hello uppercutbus,
I already told you, there is no claim about being able (or not) to sue a company for outsourcing. It's generally regarded that you can't. The only reason they where able to was because of how egregious it was and the manner they handled their firing. I think you're missing the point of the article and the ones I posted that an outsourcing problem exists in the I.T. and support field. The sue part is happened for the reasons given, it doesn't disprove there is an outsourcing problem.
They could sue for wrongful termination and lose, that doesn't mean their jobs weren't outsourced.
the articles you posted earlier was a reddit conversation (which i glanced at, but i don't consider reddit to be a bullet proof source...its very hit and miss, just like the War Room) and the link to the Molina hiring of H1B workers and the subsequent firing of native born workers (i don't read links from RT news).
the other reading i did on the Molina incident was all sourced and quoted from the litigants, with no comment from the company itself...so really, i've only got one side of the story, you know?
i've found that its generally hard to made a conclusion one way or the other when i've only got half the story.
the claim of the Molina litigants is that their jobs were "insourced" to the H1B workers. the thing is, even if this is true, it's also legal.
as the H1B program currently exists, as long as the employer pays an annual salary of $60,000 dollars, they can replace US workers to do these jobs.
Indeed. Great for companies, not so good for America or it's workers. Also your link mentions a lot of things you said there is no evidence for (H-1B abuses) and mentions the reforms proposed to combat them.
the article linked mentions that its painful to train your replacement...and that
does sound painful, but its not an abuse, nor is it illegal. the link mentions that companies are saving money by hiring foreigners through the H1B program, which
does sound bad for US workers...but again, its not illegal.
uppercutbus, i'm not arguing with you - i'm trying to get a better understanding of the topic.
these things you say that are bad for the displaced workers do sound bad, but as you noted, its great for ownership and its great for shareholders...and since many of these companies are competing on a global basis, it may in fact be great for the company (since their competitors also make use of global talent that may cost less).
*holds up his hand, amicably*
hear me out; why do so many US companies in textiles now make all their products overseas?
to compete.
its not purely some nefarious plot to put textile companies in the state i reside in (North Carolina) out of business (though that's precisely what happened), its to
survive.
would it have been a better outcome if Molina just packed up and moved their base of operations out of the country?
what's the argument for keeping the higher paid, American ITs in place, from a business perspective? what would you have done if you were Molina's CFO?
i'm not challenging you, i'm curious as to your take on it.
Would you agree the government and Trump are looking at it and planning bills for these sectors as my previous links have shown? If so then I'm pretty sure they looked into it and did a cost-benefit analysis resulting in a net negative to America for it's I.T. and support role workers. If you disagree the onus is on you to show it's a positive.
i can't speak one way or another on any Trump legislation, to be honest. in general, i've found their process to be...well...not-well-thought-out on a number of fronts. he's flip flopped on so many of his policy declarations, that's very hard to anticipate what his position will be tomorrow, or next week, or next month.
i have seen the broad outlines of the Durbin/Grassley proposal, but i'm not sure it will pass muster (Google...Apple...Facebook, a murderers row of lobbying power and dollars, will probably oppose it), and i'm not clear what loopholes will be written into their legislation.
- IGIT
