It is true if the employer is considered H-1B dependent[0]. For employers with >51 employees if 15% or greater of the employees are H-1B workers then they must attempt to hire US workers first[1].
To be clear, this is not the same level as the green card PERM process (which requires jobs be advertised in physical newspapers, etc).
This simply says equally or higher qualified US workers who apply to the same job should be offered the job, but there is no need to seek out US workers.
> employees if 15% or greater of the employees are H-1B workers then they must attempt to hire US workers first
How does this work exactly? Say I am currently unemployed and match the criteria. They post an ad in a paper, I see it and pass the interview. At the negotiation step (because of course total comp is not listed in the ad), I say I will take the job if they pay 2X of what they would have paid to an H-1B if I did not come (again X was never mentioned, it is just the number the company keeps in mind). What next?
To hire an H-1B, the company has to do a Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD), where they ask the Department of Labor what an appropriate wage for this a) job function, b) experience level and c) geographic area is. To go forward with the H-1B, they only have to offer that much for the position.
>> Part of the H-1B process is to prove you (hiring company) can't find and equal American citizen to come work for you.
> This is true for a company sponsored Green Card application, not H-1B visa.
IIRC, that's typically gamed. It's been awhile, but I knew a couple of guys who went through that and I recall they postings "to find an American citizen" were written hyper-specifically in order avoid hiring anyone, and if anyone actually applied, I'd imagine the interview would have been tough with a predetermined outcome.
It's a crappy system. Tests like that should be at the start, not at the end. If they're at the end, it just wastes everyone's time and subverts the test: even if you think the company should hire more Americans, are you going to undermine your coworker in such a way that they may get deported? Is it fair to do that after someone's put down roots? (No.)
That and many a time the companies do the job postings on things like local newspapers, which no one reads. This way, the companies get to prove that they posted the job someplace, but no one responded to it. USCIS and the DOL don't care either, as everyone gets to show "see, we are following protocol".
Or late night radio ads asking people to snail mail a resume with a specific job reference code. The chances that someone qualified for the job both hears the ad and is in a position to write down an address and reference code are basically nil.
Notices are required to be posted in office breakrooms. Now that we have a lot of remote first or remote only companies... how does one see those notices? :)
Because of this exact problem, our company paused immigration for half a year in 2020. Our law firms were concerned that posting notices in an empty office could be considered in bad faith.
Nowadays, it is seen as acceptable to post it virtually, let's say on an HR page on SharePoint, in addition to the physical notice in whatever office there may be. For certain areas we also considered mailing a notice to all employees in the area, but I don't know if that ever happened. The idea is that the physical notice covers the letter of the law, and the electronic notice covers the spirit.
I don't know if DoL has issued any guidance since then, but at the time there wasn't any.
This is true on any visa in any country. It’s like playing “life in expert mode,” dealing with unfamiliar customs, languages, and currencies; all while trying to make a living.
The French Laundry is a very niche product, which Facebook is not. I think a more apt analogy is suggesting McDonald's to include more "healthy" options or a coffee bar because the competitors do it and it's a successful business strategy.
This seems like an extreme way of thinking about it. Maybe they like taking/looking at/sending the pictures, but between work, summer camp, soccer lessons, making sure everyone's fed, etc, they just forgot to book a session, and seeing the ad reminds them to do it. In this light, it seems like a great thing for both sides of the transaction.
IMO this is the wrong metric to look at. Any company that has experienced hyper growth (like FB or Amazon) will see very low average tenures simply because of math. The right metric is avg tenure at time of attrition.
There are no URLs in app installs. The ad links to the iOS app store, and Apple does not give you any information post install on where the source came from.
Most ads don't link directly to the app store, but instead send you through a tracker site which logs the click before forwarding you to the app store.
Not true. If I know you want a keyboard and that you can buy it from 100 different stores, I would probably give you a discount to buy it from me as long as it still makes me money.
They are. Not sure that changes my point much? The user database/registration are entirely separate. There is no lockin being circumvented by virtue of both being tencent.
This is true for a company sponsored Green Card application, not H-1B visa.