I think one easy thing to do to ensure that small cos and rural areas still have access is to require all h1b hires to be level 4, the highest level. As it stands now more than 70% are hired at levels 1 and 2 (2018 data), which are essentially "below average" which is weird for a program aimed at bringing in those with hard to find skills.
I was browsing the H-1B data out there. Some jobs seemed like borderline first level customer service jobs when I went looking at what was at the location listed.....way way not the kind of job that is hard to find people for... provided you pay reasonably well.
H1B doesn't really have a job market test. You just need to justify it's a job that requires a bachelor's degree and pays whatever the DOL wage data says should be the prevailing wage for that classification. It's not that difficult to game the system by playing around with job level, title and location and getting away with the lowest possible pay. This is basically the business model of staffing agencies and contractors.
It's also being used by many genuine employers looking for talent and highly specialized skills. Cost isn't a concern here as their business model relies on making the best product.
Unless it's specified to be 120k hard cash, it would turn into 120k total compensation including company accommodation worth 60k/year, various practically-not-claimable options, or others ways.
The current "prevailing wage determination" includes fringe benefits already. There's definitely a way to play with those to redirect it back to the company.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, unless you have a citation for this. The base pay has to be more than prevailing wage. You can't count any kind of bonus or stock-based compensation. This is based on personal experience.
Right. I understand that as "H-1B holders can't be offered an inferior health plan/401k plan/commuter benefits/bonus plan/FSA than US employees". But none of those things count toward the prevailing wage calculation. Only base pay is considered when determining whether the employee is paid more than prevailing wage.
The first and second largest public companies in the world by market cap hire a lot of H-1Bs and are not in the Bay Area and pay more than this proposed floor.
This is a silly idea because only a small percentage of professions enjoy such high salaries, so the only thing you would do if you implement something like that is end up with a disproportionate number of people with such jobs. Furthermore, companies in certain geographic areas (e.g. Silicon Valley) would rejoice, because they would be able to hire an even greater number of foreign workers before the quotas get filled.
There are much, much better ways to fix the issues with H-1B visas. The first and most important thing that needs to happen is no longer tying the visa to the employer. Once we make it so that people on H-1B can freely move around in the labor market during the course of their visa, they would automatically gain the ability to command higher wages, which would result in employers rely on foreign labor less (since it would be more expensive), and only hiring foreigners who are actually skilled and exceptional.
The problem is that skill and salary don't correlate as much as it should. As bad as we are at taxing negative externalities, we're terrible at rewarding positive externalities.
As it is we are bringing in folks on H1Bs who appear to be borderline first level customer support (this was something I ran into browsing the online DB a while back).
At least at 120k you know that the company involved really does value this employee to some extent. They're not likely to spend 120k on someone easily hired locally for far less.
> It is supposed to be a program for highly skilled people
No, it's a program for employers.
> but is often abused to just bring in cheaper people.
That's what it is obviously designed for, within limits, and any contrary explanation requires hoping the person you selling it to doesn't understand the relation between supply, demand, and price.
> If they are really difficult spots to fill and important, them the pay should be no issue.
Pay is always an issue; importance just sets the exact level of pay at which it becomes not worth it to hire.
