H-1B workers outnumber unemployed techies - InfoWorld.com

The U.S. said it is "prepared to demonstrate to the court the manner in which the defendant's (Visions Systems Group, an IT firm in South Plainfield, NJ) schemes, along with similar schemes by similar companies have substantially deprived U.S. citizens of employment." The government then points out that "in January of 2009, the total number of workers employed in the information technology occupation under the H-1B program substantially exceeded the 241,000 unemployed U.S. citizen workers within the same occupation."

The U.S. government's brief doesn't explain to what extent fraud is responsible for tech worker unemployment, or cite sources for its data. Estimates of the size of the tech labor force depend on what government labor categories are included.

While I don't disagree in the least, it will be interesting to see where more information on the data the U.S. is using to make this case. Cases like this may be more prevalent thanks to an amendment to the recent stimulus bill U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) presented and helped pass requiring any firm receiving TARP money to meet a higher standard for employing H-1B workers by automatically categorizing those firms as 'H-1B dependent', a status which "include attesting to actively recruiting American workers; not displacing American workers with H-1B visa holders; and not replacing laid off American workers with foreign workers."

Although I am on record as not having a lot of faith in 'good faith' measures where it's already been shown to be a flawed approach (as in the H-1B program), I *do* like tying requirements to TARP money (just a shame they didn't tie bonuses to it as well...)

Maybe Obama should send some TARP money Microsoft's way as well...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chrysler lenders aim to stop sale | BBC.com

Some people just have gall. Others have stones that would make William Wallace proud.

Creditors object to the way the restructuring benefits the United Auto Workers union, which is an unsecured creditor, for the $10.6bn Chrysler owes to its retiree healthcare fund.

In addition, they say the anonymity request is because they feel they are unfairly becoming the focus for a political backlash.

Unfairly, eh? Hmm.

An interesting perspective. I suspect that legally, these lenders may be technically correct. In fact, having worked for some time in the investment banking industry, and having also processed bankruptcy filings in the credit collection industry, I'm pretty confident they are.

However, I wonder if the bankruptcy courts might consider this precedent-setting approach germane: The debt obligation that Chrysler has incurred with the UAW Healthcare Fund has been 'secured' in advance through the years of prior labor contributions by the employee who is now entitled to those benefits? And perhaps there is no more 'senior' standing than that. Your mileage may vary, but it's certainly food for thought.

Perhaps someone could file an Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court") brief on this point of view...

And I'd be just as concerned about 'political backlash' if I were part of a overt effort to force Chrysler into bankruptcy just because I'm holding prioritized debt instruments from Chrysler as a 'Senior Secured Creditor'. I'm quite sure that, instead of gross grandstanding about the egregious profits they've made over the years, they're now worried that people will find out that in order to collect on their current 'winnings', they'll need to disenfranchise all those workers whose labor has enriched the inherent value of their current holdings.

Oh, and not that I'd be surprised but, if I were the judge on this case, I'd want to see the police reports on those 'death threats' before I gave that claim much traction.

Then again, we do live in interesting times.

Powered by ScribeFire.