If the PERM process at Apple is anything like what I saw at Facebook a couple of years ago, then all these “applicants” are actually people already working at the company on non-immigrant visas whom the company wants to retain.
There is no reason to assume that they’re being paid any less than others at Apple. They’re already in the country and have been doing the work for years. Why not give them a path to a green card? Why make the company jump through hoops like having to advertise a position that’s not actually open?
I’ll admit that I’m biased because I was in this process at one point. But the notion that I was taking the job of a native-born American was ridiculous because I had been doing the job in London before. So if anything, I brought a UK job to USA. And to turn that into a green card, the company would have to advertise the job on their website. It makes no sense.
> If the PERM process at Apple is anything like what I saw at Facebook a couple of years ago, then all these “applicants” are actually people already working at the company on non-immigrant visas whom the company wants to retain.
Indeed. I really doubt Apple prefers foreigners in their hiring (it's a rather significant hassle to bring somebody in). If anything, citizens have some edge.
But once an immigrant has been hired, the PERM process essentially would require trying to hire for that position again, and employers (not just Apple) are anything but motivated to replace an experienced and qualified employee with several years' experience at the company with an untested new hire, so they treat this process as a Kabuki performance.
I highly doubt it’s a top-down decision to prefer foreign applicants at Apple. But that said, it’s common in FAANG to find scenarios where a manager is of a certain background, and 90% of the people under just happen to be of the same background, and nobody says anything.
That's very common with one or two specific demographic, but not all that common with most others. I'll refrain from naming them, but it's widely known i suppose.
All I have to go on is 20+ years of employment at Apple, including several years as a H1B and Green Card holder. Can't possibly compete with your sincerely held beliefs.
> Citizens have also more rights and companies love to have these clause that make you get your head down and work no questions asked
This is undoubtedly the case for some H1B employers, but Apple is not a body shop style operation. Firings are extremely rare, H1Bs and citizens work side by side, and I have never seen the former more hesitant to speak up than the latter.
You might want to entertain the thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability, but because they were genuinely qualified.
> The solution here is to increase and qualify the local workforce
That would definitely be helpful. But the trend seems to go the other way, with it being fashionable for opinion leaders to tell people to forego college, and education becoming more and more of a luxury.
> and at the same time make the bar even higher for those from outside
… forcing companies who prefer to hire the best qualified candidates over those with the "right" passport to shift their development activities elsewhere.
Its naive to think expanding the labor pool wouldnt reduce labor costs. Its supply and demand/economics 101. And obviously they (and every other company) is going to complain they cant fill positions locally in order to gain access to this cheaper pool.
If you're posting something is econ 101 you're probably wrong, and you're especially wrong if you claim adding people increases supply but not demand. People ARE demand.
Labor economists don't use "econ 101", and importantly they prefer empirical evidence over theory.
What a ridiculous take. There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). Then there are people to fill those positions (thats supply). You shift the demand/supply balance by expanding the supply pool. This is an extremely simple concept that you've somehow made complicated for yourself.
People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.
> There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand).
The number of job openings isn't constant over longer than like a day. What you're doing here is called partial equilibrium analysis.
> People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.
That you missed econ 201?
People are demand because they buy things. Employees increase demand for other employees because jobs are created by "comparative advantage", and as long as your company is growing it's not possible to run out of that, although it does grow more specialized.
What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals?
"Power" also seeks competence. There's no one aspect that is sought is enough to to drown out all the others when hiring, at least not without an outside force requiring it.
Do employers want employees that are easy to deal with? Obviously. Is that more important then skill and ability? It depends not only on the employer, but also probably the job being hired for, but nobody wants to hire an unqualified candidate over a qualified one.
> What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals?
Part of being a Marxist (parent comment) or an anti-immigrationist (grandparent comment) is that you're required to believe any statement anyone makes that has the right words in it. Even though you have no evidence for them.
Is FAANG hiring a lot of people from Cuba, North Korea or Iran?
Although Iranians are pretty good at tech and I know a sr. distinguished Iranian engineer at Apple. That's even better than distinguished! Can't beat that.
I can't recall ever having met a Cuban or North Korean engineer at Apple. But I've worked with some outstanding Iranian engineers. They did not strike me as particularly likely to spy for their country…
I too believe there has to be reform, but I also believe this is Apple being lazy/doing this for convenience.
If the individuals are more skilled than citizens, the Apple should have been prepared to open the interviews for those jobs to everyone (including citizens and permanent residents), selected the (person they knew to have been) the best and gotten the paperwork in order. The subterfuge would be completely unnecessary if they applied under the correct visa class and skills of those involved are as advertised.
There is no such thing as correct class. Broadly speaking, there are temporary workers who can eventually become permanent residents. And almost everyone needs to go through the same process which involves this PERM business. And everyone needs to participate in this charade of hiring someone once, then pretending that they don't have the employee, and then emerging victorious by putting out an ad that only that person satisfies. The competition and interviews already happened when the person was first hired.
> Broadly speaking, there are temporary workers who can eventually become permanent residents.
The laws governing immigration are very specific about the distinctions between visa classes and the requirements for each class- and the devil is in the details.
> The competition and interviews already happened when the person was first hired.
Perhaps, but that is your and Apple's (tacit) opinions. The government of the United States disagrees, and Apple just paid $25 million dollars to avoid getting this issue in front of a judge.
The difference in perspective, AFAICT, is you think a GC is a reward for getting a job after besting others (including citizens) in interviews. The government's contention is that the bar is higher: PERM is for jobs no American citizen or permanent resident are able and willing to do[1]. There are separate visa classes for being merely good, and being irreplaceable. Pretending that a candidate who is in the former group belongs to the latter by posting jobs on a noticeboard in an unlit basement without stairs is dishonest.
1. "The DOL must certify to the USCIS that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment"
This horse and pony show is a farce, most of us agree. But the fact is, if you don't dangle this GC reward, much fewer people would come to the US for work and study. The "irreplaceable" term is vague enough that if you strictly enforce it, it would effectively shut down this class of visa. Ask yourself this: how many people in your department would be 100% sure to keep their position if their job is offered up to the public again?
Some would welcome the reduced influx of immigrants. But in the long term, it would cripple the US. If an individual can convince a company to sponsor them, they are already highly qualified and productive to society. If you deny even these people from immigrating here, then who would you let in? You turn them away and China or the EU would gladly take them. Meanwhile, you lose a significant portion of your workforce that contribute tax without ever withdrawing from it and a lot of research and development at the PhD and master levels done at minimum wages.
The current situation benefits the US a lot. There is a reason why they are hesitating to make any big reform. The US is having the chance to exploit the world's best and brightest all for a few pieces of paper a year. At most there are 140K permanent residents being made each year via this route. It is insignificant compared to the millions of US college graduate annually. The argument about "they took our jobs" is not really valid to me.
> You turn them away and China or the EU would gladly take them.
Firstly, there's a good reason the people in question want to go the US instead of China or the EU. EU salaries are much lower and the local language is always a barrier. The same holds for China, salaries can be higher but not US level and then there's all the other obvious drawbacks of living there.
Secondly, China also wouldn't gladly take them, it's the direct opposite
There is no green card category for being irreplaceable. PERM is for situations where it's difficult to find equally good US workers, with "equally good" left intentionally vague. The idea is that the employer is expected to argue convincingly that the foreign applicant is clearly the best person for the job. That's inherently subjective, but most things in immigration and the job market are.
Sometimes there is a shortage of domestic candidates with sufficient qualifications and experience in the general field. Sometimes the job is highly specialized, and nobody outside of a handful of internal candidates can possibly do it without extensive training. Sometimes the candidate was selected according to the established standards of a profession, and the job only exists for that particular person. And so on.
A fake application process is dishonest, regardless of whether it looks like a real job opportunity or is intentionally kept hidden. But if the process is open and you know in advance that no other candidate can possibly qualify, you are being not only dishonest but also impolite. Unrelated people may apply thinking it's a real job opportunity, wasting their time.
>>The difference in opinion, AFAICT, is you think a GC is a reward for getting a job after besting others (including citizens) in interviews.
No, the difference in opinion is the absurdity of it all. To the extent that the government (DOL) can influence the labor market, for any practical benefit, it needs to do so at the outset and quickly. The market is already altered here with a large immigrant workforce where there are no restrictions on being a temporary worker - even for years or decades. They just have fewer rights. And it doesn't even work as intended. Let's say that Apple wants to hire a permanent employee directly. The PERM process takes a year. Should every company just wait for a year so that DOL can get it together before they can hire employees ? They do what the current regulations permit - bring them as temp workers and let the PERM thing resolve in the background.
They are not supposed to jump through hoops. They created these positions, did not advertise them externally like other jobs the solicit for nor accept electronic submissions. You know those job notices in some random “break room” stapled to the notification board? That’s what this is and why they got nailed.
> There is no reason to assume that they’re being paid any less than others at Apple.
Sure there is. The fact that permanent residency costs money and is often desirable means that there is value in a PERM position over a comparable one with no path to permanent residency. Therefore it is only natural for applicants to require less money to find the compensation desirable.
I'm not sure this is obvious.
1) Apple is a multi-national company, and hires an employee in the UK.
2) This employee relocates to the US
At what point do they displace the US citizen? All Apple jobs are not earmarked for US citizens (+residents, etc...), and they're already doing the job when they move to the US. Unless they're hired abroad for the express purpose of relocating to the US, then it's not "obvious" to me that they've displaced anyone.
Suppose I work in an org with dev teams in multiple countries. If I relocate from one site to another, am I freeing up a slot in the country I leave and taking one in the country I move to?
According to TFA, the discrimination happens when Apple doesn’t adequately look for a U.S. employee and instead chooses to to relocate you to the US. How is that not obvious? If Apple is happy to hire you in the UK and you’re happy to live there, the DOJ isn’t going to ask many questions.
This discussion is about EB2/green card process, not L1/H1 visa that employee is given when relocating to the US. That is why it is not obvoius. In a lot of cases, an employee works in UK (or another European) office for many years, then moves to the US on L1A visa, works there for several years, applies to green card (not with intent to stay in US forever, but because L1 visa (and H1 too) cannot be extended for more than 5/6 years). Then to get this EB2/green card document employer has to pretend that they plan to replace this person who is already working in this organization for 10 or more years. It is not specific for Apple, Intel is doing the same when a CPU architect from Haifa or fab engineer from Dublin is working in Hillsboro for several years and decide to stay for a few more years. Or google bringing someone from Zurich.
Right, but the argument that the original comment was making is that the government's policy is incorrect.
My comment argues that independent of government policy, relocating an existing employee from one country to another does not consume a position that was otherwise free, unless the employee was hired expressly for the purpose of relocation.
Unpopular opinion that throws a wrench into the whole h1b/eb1/eb2 debate. Being a rando sde (even at faang) isn't specialized. We have tpms getting eb1c (the einstein gc) which has now been backlogged for good reason. I think any loosening on h1bs/ebxs etc should coincide with the upping of the requirements to the o1 visa - https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... but even this can be gamed.
This is what economists call a "partial equilibrium" analysis. This is a polite(?) academic way of saying it's wrong.
Hiring workers does not displace other workers because they come with increased demand for labor of their own. It does increase specialization on the team because you need to find comparative advantage, but that's nearly as much of an issue.
Ah, Ricardo. Did you know he was a stockbroker who made his fortune scamming clients and bought himself a peerage with the loot? Not relevant but a fun biographical detail.
Anyhow his theory rests on assumptions that are nonsensical in today’s economy.[1]
Instead we have “labor arbitrage” which is to say workers being displaced.
> Obviously you displaced a US citizen unless you’re trying to advance the risible position that no US citizen could do what you do.
I didn't displace anyone because the headcount in my department was global, not tied to location.
I know it's hard to accept for people with old-fashioned nationalist ideas about immigration, but a lot of well-paid jobs these days can be done anywhere in the world.
These are not jobs in America, but rather they are jobs at American companies. And with these immigration policies you're doing your best to make sure the job doesn't get done in America.
For myself, I left the US but still work for an American company. They pay me a California-level salary but I pay my taxes to Finland. From your point of view that must be somehow better than if I was doing the same job but paying taxes to USA? You're losing out on the tax revenue, but at least you don't have people like me as neighbors, so all is good, I guess.
If the PERM process at Apple is anything like what I saw at Facebook a couple of years ago, then all these “applicants” are actually people already working at the company on non-immigrant visas whom the company wants to retain.
There is no reason to assume that they’re being paid any less than others at Apple. They’re already in the country and have been doing the work for years. Why not give them a path to a green card? Why make the company jump through hoops like having to advertise a position that’s not actually open?
I’ll admit that I’m biased because I was in this process at one point. But the notion that I was taking the job of a native-born American was ridiculous because I had been doing the job in London before. So if anything, I brought a UK job to USA. And to turn that into a green card, the company would have to advertise the job on their website. It makes no sense.