Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

A disgusting video: U.S. companies sell out Americans

If you thought some of the CEOs caught up in the scandals of WorldCom, ENRON, and TYCO were heartless and greedy, watch this video from Cohen & Grigsby. The people on this video make them look like saints. Why? Because the people on the video have no regard for people trying to make a living to support their families.

Think about all the average Joes and Janes out there in the last couple of years that have not been able to find a good job in information technology, finance, and many other disciplines when they had skills, a degree or two and had all the experience and certifications that supposedly are what companies look for.

They were told that they were overqualified. They were told they were not right for the job. They were told they were not experienced in a certain area and many other lame HR excuses that they knew something wasn't right, but they couldn't prove that their concerns were valid. This left many people concerned about their future as well as their financial well-being.

As one person told me after viewing the video, “I saw this video recently... I've wondered about this phenomenon (about not getting a response), and now I know the reason why.”

Is cheaper really better?
Advertisement
So many went off and took lesser paying jobs in the last several years because the doors were systematically closed on them by some who thought “cheaper was better.” I highlighted this in several articles going back to 2002, when I wrote this:

“Hire cheap or hire well. What happens at your company, time will tell.” Someone that takes a job that pays cheap is just using it as a temporary desk and phone to arrange for their next position. Someone that is paid well is going to work well.

The people on the video have to rate very high on the “sell your brother out to make a buck” scale.

Conspiracy for discrimination?

This is discrimination on a massive scale. Phony ads in the paper when there really are no jobs - at least not for Americans?

Disqualifying people because they are "overqualified," which is just corporate-speak for “too expensive”. Bring in qualified people and just go through the motions interviewing them so you can justify hiring a non-citizen because you can claim there were no qualified applicants who are citizens. These are just some of the tricks these people have suggested, and companies have implemented, in order to bring in cheaper labor.

Any HR person who followed this doctrine has absolutely no integrity, but they probably did it in order to keep their own job. As a friend of mine once said, “This business has gotten so bad, it has gone from dog-eat-dog to rat-eat-rat.”

Lou Dobbs weighed in on this on YouTube, and it should be played as much as Paris Hilton getting out of jail. Where is the outrage? Where are the unions?

So what has all this wrought?

With some letters from senators going to the Department of Labor, the department says it is going to look into this. Hmmm. The best thing that could happen would be to take all the people in the Department of Labor and let them find new jobs because they have not done anything on this issue.

Maybe the best way they could understand the plight of these Americans would be to be lay off themselves, look for a job, and be told they have no skills by one company, and then be told by another company that they are “overqualified.” Think about the frustration people went through. Some are still going through it.

I knew of several people who sent hundreds of resumes into companies and did not even get one response. I sent the link to this video to them. Maybe just getting their resumes was justification enough for the company to claim they had enough interest from American citizens who they deemed unqualified or “overqualified” so they could hire a cheaper foreign worker.

One person called after watching and said he felt he wasted days trying to send resumes that were just going into the garbage.

“Best Practices” are not found in bureaucracies, and best workers are not always found halfway around the world.

High underemployment rates

Unemployment rates may be 4.5 percent but underemployment rates are very high. No one tracks that so we can only estimate, but it is a real issue as many in the Midwest still suffer from job losses that happened four to five years ago.

The long-term aftermath of this fiasco is a flurry of foreclosures that is still on the increase, more credit card spending, and the general weakening of the economy that economists either fail to recognize or just fail to incorporate into their findings.

CARLINI-ISM: Hiring practices are a sham. There is more talent on the street than there are at many companies.

Recent articles by James Carlini

James Carlini: No network infrastructure, no Olympics, no nothing

James Carlini: Technology and mergers: Getting the strategic applications

James Carlini: Bridging the digital divide is the wrong battle cry

James Carlini: New Urbanism: Community planning Feng Shui

James Carlini: Mega-Metro Center may go beyond Chicago and Wisconsin

James Carlini is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University, and is president of Carlini & Associates. He can be reached at james.carlini@sbcglobal.net or 773-370-1888. Check out his blog at http://www.carliniscomments.com.

This article previously appeared in MidwestBusiness.com, and was reprinted with its permission.

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC.

WTN accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.

Comments

Dr. Gene A. Nelson responded 1 year ago: #1

Professor Carlini hit the nail on the head again! If you have not yet seen the video - and seven other related videos, please use the search function at YouTube.com. Input the two words "Cohen" and "Immigration."

As an under-employed American citizen and a high-technology professional, I am not surprised by the revelations on the Cohen & Grigsby videos. I and millions of others have suffered the loss of trillions of dollars in livelihood since 1990. The callous indifference of these so-called legal professionals is clearly documented. I sincerely hope that they receive meaningful sanctions for their roles in criminal enterprises.

Their conduct seems to be part of a larger pattern of the U.S. economic elite to profit from illegal and unethical behavior - and shift the externalities to, as Leona Helmsley said in 1989, the "little people."

When I was informed in March, 2007 about the latest plans of the "cheap labor lobby," I noted that the centerpiece of "comprehensive immigration reform" was likely an expansion of the controversial H-1B visa program because of the profit margins associated with it. We heard William Gates III give a two-hour speech to the Senate HELP Committee on March 7, 2007, demanding "infinite" H-1B visas without any rebuttals from harmed American citizens. Buried in S.1348 and S. 1639 were plans to double or triple the corrupt H-1B visa program.
Link is here.

Employer interests have already indicated that they will now press for a "stand alone" bill to dramatically increase the H-1B cap.

Illegal immigration is very relevant to this controversy as government statistics indicate that 41 percent of illegal aliens are visa overstayers. Most of the people in this category work in high skill fields. Using the estimate of 20 million U.S. illegal aliens, that means 8.2 million high skill jobs are filled by illegal aliens. No wonder high tech firms want yet another amnesty! They want the benefits, but not the legal liabilities.

One of the best summaries of the problem with the H-1B visa program was given by the now late Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate and free-market advocate. Dr. Milton Friedman said in a 2002 article that it was a "government subsidy."
http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/story/0,10801,72848,00.html
(It is interesting that this article was written by Paul Donnelly, who served as Rep. Morrison's press secretary. Rep. Morrison (D-CT) was considered to be the father of the H-1B visa program in 1990.)

To get some insight into why these controversial visa programs are promoted, despite strong opposition from U.S. citizens, please Google on the phrase "Abramoff Visa." (40 hits on July 5, 2007) Abramoff Visa is a term that this author applies to the controversial H-1B visa program. Lawyer - lobbyist Jack Abramoff served as a Microsoft lobbyist starting in 1995. "Team Abramoff" played an important role in procuring legislative changes to the H-1B visa program that benefitted Microsoft in 1996, 1998, and 2000.

Wisconsin Technology Network readers shouldn't be surprised to learn that Jack Abramoff ALSO steered funds to Harry Reid (D-NV.) Sen. Reid is led the battle on S. 1348 (Just renumbered as S. 1639) On the Republican Senate side, Sen. Mitch McConnell led the call for more immigrants - and amnesty for EMPLOYERS. Mitch's wife is Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Labor (DoL). The DoL has been very "employer friendly" under "Dragon Lady" Chao.

Bob responded 1 year ago: #2

Great Commentary!

You wrote: "Lou Dobbs weighed in on this on YouTube, and it should be played as much as Paris Hilton getting out of jail. Where is the outrage? Where are the unions?"

I might add where are the tech/engineering associations on this issue?

It was www.programmersguild.org that broke the story wide open by its posting on YouTube. Where are the rest of the other engineering-tech societies claiming to represent the interests of their membership? I fear they are being controlled by those needing their cheap labor. That is why they have been silent.

Bob

daver responded 1 year ago: #3

I'm still wondering who these "over qualified" IT people are who couldn't find a good paying job. What a joke.

www.JobDestruction.info responded 1 year ago: #4

Go here to see the entire set of videos that Cohen & Grigsby posted on youtube.

http://lyrelyrepantzandfier.com/

Barb responded 1 year ago: #5

Your point about underemployment was right on target. How many of us were told there must be something wrong with us or our job seeking tactics because "look at all these openings!" Between these fake PERM ads and all the duplicate ads by contingency staffing firms, it was often baffling as to why we were having such trouble getting interviews and re-employment. How many of us are left the profession? I know there were more suicides than Kevin Flanagan.

Nick responded 1 year ago: #6

Thank you so much for writing this article. Your assessment that unemployment figures are meaningless and that it is underemployment that is spot on. In terms of roles and responsibilities, I am doing less now than I was 10 years ago. Why? Because after a year of searching, I was desperate. And oddly enough, I receive resumes for positions that report to me from people who could easily do far more challenging or rewarding work, but it's just not out there in adequate numbers. Unemployment stats are, frankly, a scam.

Bill responded 1 year ago: #7

We can't find enough qualified IT people to fill open positions. Seek and ye shall find.

Ryan D. Hatch responded 1 year ago: #8

This is an outrage. The people managing these companies have an blatant disrespect for their neighbors and their community. It comes down to one core issue - Greed. Really - what can we do? What are our options - besides cheat, steal, and get a job in HR?

Robert T. Merrill responded 1 year ago: #9

Like American manufacturers, American IT firms and individuals are going to have to figure out how to compete. We have to know when, where, and at what price we can deliver superior value, and be able to prove that to a potential customer or employer.

The American cultural norm is to maximize profit. For executives of public companies, this is reinforced by a legal responsibility to maximize stock price. Given this, shame is unlikely to change things. Legal or legislative protection is also unlikely any time soon.

Under such conditions, people will buy and hire on price, unless they are SURE there is additional value in paying more. What do customers and employers value from IT firms and employees, and are we providing that? Are we even listening? If manufacturing is any example, we will have to find niches, and we will have to understand and apply lean thinking. And we'll have to quantify value.

For me (software person), I have to know what is my cost to produce an ounce of finished software, and what is the business impact of that ounce. If I can change the conversation from cost per hour to value per ounce, and then listen to what customers need, I may have a chance.

www.ufunctional.com

BJ responded 1 year ago: #10

When it is now legal to discriminate on the basis of national orgin, then it is all over for the U.S. IT worker. We will see a brain drain as they leave for other countries where there are actually companies who care about actually getting the job done right.

global_programmer responded 1 year ago: #11

Response to this article from an immigrant who himself has gone though this process:

There is no need to feel this shock at this point in time since these asinine immigration laws were created by the U.S. goverment decades ago. The law firms, US DOL and USCIS know that the ONLY way to get a green card for a foreign employer ( whether they are genuinely the highly skilled or average ) is to go through the motions of the Labor certification process.

The talking head protectionists headed by Lou Dobbs have convinced the Amerian public and senators that there is no need for an immigration reform. Canada, UK, Australia, and countries in Europe have point systems that leaves little room for exploitation. In a free market, the fittest will survive-others shall perish.

There is nothing unethical with what the lawyer did. In fact, judging by the YouTube video, he is very competent and served the interests of his client. This is what every U.S. immigration attorney is expected to do according to the laws (remember this is the ONLY legal process that exists now).

The biggest joke is that DOL is "surprised" and "investigating" these practices, when they know that there are no other options for a legal skilled professional.

JAMES CARLINI responded 1 year ago: #12

In reading some of the comments it is clear that some of you only understand parts of trade agreements and how "business is done" in the United States

And, you have no distinction between fair competition to what amounts to the equivalent of product dumping.

It is not so much a matter of "protectionism" as it is a matter of "product dumping" of cheap labor.

There are very strict laws protecting companies from foreign companies that could come in and dump cheap products into the market. Those products are strictly regulated. The reason that foreign car companies have plants here is so they can exceed those limits by manufacturing here. Otherwise, they would be restricted to a quota. Agricultural products are also tightly "protected" against cheaper foreign products. I am sure you have heard of farm subsidies as well as price supports. Pharmaceuticals are protected too. (i.e. banning Canadian drugs)

If you don't understand any of this - do the research.

When it comes to labor - all of of this unethical approach to creating phony job ads, going-through-the-motion interviews, and other blatant discriminatory practices are not acceptable, just like product dumping is not acceptable.

Those of you that cannot see the unethical practice in this are probably the same who work cheap. Cheap doesn't equate to good, it doesn't equate to quality - it is what it is.

The loopholes have to be closed as it does not do this economy any good in the long-term to bring highly skilled jobs into an overnight plunge in opportunities and pay scales - not for better quality and not for rare skills but simply for cheaper costs which some look at as a great cost-savings when actually it does long-term damage.

As to saying these lawyers are doing the "right" thing and there is no "other option for a legal skilled professional," give me a break.

As the old adage for labor states - Fast, Good or Cheap - pick two.

Brad Ward responded 1 year ago: #13

There have always been problems with the free markets when it is influenced by government subsidies to corporations like H1B visas. To explain simply what's going on, consider this thought experiment:

There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can't figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for more H1B visas to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government agrees with seller #1 and decides to increase the H1B visa quota. Like magic, the labor rates fall as predicted because of the increase labor supply, and this makes seller #1 happy. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost. This in turn, allows their profits to increase because they are still selling high. If seller #2 doesn't take advantage of the H1B visas or the resulting new labor rates, then their profit will be lower because they are still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. Well seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they take advantage of H1B visas as well. So who wins and who loses? Since the labor rate obviously goes down, then the workers for seller #1 and #2 will take a financial loss.

That's what happens when the government intervenes. The government basically allowed the sellers to profit at the expense of someone else-the workers. This may not be the intention, but it is certainly the result. Now, let's consider what happens without government intervention:
There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can't figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for more H1B visas to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government disagrees with seller #1 and decides to not to increase the H1B visa quota. Seller #1 is not happy and goes back to management with a different strategy. This time seller #1 decides to improve their manufacturing process to be more efficient and increase productivity. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost because they were innovative. In turn, this allows their profits to increase because they are still able to sell high or even slightly lower than before they were innovative. If seller #2 doesn't become more innovative, then his profits will be lower because he is still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. Well seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they become more innovative. So who wins and who loses? Everyone wins because these two sellers are doing more with less. The results are lower supply costs and increased profits that benefit their shareholders and workers. Moreover, the buyers of their products benefit because the price of their products will ultimately decrease.

We're essentially making a choice between capitalism and socialism. Should the government make rules that benefit one at the expense of another?

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement

-More Stories

WTN Media Presents