Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 24, 2015 8:12:19 GMT -5
GM is worth around $60 billion, and has over 200,000 employees. Its front-line workers earn from $19 to $28.50 an hour, with benefits.
Uber is estimated to be worth some $40 billion, and has 850 employees. Uber also has over 163,000 drivers (as of December -- the number is expected to double by June), who average $17 an hour in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and $23 an hour in San Francisco and New York.
But Uber doesn't count these drivers as employees. Uber says they're "independent contractors."
What difference does it make?
For one thing, GM workers don't have to pay for the machines they use. But Uber drivers pay for their cars -- not just buying them but also their maintenance, insurance, gas, oil changes, tires, and cleaning. Subtract these costs and Uber drivers' hourly pay drops considerably.
For another, GM's employees get all the nation's labor protections.
These include Social Security, a 40-hour workweek with time-and-a-half for overtime, worker health and safety, worker's compensation if injured on the job, family and medical leave, minimum wage, pension protection, unemployment insurance, protection against racial or gender discrimination, and the right to bargain collectively.
Not to forget Obamacare's mandate of employer-provided health care.
Uber workers don't get any of these things. They're outside the labor laws.
Uber workers aren't alone. There are millions like just them, also outside the labor laws -- and their ranks are growing. Most aren't even part of the new Uberized "sharing" economy.
They're franchisees, consultants, and free lancers.
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-were-all-becoming-independent-contractors_b_6731760.html
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 24, 2015 8:12:42 GMT -5
Good article. Food for thought.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Feb 24, 2015 8:41:23 GMT -5
I agree it is interesting but companies can't just make everyone an independant contractors willy nilly. There are laws that don't allow that and the IRS has been cracking down on companies. It is very hard to "hire" someone as an independant contractor and then say but you have to work at the office from this time to that and here is exactly how to do your job. Well maybe not so hard to hire them but really hard to make the IRS okay with it.
From GM's standpoint I can't figure out how a manufacturing plant would have people bringing in their won machines. You would have a mish mosh of different machines all having to work together. I have seen household who have mac/pc issues I can't imagine how hard different manufacturing machines for each worker would work.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 24, 2015 8:48:05 GMT -5
It seems pretty willy nilly to me. Seems like a lot of places are calling people "independent contractors" and that absolves them of the labor laws, bennies, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:26:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 9:11:48 GMT -5
It seems pretty willy nilly to me. Seems like a lot of places are calling people "independent contractors" and that absolves them of the labor laws, bennies, etc. I agree with 973beachbum; companies may want to do it that way but the IRS is really specific about contractor vs. employee. Uber's drivers fit the contractor mode; they don't have fixed hours, they provide their own cars, etc.
Years ago there were lawsuits on behalf of newspaper carriers who were injured while delivering papers- kids, mostly. The newspapers claimed they weren't workers' comp claims because the carriers were contractors. A few of the newspapers lost: they DO pretty much tell them when and where they have to deliver the papers, they provide the papers, etc. Now, of course, it's all adults and I suppose the lawyers have found a way to make it clear they're contractors.
The insurance implications of Uber are still being sorted out. I can tell you that the standard auto insurance policy excludes coverage if you're driving passengers around for money. It always has. I'm not sure what happens if you get in a wreck and a passenger is injured. What if they don't have their own auto insurance (typical of many New Yorkers who don't own cars)? If you, the driver, are injured, are you covered? They really need a special policy. Having seen the experience of coverages for taxi and limo services (really awful), I'm not sure the market will come up with one.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 24, 2015 9:15:30 GMT -5
OK. Then Robert Reich is wrong.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 24, 2015 9:15:47 GMT -5
As long as an individual holds his/her own liability insurance, only general parameters are established as far as how, when the project needs to be finnished then they can call themselfs "contractors" or "subcontractors" That, spares the general contractor from having to pay for many a things like workers compensation, medical, equipment, matching funds for SS or 401k,etc. Ultimately that translates into higher proffits for the general contractor. Free market!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:26:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 9:35:01 GMT -5
Actually, there is a link in the article you link that says a San Francisco judge has said that Uber's drivers probably are employees. I'm hedging because I can't tell if that was the official ruling or if he just said it.
"In both lawsuits, the drivers cite many reasons why they should be considered employees: They’re integral to Uber and Lyft’s business, both companies retain the right to terminate drivers at any time, and the companies direct and control their drivers’ work."
The judge agreed. It's a class action lawsuit. He's not buying that they are just a "software platform." I'm sure it will get appealed.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 24, 2015 9:39:03 GMT -5
OK. Then Robert Reich is wrong. In this case he is. He is a professor of public policy at a university and is opining on a topic which he appears to have limited knowledge. One of the largest companies in the world, Microsoft, had their ass handed to them on a platter over this very topic. I can't post the whole case summary here but here is an excerpt (underline emphasis mine): ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [96-2 USTC ¶50,533] Donna Vizcaino, Jon R. Waite, Mark Stout, Geoffrey Culbert, Lesley Stuart, Thomas Morgan, Elizabeth Spokoiny, Larry Spokoiny, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Microsoft Corporation, and its pension and welfare benefit plans, et al., Defendants-Appellees " OPINION
Reinhardt, Circuit Judge:
Large corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, and thereby increasing their profits. This practice has understandably led to a number of problems, legal and otherwise. One of the legal issues that sometimes arises is exemplified by this lawsuit. The named plaintiffs, who were classified by Microsoft as independent contractors, seek to strip that label of its protective covering and to obtain for themselves certain benefits that the company provided to all of its regular or permanent employees. After certifying the named plaintiffs as representatives of a class of “common-law employees,” the district court granted summary judgment to Microsoft on all counts. The named plaintiffs and the class they represent now appeal as to two of their claims: a) the claim, made pursuant to section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §1132(a), that they are entitled to savings benefits under Microsoft’s Savings Plus Plan (SPP); and b) the claim, made pursuant to Washington state law, that they are entitled to stock-option benefits under Microsoft’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). In both cases, the claims are based on their contention that they are common-law employees."
...
"CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Microsoft and denial of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for the determination of any questions of individual eligibility for benefits that may remain following issuance of this opinion and for calculation of the damages or benefits due the various class members.
REVERSED and REMANDED."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Basically the courts found "contractors" to be common law employees covered by ERISA and FICA and FUTA rules. Microsoft then attempted to bar these individuals from participating in retirement/pension plans etc. Microsoft won that one at the lower court level but lost it on appeal. This was friggin HUGE as Microsoft had these individuals sign contracts stating they were independent contractors. This is the case I have my staff follow from inception to final appeal to understand the courts' thought process as to employee vs. independent contractor. Companies cannot just pick willy nilly, there are rules and this is an area the IRS takes this VERY seriously. While I was in practise this was one of the areas we advised clients to not screw around with, as the company could be on the hook for the employee's income as well as SS taxes if the employee did not self report/self pay property.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Feb 24, 2015 9:51:19 GMT -5
As long as an individual holds his/her own liability insurance, only general parameters are established as far as how, when the project needs to be finnished then they can call themselfs "contractors" or "subcontractors" That, spares the general contractor from having to pay for many a things like workers compensation, medical, equipment, matching funds for SS or 401k,etc. Ultimately that translates into higher proffits for the general contractor. Free market! See I think the insurance liability really is key here. But I don't think the average person who works for GM or Verizon is really carrying their own liability ins. And Athena brings up a good point about auto ins. Around here people using their own cars to deliver pizza is common, and they are definately employees. Every personal auto ins policy I have ever seen specifically excludes coverage if the auto was used in the use of work. You would need a separate policy for that. So what happens when the pizza delivery person hits a pedistrian while delivering my pepperoni? If they don't have auto ins of their own they are basically out of luck except for maybe suing the pizza shop. How much does anyone want to bet that if they were considered contractors before they would be employees after?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 24, 2015 10:25:12 GMT -5
It seems pretty willy nilly to me. Seems like a lot of places are calling people "independent contractors" and that absolves them of the labor laws, bennies, etc. I agree with 973beachbum; companies may want to do it that way but the IRS is really specific about contractor vs. employee. Uber's drivers fit the contractor mode; they don't have fixed hours, they provide their own cars, etc.
Years ago there were lawsuits on behalf of newspaper carriers who were injured while delivering papers- kids, mostly. The newspapers claimed they weren't workers' comp claims because the carriers were contractors. A few of the newspapers lost: they DO pretty much tell them when and where they have to deliver the papers, they provide the papers, etc. Now, of course, it's all adults and I suppose the lawyers have found a way to make it clear they're contractors.
The insurance implications of Uber are still being sorted out. I can tell you that the standard auto insurance policy excludes coverage if you're driving passengers around for money. It always has. I'm not sure what happens if you get in a wreck and a passenger is injured. What if they don't have their own auto insurance (typical of many New Yorkers who don't own cars)? If you, the driver, are injured, are you covered? They really need a special policy. Having seen the experience of coverages for taxi and limo services (really awful), I'm not sure the market will come up with one.
Uber and lyft I believe say they have insurance that covers the drivers and passengers with pretty high limits. But I do also remember at least one accident they're contesting but that case was squirrelly.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,459
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Feb 24, 2015 10:38:56 GMT -5
OK. Then Robert Reich is wrong. He often is.
His world is ultra left UC Berkeley (yes I know he worked as Labor Secretary for Clinton). He writes a weekly column in the SF Chronicle.
I respect that he comes from a different view point and it's interesting way of looking at it. On the other hand there's a general tone of worker victimization and a need for the nanny state. It's annoying and I think disregards the fact that we have choices. And that we better keep up our skill sets and options to stay valuable and employable.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 24, 2015 11:21:30 GMT -5
See I think the insurance liability really is key here. But I don't think the average person who works for GM or Verizon is really carrying their own liability ins. And Athena brings up a good point about auto ins. Around here people using their own cars to deliver pizza is common, and they are definately employees. Every personal auto ins policy I have ever seen specifically excludes coverage if the auto was used in the use of work. You would need a separate policy for that. So what happens when the pizza delivery person hits a pedistrian while delivering my pepperoni? If they don't have auto ins of their own they are basically out of luck except for maybe suing the pizza shop. How much does anyone want to bet that if they were considered contractors before they would be employees after? Workers at GM or Verizon for that matter are employees since they don't have their own liabity insurance. The employer provides that through workers compensation. Business liability insurance and auto liability insurance are completely different things. Business liability insurance covers your activities or damages produced through your actions while on the job. Also covers ( depending on policy) any unintended damage or accidents " on the job site" to the non-employees ie homeowner, visitors etc. A cab driver if he operates on his own should by all means have Business Liability Insurance which is separatd from his auto insurance. There are policies for such but very few that are "self employed" have it because the premiums can be quite pricey. As soon as a contractor establishes the schedule as in "working hours" to those that are independent contractors or subcontractors, they in fact turn the subcontractors into employees. In such case the contractor become "the employer" and he has the obligation to buy Workers Compensation which is realy, realy expensive. Workers Compensation, differs from state to state, from trade to trade and is generaly based on a percentage of off paid wages. In Pa can be anywhere from 3 to 18-20% of the paid wages. I personaly pay about 11.75% for my employees. on top of that there are SS 6.2% then Med and some other taxes and also your liability(business) insurance increases depending on the number of employees and their expertise. All in all i end up paying on top of the wages an extra 28-30% of said wages on the employees account. So say I'm paying $10/hr that in fact means that im paying about $13/hr. On a company with many employees that can amount to a big expense.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 24, 2015 11:51:36 GMT -5
I think this is an interesting subject, and it is up to the government to make the call, they most assuredly will call in their benefit/the big money's benefit, not the "people's" benefit.
It is my understanding that States are more concerned about this from a workmen's comp and UC standpoint. If you are an employee you are subject to WC and UC, if you are an independent contractor, you are not. So, my understanding is that the states are more likely to shut this down than the federal government.
As far as UBER drivers, and benefits paid I think the independent contractor/employee argument is ridiculous, b/c Uber and Lyft compete with taxi drivers. Taxi drivers are pretty much IC's too. In Milwaukee, we had a very limited number of taxi licenses so the number of taxis was artificially low/taxi rides were very expensive and taxis were unclean and grungy. When Uber sough to come in, they increased the number of taxi licenses and set minimal requirements for Uber and Lyft drivers - they have to have the car inspected show it is insured and (I think) get a permit. I do think it is a change for the positive.
DH is a "Captive" insurance agent. That means he can only sell the products of the company he works for. They liken it to a franchise. He is paid commission, and can not sell other insurance company products, even if his company does not sell that product. Insurance Agents can supposedly Bind business on behalf of the company and are therefore independent, but the company dictates what business they will accept, sets his core hours, approves his place of business, dictates the décor, mandates education and other items relating to employees, owns the software but not the hardware etc. To me it really is insane that they get away with making the Agents "independent contractors" but if they make the agents employees, they will get insurance and probably a 401K plan. To me the group insurance has always been the important thing. If the gov't would come out and say this group of people is really employees, then I would expect the commission agreement to change - but Old commission would be relatively = to new salary/commission + benefits. I also think that trying to maintain the "independent contractor" charade is detrimental to their business in some ways. They told the agents to basically hire their own IT consultants. Most pretty much do without. I think they are not meeting the requirements of Sarbanes Oxley, and they just tell the agents that if they have a breech the company is not responsible the agent is, I think it is only a matter of time until a breech occurs and they get sued.
When DH first started with his company 15 years ago, they Agents were being shifted from employees to IC's. One of the most successful agents in the region attempted to organize the agents into a "Union" so to speak and fight it. The company had more $$ and influence and so the agents could not afford to continue to fight and the company basically shut down the opposition. DH has always been hesitant to allie himself with this group. The agent that was the chief organizer was forced out. The Corp's have all the $$ and it will be very difficult for the little guys to win this argument.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,139
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 24, 2015 12:06:04 GMT -5
Here's Uber's insurance. blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsuranceThere are 160,000 uber drivers as of December. According to here www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/now-we-know-many-drivers-uber-has-and-how-much-money-theyre-making%E2%80%8B/The draws also include flexibility, not wanting to work for the man, etc. I think it's not bad, if a person chooses to be a contract worker, as long as they understand the ramifications. I chose to not be a contract worker (that's what my SE income is) full time, because I didn't want to worry about where my mortgage money would come from if I went 3 weeks without employment. Not everyone in this world is as risk-adverse as I am. Some people don't see the value in having benefits: work provided health insurance, PTO, retirement. It's not my business to educate other folks on how they "should" make a living. I'm having a hard enough of a time managing my own careers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:26:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 12:45:32 GMT -5
In Milwaukee, we had a very limited number of taxi licenses so the number of taxis was artificially low/taxi rides were very expensive and taxis were unclean and grungy. When Uber sough to come in, they increased the number of taxi licenses and set minimal requirements for Uber and Lyft drivers - they have to have the car inspected show it is insured and (I think) get a permit. I do think it is a change for the positive. Same with NYC- they issued a bunch of taxi licenses ("medallions") to veterans after WW 2 and then never issued any more. Most medallions are owned by investors who then charge the actual taxi driver a fixed $$ amount to use them (regardless of how many or how few rides the driver makes). I once made the terrible mistake of figuring I'd be able to catch a cab from Grand Central to LaGuardia Airport at 5 PM on a Friday. Then it rained. Yeah, me and 10,000 other cab-seekers. Finally a stretch limo driver took pity on me after passing me about 5 times and made me a reasonable offer to get me to my airport hotel (luckily the flight was the next AM). As I was getting in, some pushy New York type ran up and asked if we were going anywhere near the Fulton Fish Market. Sheesh.
I'm VERY glad to see New Yorkers given an alternative to standard cabs or pre-reserved limos/cars. It's about time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:26:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 12:45:28 GMT -5
Here's Uber's insurance. blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsuranceThere are 160,000 uber drivers as of December. Some people don't see the value in having benefits: work provided health insurance, PTO, retirement. It's not my business to educate other folks on how they "should" make a living. I'm having a hard enough of a time managing my own careers. A lot of people feel this way. But if these "folks" don't earn enough to support themselves, the reclassification affects all of us as taxpayers. Labor laws are important. I'm sure they go to extremes . . . just like laws impacting freedom of speech or the right to bear arms or (alleged) criminals' rights go to extremes. But that doesn't negate the importance.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,756
|
Post by souldoubt on Feb 24, 2015 12:59:52 GMT -5
The IRS has a list of requirements that must be met for someone to be an independent contractor and it also covers various scenarios. I can't speak to uber but it's not as easy as an established company just saying everyone is now an independent contractor and not a W-2 employee.
As far as uber goes employee or independent contractor aside it's a great service. I live in a major area where there are plenty of cabs and it always amazed me that when we wanted to go a few miles to downtown it would take 30 minutes or more sometimes to get a cab to the house. About a month ago I was out with friends and we had used my friends uber account to get to a bar but his phone died. I tried calling a cab first and they told me it would be 25-30 minutes which really means 45 minutes or more. I downloaded the uber app, had my card information entered and there was a car there within 5 minutes. I realize the cab drivers have to go through a third party and I don't fault them but I will never use a cab again after years of average to bad service and nothing but great service in much cleaner cars via uber.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:26:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 20:22:03 GMT -5
I think teleworking is a part of this, too. I worked from home in a few of my jobs and it was great, but over the long run it can save companies money. One of my employers eventually sublet part of the building since so many worked from home. I just read about one company that has one cube for every 1.4 employees. There are no assigned cubes- you just pick an open one. So, you pay your own utilities, phone, Internet, etc. and the company saves overhead.
Another example: Groupon is hiring in our area. According to the newspaper article, it's $11/hour "plus benefits" and it's all telework, answering calls from customers. Voila- employees pay their own rent, utilities and phone bills and Uber has very little skin in the game.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 28, 2015 19:36:10 GMT -5
Judges, who I assume are versed in labor law, are siding with the "contractors". That tells me this isn't worker victimization and nanny statism, but large companies trying to skirt the law to avoid paying legally required taxes and benefits to the people who make their profits possible. You can only race so far to the bottom before you're breaking the law. Not that it usually matters, how many times have big companies been found hiring illegals? They get a slap on the wrist, then turn around and do it again. They lobby to increase the H1B visa limit every year to undercut US workers with legal immigrants. The older I get the more I think that US labor is pretty much fucked. Companies are squeezing workers for every penny they can get out of them, skirting the law to do it, and politicians go right along with it because they have their campaigns funded by the businesses that profit from it. And yet, companies all over the country are importing people from third world countries and paying them a damn fine salary to do office jobs that most Americans are too lazy to learn how to do. This is from someone who graduated just as the tech bubble was bursting and has kept a well paying job the whole time.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Mar 1, 2015 9:53:21 GMT -5
...:::"I just read about one company that has one cube for every 1.4 employees. There are no assigned cubes- you just pick an open one.":::...
The benefits to the employer are clear: reduced operations costs. To the employee who has to lug his/her stuff back and forth from home or some remote locker every day, its no picnic.
I wonder when companies will start charging chair fees like salons. Or hell, lets have "premium" seating like airlines and stadiums. That nice cube near the window with some privacy is first class.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 1, 2015 11:10:12 GMT -5
I have the pleasure of managing both contractors and full-time employees, in the same positions. The contractors don't want the full-time positions. They are happy contracting, where they get paid more hourly and for every hour they work, work from home, can negotiate their hours and take as much time off as they want. If they finish a contract, they can choose whether to take another one immediately or take a break. There is a woman who contracts with us who has managed to take off the whole summer the past 15 years. That would never work for a full-time employee. I've offered two full-time jobs and they don't want them.
In a global economy where modern employees value flexible hours, I can definitely see the benefit of contracting. I think it's great that there are two type of employment.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 2, 2015 22:15:53 GMT -5
That's how they justify it, but I've found there are basically no jobs that Americans are too lazy to do. There are however jobs that Americans won't do at certain wage levels. I flatly refuse to live in shitty bunk housing with no running water and pick strawberries for $3 an hour. Won't do it. There are far too many better opportunities out there. I'm not too good to pick strawberries, but I am too good to do it for $3 an hour and five square feet of sleeping space in a tiny trailer crammed with bunk beds that I share with 20 other people. Illegals from south of the border will work for that just to get a legal way into the country knowing that if they get hitched and have a kid they get to stay for life. Same deal with H1B visas. Companies are saying they can't find database admins, programmers, and all kinds of IT specialties in the US. Everyone knows it's bullshit. Our universities pump out tens of thousands of them ever year. What they can't find are US kids with US size student loans that will do those jobs for $20-30k a year. Indian kids with no student loans will, again because they get a legal way into the country in the bargain. I'm not too lazy to work for $20k, but I am too proud to sell my skills for that pittance, especially since I know they're worth far higher than that on a market where companies can't force me to compete on price with some kid from New Delhi. Increasing H1B visa limits isn't allowing companies to fill jobs that are otherwise unfillable because Americans are lazy. It's allowing them to force American citizens to compete on labor price with third world economies and much weaker currencies than ours. It's labor price fixing. Pure and simple. Take the job for half what it should pay, or we bring in some third world immigrant who will be more than happy to come over for next to nothing so he can attend graduate school at American universities, raise a family here that will have American citizenship, and quite frankly probably doesn't realize that $30k a year in US dollars isn't actually that much money. I see your point, but somebody coming out of college should take the 30K/year job and realize it's just a starting salary. I swallowed my pride and took the 23K/year job when I got out of college. Great if you get to be the one who snags the high salary job right out of school, but if not- take that starting salary and make it rain.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 2, 2015 23:22:20 GMT -5
... I swallowed my pride and took the 23K/year job when I got out of college. ... And if they can get enough to do this, they will make 20k.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Mar 18, 2015 23:04:06 GMT -5
That's how they justify it, but I've found there are basically no jobs that Americans are too lazy to do. There are however jobs that Americans won't do at certain wage levels. I flatly refuse to live in shitty bunk housing with no running water and pick strawberries for $3 an hour. Won't do it. There are far too many better opportunities out there. I'm not too good to pick strawberries, but I am too good to do it for $3 an hour and five square feet of sleeping space in a tiny trailer crammed with bunk beds that I share with 20 other people. Illegals from south of the border will work for that just to get a legal way into the country knowing that if they get hitched and have a kid they get to stay for life. Same deal with H1B visas. Companies are saying they can't find database admins, programmers, and all kinds of IT specialties in the US. Everyone knows it's bullshit. Our universities pump out tens of thousands of them ever year. What they can't find are US kids with US size student loans that will do those jobs for $20-30k a year. Indian kids with no student loans will, again because they get a legal way into the country in the bargain. I'm not too lazy to work for $20k, but I am too proud to sell my skills for that pittance, especially since I know they're worth far higher than that on a market where companies can't force me to compete on price with some kid from New Delhi. Increasing H1B visa limits isn't allowing companies to fill jobs that are otherwise unfillable because Americans are lazy. It's allowing them to force American citizens to compete on labor price with third world economies and much weaker currencies than ours. It's labor price fixing. Pure and simple. Take the job for half what it should pay, or we bring in some third world immigrant who will be more than happy to come over for next to nothing so he can attend graduate school at American universities, raise a family here that will have American citizenship, and quite frankly probably doesn't realize that $30k a year in US dollars isn't actually that much money. I see your point, but somebody coming out of college should take the 30K/year job and realize it's just a starting salary. I swallowed my pride and took the 23K/year job when I got out of college. Great if you get to be the one who snags the high salary job right out of school, but if not- take that starting salary and make it rain. Well, I'm sure there are some areas of IT that pay that badly. Certainly if your skillset is stale or you are in an oversaturated field. But if your skillset is up to date and in demand, you'll do a heck of a lot better than $30k, even if you graduate school at just the wrong time like I did. But keeping your skills up to date and in demand takes work, and not everyone is willing to put in that kind of time.
|
|