http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783515110
I think the media is the unwitting, often witting, dupe in the H-1B GATS agreements. But, there indeed is a shortage...A shortage of $15/hr programmers. The key in the article is...."If the downturn persists too long, it may have the effect of increasing the pressures for outsourcing if sufficient talent cannot be found in the U.S." Like there is no pressure now to outsource? This is indeed the goal. GATS agreements, even in the 90's, locked the U.S. into taking at a bare minimum 65,000 H-1B immigrants per year. Congress is tied to do anything about it either. Do they want to anyway? Nope. CEOs are demanding outsourcing and Congress does not want to bite that hand that feeds them. Check this article out... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1151031.cms One gem in it is "In a move that has significance for Indian professionals seeking to work in the US, the government has made a formal proposal to the WTO demanding that the yearly quota of H1B visas be increased to 195,000 from the current ceiling of 65,000. " In other words, we are being TOLD to take them no matter what. How can we do that in light of so many being cut? A "shortage" has to suddenly appear. That request will then be the WTO telling us how to run our immigration. Recall that about a week ago Gartner said that there will be about a 30% reduction in IT staff by 2010. Does that sound like a shortage?
Professor Matloff Comments Of interest to many might be Professor Norm Matloff's latest comments from his website... http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/Sensenbrenner.txt To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter As most readers of this e-newsletter know, late last year Congress in effect increased the H-1B cap by about 30%, by creating a new 20,000-visa category for foreign nationals who hold Master's or PhDs from U.S. universities. The legislation was unwarranted, as I explained at the time; see http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/ProposedMSPhDExemption.txt In addition, many of you also know that the federal government accidentally issued 10,000 visas over the cap. I know some of you will laugh at my use of the word _accidentally_, but I'm willing to believe it. What I can't accept, though, is that Congress recently snuck through ANOTHER 10,000-visa increase, this one targeted for Australians. None of the H-1B increases, starting in 1998, has ever been warranted, as there never has been a labor shortage, but of course increases are especially unwarranted in today's job market. And it gets worse: * the new visa category is especially liberal, in that (a) it can be renewed indefinitely, and (b) it also spouses to work, so that the number of workers could be even more than 10,000 * Rep. Sensenbrenner, who had assured Americans that he was opposed to such nation-specific visas, was apparently the initiator of this legislation You can get details on the new visa at http://www.visalaw.com/05may1/4may105.html The details on Sensenbrenner are in the article enclosed below. Here is some background: Free trade agreements (FTAs) give the president carte blance authority for negotiating trade issues with other nations. Though that in itself is a troubling usurpation of Congress' constitutional authority, for us H-1B critics it is of special concern in that "trade" includes trade in services, i.e. labor. When the FTAs with Singapore and Chile were signed a year or so ago, H-1B critics were upset that special H-1B categories were established for those nations. (In addition, especially onerous agreements were reached on the rules for L-1 visas.) This actually gave cover to certain people in Congress who had privately expressed concerns about the H-1B program but were too beholden to industrial campaign contributors to openly oppose the program. The rationale given was that trade in services is actually an immigration issue, rather than a trade issue, and thus should not be wrapped up in trade agreements, as immigration policy is a congressional prerogative. Of course, that didn't make too much sense, as one could say the same thing for trade, but it was politically saleable. Immigration reform lobbyists worked closely with Rep. Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Judiciary Committee (thus in charge of immigration legislation), and he agreed not to allow policy on trade in services enter into future FTAs. He was reported in the press, and by the lobbyists I believe, as being sympathetic to those who believe that the H-1B program is overused and is abused. Or not. As seen in the enclosed article from the Australian press, it turns out that Sensenbrenner was simply weasling through a loophole, taking the "immigration is Congress' prerogative" point quite literally. While he was telling Americans that he won't allow H-1B/L-1 policy to enter FTAs, he was telling the people in Oz, "Don't worry mate, I'll get you your own H-1B visa category WITHOUT going through FTAs." By the way, there are plenty of programmers in Australia who are critical of their own government for its "H-1B" program. Unfortunately, their professional organizations keeping selling them out, just like here, so they don't get enough support. Norm
When asked which technical skill sets were in greatest demand within their IT departments, 77 percent of CIOs reported a need for Microsoft Windows (NT/2000/XP) administrators. Wireless network management also was a sought-after specialty, receiving 48 percent of the response. Forty-seven percent of executives named SQL Server management as a specialty in short supply Source: http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/customgo.asp?id=10657&pageid=29
