not sure family based restrictions could be lifted but national origin quota restriction on employment and national origin non-discrimination in employment are definitely contradicting each other.
FYI:
TITLE VII of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (1964)
The protected classes: race, color, sex, religion & national origin. Employers with 15 or more employees. The most well known employment discrimination statute. Prohibits employment discrimination against the protected classes - race, color, sex, religion & national origin – in every aspect of employment, i.e. hiring, firing, promotion, training, working conditions, compensation, etc.
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
However, the Civil Rights Act that protects national origin came into effect in 1964.
I am not a lawyer but have been taking business law course. I therefore believe if national origin discrimination is not allowed in the employment then unusually high (5 years) green card delays for certain nationalities is promoting national origin discrimination by detering employers from hiring people born in certain countries.
I think this argument will fly. I am not sure family based restrictions could be lifted but national origin quota restriction on employment and national origin non-discrimination in employment are definitely contradicting each other.
FYI:
TITLE VII of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (1964)
The protected classes: race, color, sex, religion & national origin. Employers with 15 or more employees. The most well known employment discrimination statute. Prohibits employment discrimination against the protected classes - race, color, sex, religion & national origin – in every aspect of employment, i.e. hiring, firing, promotion, training, working conditions, compensation, etc.
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
more...
pictures Kurt Cobain
_TrueFacts
09-11 10:46 AM
Last nail in YSR’s coffin
Jagan gets 3 choices: DyCM, mantri, PCC (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Jagan-gets-3-choices-DyCM-mantri-PCC/articleshow/4997385.cms)
Jagan gets 3 choices: DyCM, mantri, PCC (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Jagan-gets-3-choices-DyCM-mantri-PCC/articleshow/4997385.cms)
dresses Wallpaper de Kurt Cobain
ganguteli
03-27 12:08 PM
One idiot without giving him name in comments started abusing in Hindi language.
Dude when you have guts to put comments then put your name in it. So that I know who has issues with my comments to thread.
And just don't give red " just for the sake of giving it make you feel happy ".
Must be a guy who is brainwashed by his mullas and hates the world for being unfair to his peaceful religion. I will give you green.
Narendra Modi is my choice for PM too. See how much peace and prosperity he has brought in Gujarat. We need such strict administrators who work unselfishly for the good of country.
Dude when you have guts to put comments then put your name in it. So that I know who has issues with my comments to thread.
And just don't give red " just for the sake of giving it make you feel happy ".
Must be a guy who is brainwashed by his mullas and hates the world for being unfair to his peaceful religion. I will give you green.
Narendra Modi is my choice for PM too. See how much peace and prosperity he has brought in Gujarat. We need such strict administrators who work unselfishly for the good of country.
more...
makeup Kurt Cobain
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
girlfriend music Nirvana Kurt Cobain - Wallpaper (#1000878) / Wallbase.cc
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
hairstyles Kurt Cobain was the highly
Macaca
07-03 09:50 PM
age out situations for children too ....I think that affects lot of people too..I am single and dont have kids :D
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
gauravster
06-04 03:01 PM
As JSB pointed out what you are asking already exists with an EAD, 180 days after filing 485 you can leave your current employer and join a new company as long as it is a same\semilar job. The problem with this same or semilar job is it is a ticking time bomb, the day USCIS decides to go after EAD they can have a restrictive interpretation of same and semilar job and deny your 485 or they can keep sending you employment verification letter rfe every couple of months. I am not being paranioid, for example even though AC 21 clearly states that once 180 days have passed since the 485 has been applied, the employee can join a new job and even if the previous employer has revoked the approved 140 it should not effect the 485 petition, but USCIS is not following this law and blindly sending 485 denial notices to applicants whose approved i140 was revoked by previous employer. Who knows what sort of abuse will USCIS resort to in the future against EAD.
To prevent this we should work towards an administrative fix that once the 485 application is pre adjudicated the applicant should be left alone and not issed any Employment verification letter rfe, or semilar\same job restrictions if they are back logged because of country quota and face multiple year wait.
The EAD/AC21 is still only available to those who are July 07 filers. There are many who have missed the oppurtunity. What many people are asking for is for something such that anyone can change a job after some given time, irrespective of Visa number availability. Even for those with EAD's, you are still restricted to be in the same field. So if you want a career move and do an MBA or acquire new skills to change your career, you cannot do that (unless EAD is for a dependent). If this is not pigeoning people, what is.
To prevent this we should work towards an administrative fix that once the 485 application is pre adjudicated the applicant should be left alone and not issed any Employment verification letter rfe, or semilar\same job restrictions if they are back logged because of country quota and face multiple year wait.
The EAD/AC21 is still only available to those who are July 07 filers. There are many who have missed the oppurtunity. What many people are asking for is for something such that anyone can change a job after some given time, irrespective of Visa number availability. Even for those with EAD's, you are still restricted to be in the same field. So if you want a career move and do an MBA or acquire new skills to change your career, you cannot do that (unless EAD is for a dependent). If this is not pigeoning people, what is.
gc28262
06-15 04:22 PM
Ivar and group,
...............................
My suggestion here is that let the outsourcers take the hit. They have always benefitted by flouting the rules. If your concern is way too high for your L1 brothers then you would find it prudent to bring in the law that clearly states "Pay high wages for the L1s or dont bring them in here". ..........................................
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
...............................
My suggestion here is that let the outsourcers take the hit. They have always benefitted by flouting the rules. If your concern is way too high for your L1 brothers then you would find it prudent to bring in the law that clearly states "Pay high wages for the L1s or dont bring them in here". ..........................................
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
