Reply With Quote
Cutting the costs of the transition. Bas s.
Summary:
Banks sought to import cheap foreign skilled labor in order to layoff American employees, then suddenly needed government bailout money from the Americans they are laying off.
----------------------------------------------------
AP Investigation: Banks sought foreign workers
SANTA CLARA, Calif. – Major U.S. banks sought government permission to bring thousands of foreign workers into the country for high-paying jobs even as the system was melting down last year and Americans were getting laid off, according to an Associated Press review of visa applications.
The dozen banks now receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years for positions that included senior vice presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and human resources specialists. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, nearly twice the median income for all American households.
As the economic collapse worsened last year — with huge numbers of bank employees laid off — the numbers of visas sought by the dozen banks in AP's analysis increased by nearly one-third, from 3,258 in the 2007 budget year to 4,163 in fiscal 2008.
The AP reviewed visa applications the banks filed with the Labor Department under the H-1B visa program, which allows temporary employment of foreign workers in specialized-skill and advanced-degree positions. Such visas are most often associated with high-tech workers.
It is unclear how many foreign workers the banks actually hired; the government does not release those details. The actual number is likely a fraction of the 21,800 foreign workers the banks sought to hire because the government only grants 85,000 such visas each year among all U.S. employers.
During the last three months of 2008, the largest banks that received taxpayer loans announced more than 100,000 layoffs. The number of foreign workers included among those laid off is unknown.
Foreigners are attractive hires because companies have found ways to pay them less than American workers.
Companies are required to pay foreign workers a prevailing wage based on the job's description. But they can use the lower end of government wage scales even for highly skilled workers; hire younger foreigners with lower salary demands; and hire foreigners with higher levels of education or advanced degrees for jobs for which similarly educated American workers would be considered overqualified.
"The system provides you perfectly legal mechanisms to underpay the workers," said John Miano of Summit, N.J., a lawyer who has analyzed the wage data and started the Programmers Guild, an advocacy group that opposes the H-1B system.
David Huber of Chicago is a computer networking engineer who has testified to Congress about losing out on a 2002 job with the former Bank One Corp. He learned later the bank applied to hire dozens of foreign visa holders for work he said he was qualified to do.
"American citizenship is being undermined working in our own country," Huber said in an AP interview.
Beyond seeking approval for visas from the government, banks that accepted federal bailout money also enlisted uncounted foreign workers, often in technology jobs, through intermediary companies known as "body shops." Such businesses are the top recipients of the H-1B visas.
The use of visa workers by ailing banks angers Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
"In this time of very, very high unemployment ... and considering the help these banks are getting from the taxpayers, they're playing the American taxpayer for a sucker," Grassley said in a telephone interview with AP.
Grassley, with Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., is pushing for legislation to make employers recruit American workers first, along with other changes to the visa program.
Banks turned to foreign workers before the current economic crisis, said Diane Casey-Landry, chief operating officer for the American Bankers Association. The group said a year ago that demand exceeded the pool of qualified workers in areas like sales, lending and bank administration. Now with massive layoffs, the situation is different, Casey-Landry said.
The issue takes on a higher profile as the government injects billions of dollars into the economy and President Barack Obama pushes for massive government spending to create jobs nationwide, on top of the $700 billion already approved for the ailing banks.
"You're using taxpayer dollars and there's an expectation that there are benefits to the U.S.," said Ron Hira, a national expert on foreign employment and assistant public policy professor at the Rochester Ins ute of Technology. "What you're really doing is leaking away those jobs and benefits that should accrue to the taxpayers."
But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes more access to "worldwide talent pools" will better position U.S. financial companies against global compe ors, spokesman Andrew Brent said.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declined to disclose details on foreign workers hired at the banks that have received federal bailouts. The AP has requested the information under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Nearly all the banks the AP contacted also declined to comment on their foreign hiring practices. Arlene C. Roberts, spokeswoman for State Street Corp. of Boston, which has received $2 billion in bailout money, said the company has reduced H-1B hiring in recent years, and just hires for specialized positions.
Jennifer Scott of Yreka, Calif., a retired technical systems manager at Bank of America in Concord, Calif., said in 2004 she oversaw foreign employees from a contractor firm that also sent overnight work to employees in India.
"It had nothing to do with a shortage, but they didn't want to pay the U.S. rate," she said, adding that the quality of the work was weak. "It's all about numbers crunching."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/...oreign_workers
Cutting the costs of the transition. Bas s.
Pay more taxes so we can give tax returns to people who don't pay taxes.
You're welcome.
Once again, everything is okay as long as the government and not evil business does it.
Off topic. Do you have an on-topic take, FreeMason?
This really pisses me off! This is a reason why I'm not too big a fan of free trade and global markets. See - doesn't matter if we have unions or raise the minimum wage - we give Corporations enough loopholes to get around it!
I'm also not a big fan of Government meddling in private corporations - but surely something can be done about this that doesn't involve over regulation by the Government.
Don't say this loudly in the presence of conservatives. Just trust me on this, CS.
Enforce existing law. If executive compensation is deemed improper it can be clawed back, right? Or is that just for fraud?
Don't give them bailout money.
If they wanna import cheaper labor, that's their biz. But our govt bailing out anyone but itself is the ultimate in Irony.
"Hey, we are gazillions in debt...why don't we bail out out those poor suckers who are only millions or billions in debt. That way we can yell at them...and get the public to focus on their inep ude...instead of ours."
and so it goes...
American banks aren't exactly the best examples of free-market ins utions. The Federal Reserve--the central bank of which all other banks are connected--is basically a branch of the government (unelected at that)
We already did. They downsized us with it.
Banks.
Topic.
Your take...
But I am a conservative!But I still think all this outsourcing is bad for American workers. There has to be a balance between allowing corporations freedom to make a good profit and letting them screw American workers in the process of making that profit!
Neither overscrewed, nor overscrewing be!But I am a conservative!
Agree 100%.
Why do American Companies outsource. Really look into the reasoning behind it...and mebbe you can do something about it.
"Well, to get cheap damn labor of course!!"
Yes, that would be a smart thing to do. Why does it cost American Business so much more to do biz here, than there?
"Well, we have higher standards. We don't pay our people 10$/day. And they have to not pollute and destroy the environment. Their products must be safe, or we'll sue them. We DEMAND more."
Well, if you demand American Business meet your demands...which increases their cost of doing business...how do you stop them from going elsewhere where they don't incur the higher costs?
"You punish 'em, man! Fine 'em...nationalize them...whatever. You just stop those greedy bas s from leaving the country!"
Well, how about this. If you demand that American business's adhere to wage standards, pollution standards, health standards, and the myriads of other taxes and regulations we put on them....how about protecting them from other countries that DON'T have those cost incurring standards?
"What? Protect Business? WTF u talking about?"
If we demand all these things that drive up doing business in the US, we should protect those same business's against countries that don't do these things. Like a defense treaty that protects our borders, Trade treaties should protect our business.
If a country is using slave/peasant/prison labor...a huge polluter, no safety standards, etc, and that is giving them a compe ive edge over American business. Than our trade treaty with them should include (here it comes now. Prepare yourself...and for goddsakes, take control your knee-jerk muscle response center.) Tariffs, to protect American Business.
"Oh...MY....GOD! Your a protectionist!!! hahaha"
When did protecting American Business become a bad idea?
If you demand so much from them, you either protect that business against other countries that dont...or lose that business. That is what Tarriffs are for. And for those that don't know it, the US was funded up until the 1900's...on tariffs.
"pffft! I'm not spending more for my Levi's! If American companies can't compete, that's their fault!"
No...not necessarily.
and so it goes...
My comment regarding "decent country" and "gallows" still applies.
The super-rich capitalists and corps don't give a about America or Americans
When are you simpletons going to realize it?
Corps only care about profits to pay the top mgmt and will anybody and anything to get those profits.
Who would " anybody and anything" to get their money?
A Corporation, say like Sears?
Or the IRS?
Mebbe this is confusing for non-simpletons. But us simpletons really have no problem figuring out who is more capable of " ing anybody and anything" to get their money.
If you fear corporations more than Government.
Your a fool.
I am not a pro-union person either, but the sheer volume of foreign workers being imported to this country on a temporary basis is astounding.
I say illegalize Corporations again.
That becomes a false dichotomy when the two are one and the same.
BTW, why is the word "tariff" a bad word?
it, Im admitted protectionist.
I've always found it astounding people actually think this.
Ask IBM who spent 1 billion in the 70's against govt lawyers claiming they were a monopoly...only to see the govt drop the suite after 10 yrs saying "oops, we were wrong."
Ask Tobacco corporations who give Govt's billions a year so they can be allowed to do business.
Ask the evil oil companies, who pay more to the govt...than they make in profits.
Ask anyone that runs a corporation or business if they and govt are one and the same.
Government is in the extortion business.
Saying that Corporations, who pay the govt to either leave them alone or pay them to do business, are the same as the govt who they are forced to give these monies to...is like saying all those merchants in Italian districts in NY City, actually own the mafia whom they give checks to every Friday at closing time.
and so it goes...
These threads are hilarious.
Your startling lack of contribution here echoes your wildly uneven performance in the thread where we actually discussed this a little.
To refresh your memory, I said your view was correct only in the short term: though it may be cheaper and more efficient to do without in the short term, in the long term we need domestic manufactures.
As for the downsized employees, like them I take note of the reality principle upheld in the example:
Downsized employee and American taxpayer can eat and die.
...and probably will for quite some time into the future.
I agree that some things we need to protect that we haven't. Free trade has become a joke. However, I am a solid believer that if we changed our tax structure to a consumption base system over our productivity based system, you would have an economic boom unseen for decades. Regardless of free trades and tariffs.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-03.html
$500K spent on Dem caucus retreats
By contrast the GOP retreat is privately funded, and lobbyists are free to attend.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-04-2009 at 01:59 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
