Trump fires CEO of TVA over replacing US tech workers with H1B workers(fox17.com)
fox17.com
Trump fires CEO of TVA over replacing US tech workers with H1B workers
https://fox17.com/news/local/trump-fires-tennessee-valley-authority-chair-citing-hiring-of-foreign-workers
134 comments
Firing the CEO of a federally owned corporation for abusing the H1B program is cracking down.
No, a minimal amount of selective enforcement is never cracking down. It can be an excuse, publicity stunt, etc but cracking down requires a wide scale enforcement effort.
Let’s suppose ~5% of all H1B’s are problematic... That’s ~9,000 per year so catching 1% of cases would be ~900 over the last decade.
Let’s suppose ~5% of all H1B’s are problematic... That’s ~9,000 per year so catching 1% of cases would be ~900 over the last decade.
Why shouldn't the government hold itself to a higher standard?
That sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to do, to selectively enforce higher standards on government organizations.
That sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to do, to selectively enforce higher standards on government organizations.
Holding the government to higher standards is completely reasonable. But an actual crackdown would presumably involve checking out most government agency’s contractors. FAA, Army, etc all use contractors that are doing the same things and these are federal agencies.
Personally I would love to see an H1B crackdown, but this isn’t it.
Personally I would love to see an H1B crackdown, but this isn’t it.
From the linked AP article:
> Trump made the announcement as he signed an executive order to require all federal agencies to complete an internal audit to prove they are not replacing qualified American workers with people from other countries. The White House said the order will help prevent federal agencies from unfairly replacing American workers with lower cost foreign labor.
> Trump made the announcement as he signed an executive order to require all federal agencies to complete an internal audit to prove they are not replacing qualified American workers with people from other countries. The White House said the order will help prevent federal agencies from unfairly replacing American workers with lower cost foreign labor.
This applies to themselves not their contractors. The lack of a profit motive means federal agencies have little interest in the H1B program directly.
At least that’s my understanding I don’t see the order on here yet: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
At least that’s my understanding I don’t see the order on here yet: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
The order can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... and mentions reviewing contractor compliance before even mentioning reviewing government hiring practice.
Review practices sure, but not actually do anything.
“Sec. 2. Review of Contracting and Hiring Practices.” ...
“Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget summarizing the results of the reviews required by subsections (a) through (c) of this section; recommending, if necessary, corrective actions that may be taken by the agency and timeframes to implement such actions; and proposing any Presidential actions that may be appropriate.”
Of note the election is only 91 days from now. He had just under 4 years to get something done and this is an executive order focused on submitting a report after the election.
“Sec. 2. Review of Contracting and Hiring Practices.” ...
“Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget summarizing the results of the reviews required by subsections (a) through (c) of this section; recommending, if necessary, corrective actions that may be taken by the agency and timeframes to implement such actions; and proposing any Presidential actions that may be appropriate.”
Of note the election is only 91 days from now. He had just under 4 years to get something done and this is an executive order focused on submitting a report after the election.
If you don’t do anything but rubber stamp your review, you are in a world of trouble when the administration audits your practices and finds violations.
The next administration is unlikely to have the same priorities. Meanwhile, they have a month after the election to submit this audit.
This is fair. What's happening here is purely political, but it would seem reasonable to apply such rules consistently.
Because selective enforcement of laws is so Un-American....
They didn’t abuse the program. They hired American companies who violated the rules.
Whitewashing the abuse through vendors does not absolve you of responsibility. It is your job as a CEO to know what is going on in your business. Implement better HR and vendor controls if you want to keep your job.
The abuse was brought to light (by the non-profit U.S. Tech Workers), and the executive branch executed on that information against a federally chartered corporation's chief executive. Whether it's selective or not is immaterial. Some violators will get away (unfortunately!), some will not. Try complaining to the officer as they write the ticket that everyone else was speeding too. Everyone else was, but you were the one who was pulled over and is getting the ticket.
The abuse was brought to light (by the non-profit U.S. Tech Workers), and the executive branch executed on that information against a federally chartered corporation's chief executive. Whether it's selective or not is immaterial. Some violators will get away (unfortunately!), some will not. Try complaining to the officer as they write the ticket that everyone else was speeding too. Everyone else was, but you were the one who was pulled over and is getting the ticket.
By firing violators are they not 'cracking down on abuse'?
No, the CEO didn’t violate any rules. The American contractors he hired did.
I mean, I'm always for increased accountability of CEO's. The buck stops there, he should know what was going on in his organization. That's pretty much the job description.
I would think they are going to go after the contractors as well. Criminal charges take more time. For example:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/26/h-1b-prison-for-visa-...
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/26/h-1b-prison-for-visa-...
> the CEO didn’t violate any rules
No, but he hired contractors who violated rules his ultimate boss, the President, has made a policy priority. As the head of a state-owned corporation, political instincts are part of the requirements.
No, but he hired contractors who violated rules his ultimate boss, the President, has made a policy priority. As the head of a state-owned corporation, political instincts are part of the requirements.
Isn’t it still ultimately the CEOs responsibility?
It's one thing to be fired.
It's another to be jailed.
I mean, how would you crack down on drug dealers?
I mean, how would you crack down on drug dealers?
You just nailed it. The best way to punish violators on government payrolls.
The H1-B hires (all 10 of them) and the outsourcing to US-based, but foreign owned, contractors are two different issues.
Not going to take a side on the politics but I think every CEO would like clarity on what the rules are. Is the policy not to higher H1B workers for public entities? Let the government issue a clear policy and then hold people accountable. It would be tough to run an organization and have to guess at what is not countenanced.
Considering that part of the TVA's original purpose was to provide jobs for American workers during the Great Depression, "don't hire H1Bs or send jobs overseas" actually seems like a reasonable stipulation.
It seems like this is a government owned corporation, so most private sector CEOs don't need to worry about this.
If you're a CEO of a government owned corporation, it seems like it has become a good idea to go out of your way to either a) hire local workers, or b) make sure you have a paper trail to prove you really needed those contractors for a reason other than cost savings.
If you're a CEO of a government owned corporation, it seems like it has become a good idea to go out of your way to either a) hire local workers, or b) make sure you have a paper trail to prove you really needed those contractors for a reason other than cost savings.
Is the problem not knowing the policy?
Or is the policy different depending on the political winds?
Two very different issues. If the policy is one way for one administration, and different for another, you're still in trouble. In fact, the policy can be one way for an administration, and then an election comes up and that administration needs some political points.
Or is the policy different depending on the political winds?
Two very different issues. If the policy is one way for one administration, and different for another, you're still in trouble. In fact, the policy can be one way for an administration, and then an election comes up and that administration needs some political points.
Well, if and when a new administration comes in, they can announce the new policy and then you have to abide by it. The new administration ought not to be able to punish you for the old policy.
My whole argument is premised on what ought to be. I don't disagree with you on what the case may actually be.
My whole argument is premised on what ought to be. I don't disagree with you on what the case may actually be.
It looks like Trump was attempting to do with the order that came along with this news.
> The executive order, Hira said, appears to provide “a way to ensure that ‘secondary employers’ — outsourcers — adhere to the H-1B attestations as though they are direct employers of the client.”
> Such a change, if enforced, should prevent abuses such as those reported at Southern California Edison and Disney, where workers allegedly had to train their own H-1B replacements, Hira said.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/03/h-1b-visa-president-t...
> The executive order, Hira said, appears to provide “a way to ensure that ‘secondary employers’ — outsourcers — adhere to the H-1B attestations as though they are direct employers of the client.”
> Such a change, if enforced, should prevent abuses such as those reported at Southern California Edison and Disney, where workers allegedly had to train their own H-1B replacements, Hira said.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/03/h-1b-visa-president-t...
This is off the AP Newswire, here's the AP original with a bit more detail: https://apnews.com/0336437987fec77627c17ca9a4c781bc
Trump acknowledged that he was made aware of the issue
after seeing a television ad ... that aired in prime time
on Fox News.
...
The ad, Lynn said, had an “audience of one,” aiming to
persuade Trump to stop the TVA from outsourcing much of
its information technology division.
This is nothing new. Take a political ad out on a major network it certain to get attention from any administration - even if just to look into the premise.
[deleted]
According to the article linked, Trump wants the new CEO to make less than $500k/year. Yet, according to this article from 2019, the CFO, COO, general council & chief nuclear officer are all making well over that. Who the hell is going to take the CEO job?
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2019/nov/15/...
Are you kidding? Most people make $50k not $500k. Lots of existing CEO's don't even make $500k.
They mean what qualified person is going to take that job. If you're qualified to run a company that size, you can make much more than $500k.
It is likely they will hire people who will only use the jobs as a stepping stone to private industry. They will take the low pay of government to prove their abilities, then jump to the private sector.
So long as it doesn’t become a revolving door project with workers influenced by private companies by promises of future employment, then I think the whole practice is fine.
So long as it doesn’t become a revolving door project with workers influenced by private companies by promises of future employment, then I think the whole practice is fine.
>They will take the low pay of government to prove their abilities, then jump to the private sector.
So the job of running a $10 billion dollar per year company that manages nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, and supplies power to millions of people is done by someone who hasn't yet proven they likely have the capability to do so?
This isn't a summer internship at the State Department.
So the job of running a $10 billion dollar per year company that manages nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, and supplies power to millions of people is done by someone who hasn't yet proven they likely have the capability to do so?
This isn't a summer internship at the State Department.
TWA has >8000 employees on LinkedIn & >$10B in revenue, getting a CEO who isn't making at a salary in the top 1% of US workers seems like a stretch.
Good. The TVA was created during the Great Depression to help the Tennessee Valley region develop (at the time one of the poorest parts of the US). Changes like this will help it get back to that original mission.
It's always interesting when unsavoury politics is mixed with the difficult realities of such programs.
The neoliberal benefits of H1's make sense, but the context has to be clear.
I think it would also make sense if at least public agencies should be required to employ Americans, because the H1 program is not supposed to be for the purposes of 'saving money' and it's hard to fathom what kind of 'highly specialised expertise' is needed in governmental IT operations. Perhaps on a consultative basis.
If there are legit R&D needs, i.e. if they were designing new chips for NASA or whatever, fair enough ... but most of this is pretty squarely in the domain of 'off the shelf' IT work. Again - even then the benefits are possibly positive 'on the whole' for the economy, if not for the workers who otherwise did not get a job ... but it's public money ... I think it makes sense to hire locally and I don't think for a second Americans would have a problem with that.
Of all the things everyone likes to argue about (i.e. taxes, unemployment benefits) - I suggest there would be at least some easy consensus here.
The neoliberal benefits of H1's make sense, but the context has to be clear.
I think it would also make sense if at least public agencies should be required to employ Americans, because the H1 program is not supposed to be for the purposes of 'saving money' and it's hard to fathom what kind of 'highly specialised expertise' is needed in governmental IT operations. Perhaps on a consultative basis.
If there are legit R&D needs, i.e. if they were designing new chips for NASA or whatever, fair enough ... but most of this is pretty squarely in the domain of 'off the shelf' IT work. Again - even then the benefits are possibly positive 'on the whole' for the economy, if not for the workers who otherwise did not get a job ... but it's public money ... I think it makes sense to hire locally and I don't think for a second Americans would have a problem with that.
Of all the things everyone likes to argue about (i.e. taxes, unemployment benefits) - I suggest there would be at least some easy consensus here.
> but it's public money ... I think it makes sense to hire locally and I don't think for a second Americans would have a problem with that.
TVA is a government owned corporation, but it's fully self funded. So they're not spending public money other than insofar as TVA costs get passed to the electric bills of anyone whose local electric utility is purchasing electricity from TVA.
TVA has over 10k active employees and has only ever had 10 H1B employees (all hired between 2001 - 2008)[1]. And all of their H1B hires fell into either electrical engineering or product/financial risk analysis, and all located within Nashville, TN or Chattanooga, TN. Their usage of H1B employees seems far more indicative of localized hiring difficulty, rather than some pattern of H1B abuse. I've lived in both of those places, and they both have risen in popularity and desirability throughout the last decade. Having hired in Nashville before, people have become far more willing to relocate to Tennessee over the last few years. But that doesn't mean their was similar interest in relocating to TN for work 12-19 years ago when they filled these roles with H1B hires.
[1] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=TENNESSEE+VALL...
TVA is a government owned corporation, but it's fully self funded. So they're not spending public money other than insofar as TVA costs get passed to the electric bills of anyone whose local electric utility is purchasing electricity from TVA.
TVA has over 10k active employees and has only ever had 10 H1B employees (all hired between 2001 - 2008)[1]. And all of their H1B hires fell into either electrical engineering or product/financial risk analysis, and all located within Nashville, TN or Chattanooga, TN. Their usage of H1B employees seems far more indicative of localized hiring difficulty, rather than some pattern of H1B abuse. I've lived in both of those places, and they both have risen in popularity and desirability throughout the last decade. Having hired in Nashville before, people have become far more willing to relocate to Tennessee over the last few years. But that doesn't mean their was similar interest in relocating to TN for work 12-19 years ago when they filled these roles with H1B hires.
[1] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=TENNESSEE+VALL...
So that's a great point, it seems this is a bad application of crude politics, that said, in general I still believe my points stand. It would be nice to have more specificity and clarity on the issues as opposed to the arbitrary attention of the Tweeter in Chief on the campaign trail.
For sure! H1B as a whole tends to be abused, and your points are completely valid ones in general.
And my comment was about TVA's direct use of the H1B program - not use of an IT contractor that is likely to be (ab)using the H1B program to staff the roles. That said, the IT contractors TVA is using for their IT outsourcing are used all over the federal government, even if through layers of subcontracting. So it's a bit frustrating that a TV ad triggered such a reactionary response from Trump in this isolated case but not in any other.
And my comment was about TVA's direct use of the H1B program - not use of an IT contractor that is likely to be (ab)using the H1B program to staff the roles. That said, the IT contractors TVA is using for their IT outsourcing are used all over the federal government, even if through layers of subcontracting. So it's a bit frustrating that a TV ad triggered such a reactionary response from Trump in this isolated case but not in any other.
All this bullshit over 10 positions, the last one filed on 2008 (12 years ago) and the first one filed on 2001? And for specialized jobs nonetheless.
https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=Tennessee+Vall...
He fired the first poor bastard he found to rile up his base on the idea that he is protecting American jobs. This is not only absolutely stupid and unjustified. It also shows how petty are politics in this country.
https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=Tennessee+Vall...
He fired the first poor bastard he found to rile up his base on the idea that he is protecting American jobs. This is not only absolutely stupid and unjustified. It also shows how petty are politics in this country.
The CEO probably pissed him off...
This is prior to his administration though?
What's your point? Something wrong was done a long time ago so by now it's no longer wrong?
The H1Bs in question were hired by contracting firms so you wouldn’t find them in that list.
You know how many government agencies hire contractors that use H1-B workers?? I know at least 3 people that worked as sub-contractors for government agencies while they were on H1B visas.
The three worked for state agencies, though. One was the DOT of NYC, if I remember correctly. Still, this is hardly the issue. This is hinting that any government sub-contractor should abstain from hiring H1Bs and there's no written law that prohibits this. Again pure pettiness.
The three worked for state agencies, though. One was the DOT of NYC, if I remember correctly. Still, this is hardly the issue. This is hinting that any government sub-contractor should abstain from hiring H1Bs and there's no written law that prohibits this. Again pure pettiness.
What does the executive branch have to do with state and municipal hiring policies? Believe it or not, they don't have the power to do whatever they want.
If you read my comment I'm not conflating both. I did explicitly call out that my knowledge was for people who worked as subcontractors for state agencies, not federal agencies.
So I don't get your question. I was the one that from the beginning claimed ignorance about the federal policies by bringing up the fact that the people I know worked for state agencies.
So I don't get your question. I was the one that from the beginning claimed ignorance about the federal policies by bringing up the fact that the people I know worked for state agencies.
> hinting that any government sub-contractor should abstain from hiring H1Bs and there's no written law that prohibits this. Again pure pettiness.
In this case, the contractors were breaking the law. It doesn't seem unreasonable for federal agencies to not do business with companies breaking the law.
In this case, the contractors were breaking the law. It doesn't seem unreasonable for federal agencies to not do business with companies breaking the law.
Perhaps. But just because something has become normalized, the status quo, doesn't make it right.
I'm not taking sides. But the fact is, we can't have change without change. The Grand Canyon started with a drop of water.
I'm not taking sides. But the fact is, we can't have change without change. The Grand Canyon started with a drop of water.
h1bsalary site isn't comprehensive, there were changes they made this year too. https://theintercept.com/2020/05/05/tennessee-valley-authori...
[deleted]
Actually, most of the positions are being outsourced to contracting firms who are hiring the H1B workers. The actual cost per worker to the TVA is likely not significantly different, however, the workers can lose their jobs at any time, and the contracting firm makes bank.
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/st...
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/st...
Ok. I get that. But then again he is punishing them for hiring sub-contractors then. What's the rationale here? I don't understand how any government agency can operate without subcontracting. Why would anyone go for the most expensive subcontractor on the basis that they don't employ H1Bs? I don't think anyone is using that criteria.
They should explicitly write rules for this if that's what they want to enforce.
Either way, it seems like a very petty and selectively populist political move. "Look I fired this fucker who wasn't prioritizing American workers".... That dude hardly knew about that. He was looking at the price tag, not the LCAs of their sub-contractors.
They should explicitly write rules for this if that's what they want to enforce.
Either way, it seems like a very petty and selectively populist political move. "Look I fired this fucker who wasn't prioritizing American workers".... That dude hardly knew about that. He was looking at the price tag, not the LCAs of their sub-contractors.
> But then again he is punishing them for hiring sub-contractors then. What's the rationale here? I don't understand how any government agency can operate without subcontracting. Why would anyone go for the most expensive subcontractor on the basis that they don't employ H1Bs? I don't think anyone is using that criteria.
I would expect that you would be required to meet federal government labor regulations and standards (including H1B visa requirements), even when using subcontractors, when you are a federally chartered corporation or are doing business with the federal government.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/guide-to-labor-and-empl... (A Guide to Labor and Employment Obligations for Federal Contractors)
> IX. Subcontracting: Contractors must recognize that their obligations under these laws and executive orders also apply to their subcontractors. Many CBAs provide that the agreement applies to any subcontractor used by the contractor to perform work done by covered employees, and the contractor is responsible for the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the terms of the CBA. (snipped non-relevant union language for brevity, available in link above)
EDIT: @belltaco: You're violating the law if you replace US workers with H1Bs [1] [2]. This is supposedly what TVA contractors have done [3] [4] [5].
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/08/h-1b-spouses-h-4-work...
[2] https://www.uscis.gov/report-fraud/combating-fraud-and-abuse...
[3] https://usagag.com/tennessee-valley-authority-firing-america...
[4] https://whnt.com/news/huntsville/protesters-in-huntsville-ra...
[5] https://youtu.be/nlXUooEvd4o
I would expect that you would be required to meet federal government labor regulations and standards (including H1B visa requirements), even when using subcontractors, when you are a federally chartered corporation or are doing business with the federal government.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/guide-to-labor-and-empl... (A Guide to Labor and Employment Obligations for Federal Contractors)
> IX. Subcontracting: Contractors must recognize that their obligations under these laws and executive orders also apply to their subcontractors. Many CBAs provide that the agreement applies to any subcontractor used by the contractor to perform work done by covered employees, and the contractor is responsible for the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the terms of the CBA. (snipped non-relevant union language for brevity, available in link above)
EDIT: @belltaco: You're violating the law if you replace US workers with H1Bs [1] [2]. This is supposedly what TVA contractors have done [3] [4] [5].
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/08/h-1b-spouses-h-4-work...
[2] https://www.uscis.gov/report-fraud/combating-fraud-and-abuse...
[3] https://usagag.com/tennessee-valley-authority-firing-america...
[4] https://whnt.com/news/huntsville/protesters-in-huntsville-ra...
[5] https://youtu.be/nlXUooEvd4o
Did TVA or their subcontractors violate any of those? Doesn't look like it.
I thought H1Bs were supposed to be world-class engineers whose class could not be found locally. But if the sole purpose of hiring them is for labour arbitrage then this would not go well with American workers.
[deleted]
One of the dangers of getting old is that it's essentially a trope that your sense of a fair price often lags behind increasing costs.
The constant pressure toward replacing manufactured goods (food included) with cheaper alternatives isn't just about increasing margins, it's also about sticker shock ratcheting up among your customers.
I don't know about recently, but tech salaries were growing much faster than inflation for a long time. I suspect that in some cases those consultancy negotiators were sitting in meetings with customers who didn't understand why they had to pay 25% more to renew a largely unmodified contract. and/or why the senior people are being replaced. Because you can't afford those people anymore, pal.
So for the same dollar you are probably getting more COTS/OSS software and talent that is easier to exploit (young, H1-B, or both). I hesitate to think what happens in 2030 when whole teams are already the most vulnerable developers and it's time to renegotiate contracts again.
The constant pressure toward replacing manufactured goods (food included) with cheaper alternatives isn't just about increasing margins, it's also about sticker shock ratcheting up among your customers.
I don't know about recently, but tech salaries were growing much faster than inflation for a long time. I suspect that in some cases those consultancy negotiators were sitting in meetings with customers who didn't understand why they had to pay 25% more to renew a largely unmodified contract. and/or why the senior people are being replaced. Because you can't afford those people anymore, pal.
So for the same dollar you are probably getting more COTS/OSS software and talent that is easier to exploit (young, H1-B, or both). I hesitate to think what happens in 2030 when whole teams are already the most vulnerable developers and it's time to renegotiate contracts again.
Even if it’s only ten. SFSU fired it’s IT team and contracted out the whole lot a few years back. The IT team consisted of a variety of backgrounds in SF. Little moves like that are the cracks that bring down the quality of life for locals —the main beneficiaries being the uni administration team.
I am glad for every move that makes sense that doesn’t undermine the stability of jobs for local workers who pay their fair share of taxes and add vitality to the local economy.
I am glad for every move that makes sense that doesn’t undermine the stability of jobs for local workers who pay their fair share of taxes and add vitality to the local economy.
> local workers who pay their fair share of taxes and add vitality to the local economy.
Any H1B worker also pays their fair share of taxes and adds to the local economy. This word salad you got here is just FUD.
Maybe you just got confused and thought it was about illegal immigrants instead?
Any H1B worker also pays their fair share of taxes and adds to the local economy. This word salad you got here is just FUD.
Maybe you just got confused and thought it was about illegal immigrants instead?
No, these are local workers. It’s like Mexico saying, you know what, the USMCA is making us pay you workers $16 an hour, we can build cheaper by having this work done by Salvadorans, get outta town, we’re hiring them!
They’d be selling out Mexican workers for lower wage workers —which is what happened to the IF group at SFSU. So now they are not working.
This isn’t about saving cobblers jobs or phone assembly jobs, these are skilled jobs that were saying, sorry fellow taxpayers, but we found cheaper!
They’d be selling out Mexican workers for lower wage workers —which is what happened to the IF group at SFSU. So now they are not working.
This isn’t about saving cobblers jobs or phone assembly jobs, these are skilled jobs that were saying, sorry fellow taxpayers, but we found cheaper!
> the main benefactors being the uni administration team
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Did you really mean "benefactors", or perhaps "beneficiaries"?
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Did you really mean "benefactors", or perhaps "beneficiaries"?
Yes, corrected.
H1B workers and their employers pay all taxes, including things like SSA and Medicare FICA taxes that they may never get to use. They also pay a lot of extra fees that US employees don't, some of which are allocated to training US workers.
But why should US workers suffer this? Should Ford Mexico import Salvadoran workers to displace Mexican workers if it’s cheaper?
Good question, and let's see how Mexican workers would feel.
FTA:
U.S. Tech Workers, a nonprofit that wants to limit visas given to foreign technology workers, took out an ad to persuade Trump to stop the TVA from outsourcing much of its information technology division. The group, led by Kevin Lynn, criticized the TVA for furloughing its own workers and replacing them with contractors using foreign workers with H-1B visas.
I don't know about you, but I don't see the logic in firing someone who made decisions based in a vacuum once you actually have a policy you want to implement, unless of course there was some private refusal on the CEO's part. This reeks of political showmanship to hide poor leadership.
The claim in the article was the TVA furloughed American Citizens, and then brought in more H1B Visa's instead, I suppose on the premise of paying them less than the furloughed workers.
If that assertion is true, then the outcome here (with the CEO being fired) seems very fitting and appropriate. That would amount to a gross misuse of public trust, for a public (US Government) owned organization.
If that assertion is true, then the outcome here (with the CEO being fired) seems very fitting and appropriate. That would amount to a gross misuse of public trust, for a public (US Government) owned organization.
There is no excuse to hire a single foreigner into a jobs program meant to help the people of Appalachia. No excuse whatsoever.
I completely agree, but castrating the Authority's ability to run the business, and stay profitable will do more harm than using contractors. Looking at Trump's firing as anything more as a step in the direction of privatizing the TVA at a cost to everyone who buys its power.
Why not privatize it? Also, does it make a profit? If not, maybe privatization should be looked at. As far as I can tell it's always been a government-funded jobs program operating at a loss.
It has been revenue positive for decades, and the rates are cheaper than the private alternative.
So what you're saying is they can afford to hire non-H1B's.
I don't know what the business decision was to hire outside contractors, however it resulted in the layoff of 62 workers. TVA hasn't hired an H1B employee since 2008. But if they needed to hire for a role where H1Bs were required they could afford to pay a competitive salary.
I think we have established a pattern of Trump surrounding himself with sycophants. I'd love to see a history of contact between the TVA and Trump. I suspect this isn't just about the campaign. It's about someone calling him an idiot to his face, which his fragile ego can't tolerate.
Somebody needs to tell him about the shit Disney tried to pull.
The TVA is federally owned. Disney is not.
Pretty sure Disney has to abide by EEOC (federal) regulations, so they probably have to abide by other federal regulations, privately owned or not.
The EEOC says nothing about you can’t fire one group of workers to hire another group of workers that are legally allowed to work.
H1B rules say you can't use the guest worker program to replace domestic workers. Willfully violating this should be a felony.
Wannabe dictators won't let these small details get in the way.
Was it dictatorial when FDR set up the TVA in the first place, placing a huge chunk of the South's power grid under federal control?
Wow look at the misdirection in TVAs statement:
All TVA employees are U.S. based citizens. All jobs related to TVA’s Information Technology department must be performed in the U.S. by individuals who may legally work in this country.
So all _employees_ are citizens. All _jobs_ (hello contractors) are by authorized individuals in the US.
All TVA employees are U.S. based citizens. All jobs related to TVA’s Information Technology department must be performed in the U.S. by individuals who may legally work in this country.
So all _employees_ are citizens. All _jobs_ (hello contractors) are by authorized individuals in the US.
[deleted]
https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=TENNESSEE+VALL... .. Looks like they don't have any latest hiring on H1B.
It is easier to fire people of some federal agency that nobody knew about than tackling a serious health crisis.
Well, that was the easy part. Where's the funding going to come from to pay domestic workers?
If the TVA is anything like the state level government I'm familiar with the answer is likely "the former salaries of politically appointed middle managers who can be sacked now that the CEO is gone and who's roles will not be back-filled". Depending on the union situation (union roles vs non-union job roles) that might not be possible though.
The TVA is government owned, but self funded. Apparently it's turned a healthy profit since the 70s.
And there we land on the real reason for this: privatizing the TVA. The US jobs thing is just an excuse to take control.
Edit: for the downvoters -- a citation to back up my assertion: https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/president-tru...
Edit: for the downvoters -- a citation to back up my assertion: https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/president-tru...
It’s illegal to pay H1Bs less than the prevailing wage.
It is, but it's very easy to game. Hire someone for QA, then make them work as a software engineer etc...
Loopholes aside, what possible motivation could an employer have for bringing in an H1B than lower cost? The H1B worker is beholden to the employer and the increased supply of labor would necessarily decrease scarcity of that skill.
> what possible motivation could an employer have for bringing in an H1B than lower cost
Skills for one. The way H1B was really meant to be used. I am not arguing TVA did this. But there ARE reasons to hire H1B workers other than cost. Case in point Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
Skills for one. The way H1B was really meant to be used. I am not arguing TVA did this. But there ARE reasons to hire H1B workers other than cost. Case in point Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
This is exactly the stated purpose--and indeed the legal requirement--of H1B visas, to gain access to uniquely skilled workers that are not available through the local workforce.
It's supposed to be an essentially merit-based path to immigration, and if true, that would make it exactly the kind of program that Trump should 100% support.
To the extent that H1B accomplishes this objective of highly skilled labor at prevailing market wages, I think it's a useful program that has a place in the overall immigration system.
From a macroeconomic view, even when limited to bringing in skilled labor to fulfill a specific market shortage, this will still depress the prevailing wage in that market, which theoretically prevents the market from correcting when rising wages induce increased local supply.
Fundamentally something is broken with the wage market when real wages have not grown in decades. Partially this is a problem with the measurement not correctly accounting for significantly increased cost of [healthcare] benefits covered by the employer share. But I believe even when accounting for the full employer-side cost of wages, this number has not grown as expected, and low-wage work visas are part of the problem.
It's supposed to be an essentially merit-based path to immigration, and if true, that would make it exactly the kind of program that Trump should 100% support.
To the extent that H1B accomplishes this objective of highly skilled labor at prevailing market wages, I think it's a useful program that has a place in the overall immigration system.
From a macroeconomic view, even when limited to bringing in skilled labor to fulfill a specific market shortage, this will still depress the prevailing wage in that market, which theoretically prevents the market from correcting when rising wages induce increased local supply.
Fundamentally something is broken with the wage market when real wages have not grown in decades. Partially this is a problem with the measurement not correctly accounting for significantly increased cost of [healthcare] benefits covered by the employer share. But I believe even when accounting for the full employer-side cost of wages, this number has not grown as expected, and low-wage work visas are part of the problem.
> to pay domestic workers
Wait, so they were underpaying the H1B workers the way they're explicitly prohibited by law from doing?
Wait, so they were underpaying the H1B workers the way they're explicitly prohibited by law from doing?
You can see the salaries of the H1B workers here[1] (at least their initial salaries).
Electrical engineering related hires had salaries between $47k - $55k. Looking at other H1B salary data for those years (2001 - 2003)[2], and the TVA salaries seem on par with other H1B hires(they're neither the lowest, nor the highest). Chattanooga where all these hires were at also has a fairly low cost of living, so $55k sounds like a decent wage for the area.
The more recent hires were all managerial level, and range from $90k - $130k. Not sure how competitive those were with domestic hires at the time (last H1B hire was in 2008), but overall they're fairly high salaries. And these were all in Nashville, where that wage is enough to support a family living in the well-to-do suburbs of the area.
[1] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=TENNESSEE+VALL...
[2] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=ELECTRICAL+ENG...
Electrical engineering related hires had salaries between $47k - $55k. Looking at other H1B salary data for those years (2001 - 2003)[2], and the TVA salaries seem on par with other H1B hires(they're neither the lowest, nor the highest). Chattanooga where all these hires were at also has a fairly low cost of living, so $55k sounds like a decent wage for the area.
The more recent hires were all managerial level, and range from $90k - $130k. Not sure how competitive those were with domestic hires at the time (last H1B hire was in 2008), but overall they're fairly high salaries. And these were all in Nashville, where that wage is enough to support a family living in the well-to-do suburbs of the area.
[1] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=TENNESSEE+VALL...
[2] https://h1bsalary.online/index.php?searchtext=ELECTRICAL+ENG...
This is easily avoided. Plenty of loopholes, hard to prove and enforce
you can do research on companies hiring h1b employees and salaries here. You can see some of the outsourcing companies paying very low.
https://h1bsalary.online/
While getting some US developers back on the job might be a good thing, taking steps to dismantle a government chartered public utility is not. This isn't about the 10 H1-B visas, this is low hanging political fruit that Trump will use to attempt privatization of the TVA.
Thanks for sharing the President's thoughts.
Agreed. This administration doesn't care about US workers, but it does care about their personal profit.
Now make it unprofitable for the Trump Organisation to do the same thing and we’ll talk.
Trump Organization is private, the TVA isn't.
So government workers are more important than people working for private companies?
US Government workers receiving a salary paid for by US Citizen's Tax Dollars...
So the H1B deal saved the US taxpayer money and that’s a bad thing?
It's okay to hire illegals though, so you don't have that pesky H1B paperwork. Trump properties are doing this now, not a decade ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/undocumented-housekeep...
__ edit__ if someone's downvoting, maybe they could come out and indicate if (a) you can't detect sarcasm, (b) you approve of hiring illegals, or (c) you think Trump should be allowed to break the law while grandstanding on an old H1 question?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/undocumented-housekeep...
__ edit__ if someone's downvoting, maybe they could come out and indicate if (a) you can't detect sarcasm, (b) you approve of hiring illegals, or (c) you think Trump should be allowed to break the law while grandstanding on an old H1 question?
From the AP report on this (https://apnews.com/0336437987fec77627c17ca9a4c781bc)
> Trump acknowledged that he was made aware of the issue after seeing a television ad produced by U.S. Tech Workers, a nonprofit that wants to limit visas given to foreign technology workers, that aired in prime time on Fox News.
It does seem truly scary that by far the easiest way to get the US president to do something is to put an ad on Fox News. If you can package your cause into one of his pet topics, you have a good chance of something getting done. A US president that is so easily manipulated is terrifying.
> Trump acknowledged that he was made aware of the issue after seeing a television ad produced by U.S. Tech Workers, a nonprofit that wants to limit visas given to foreign technology workers, that aired in prime time on Fox News.
It does seem truly scary that by far the easiest way to get the US president to do something is to put an ad on Fox News. If you can package your cause into one of his pet topics, you have a good chance of something getting done. A US president that is so easily manipulated is terrifying.
Yes, of course. Obviously the President of the US should have already been aware of the hiring practices of contractors at some regional utility provider.
I don't think the person you're replying to was implying the President should already be aware of the issues. Rather, that it's concerning that the best way to convince him to do anything is through a TV ad instead of a more appropriate means of communication.
Who cares how he learned about it? The President has hundreds, probably thousands of people asking him for stuff every day. He has teams of people who filter requests through the "appropriate means of communication."
Seriously, it's irrelevant. When he learned of a federally-controlled entity working against the best interests of Americans, he took action. That's really all that matters. I don't care if he saw a TV ad, a billboard, or any other unconventional means of communication with the US President.
Seriously, it's irrelevant. When he learned of a federally-controlled entity working against the best interests of Americans, he took action. That's really all that matters. I don't care if he saw a TV ad, a billboard, or any other unconventional means of communication with the US President.
The administration should be cracking down on H1B violations.