Top
Best
New

Posted by b_mc2 9/12/2025

Corporations are trying to hide job openings from US citizens(thehill.com)
683 points | 526 commentspage 3
FilosofumRex 9/13/2025|
Corporate crimes punishment is a real joke in the US. Meta/FB was fined a couple of million dollars for the same type of violations of temp work visa. I'm sure, it didn't even register on their bottom line.

We need to put execs behind bar, before they'll ever respect labor or competition laws.

xpe 9/13/2025||
I agree. Corporations excel at finding ways to disperse authority and accountability to do illegal things, sometimes intentionally, sometimes simply by letting the natural corporate incentives play out -- "oh, look, this department didn't fully understand the situation"... to which the follow up question is "Ok, but _who_ designed the departments? They seem pretty good at maximizing profit, so why can't they also manage to comply with the law?"
Bratmon 9/13/2025||
Fun fact: Meta was fined 57 minutes of revenue for these practices.
potatototoo99 9/12/2025||
I see everyone is for maximizing shareholder value until they are reminded they are workers first.
simpaticoder 9/13/2025||
I see lots of good ideas about changing the selection process. Another option is to change is to change the new hire process and require employers to advertise every recent H1B hiring decision for 60 days, including job description and resume. Then a native with an equal or better resume, and a willingness to fill the role, can raise their hand and offer to replace that person. If a native with a better resume is denied, then it is a cause for action against the employer (ideally a fine paid to the applicant that would at least fund further search time). Repeated violations would result in wholesale revocation of H1B access.
ajsnigrutin 9/13/2025||
Or just require H1B workers to be paid above average (by some factor) for the position. Average pay for <workplace> is 50k? If you want a foreign worker, you must pay them at least (eg.) 1.2x the average, so 60k. This solves the problem of abuse (since they'll probably find a local for 55k), and solve the genuine need for foreign workers in areas where there are not enough locals (eg. touristy areas needing tourist workers) ... at a bit higher price of course.
simpaticoder 9/13/2025||
Perhaps that would work, but I'm not so sure. I don't think the employers we're talking about are sensitive to a 20% price premium. And they might find the additional leverage H1B gives them over the employee to be worth the premium anyway. My proposal would give natives a chance to get a real job (not a ghost posting) that was given to a real person (the H1B person), and simply take their place.
selkin 9/13/2025||
Employers already have to publish H1-B applications, including wages (but not personal information of the applicants, which would be a very bad idea to publish).
carterschonwald 9/12/2025||
Fun fact: the payout from the meta settlement they reference works out to there being less than 4,000 members of the eligible class. Otoh getting a large check is always a pleasant surprise. I kept the letter cause it’s a huge amount
tha_hnrain 9/13/2025||
Let me play the devil advocate here: - first, I don’t think the measures they put in place are unreasonable: publishing on newspapers, mailing your application instead of emailing or using online forms may feel outdated, but they are all standard practice in other countries. You cannot say you don’t know how to mail(!) or that reading newspapers is beneath your dignity, especially if you need a job!

-second, what is wrong with free competition on the job market between US- and non-US citizens? Competition is good for the business, isn’t it?! It should be a competition on qualification and wage, not races, your skin color or some rubber stamp on a paper. Protecting domestic workers by artificially restricting competition risks creating complacency, higher costs, and slower growth.

- I hear you say: but it’s our country! We (or our parents) paid tax to build it. Yes, but if companies hire non-US employees, they will pay good tax, rent housing, spend in local economies, and contribute to Social Security and Medicare, too, while often receiving less in return.

- many foreign students already invest heavily in the U.S. by paying high tuition and living expenses, without subsidies. This is not charity; it’s a deliberate transfer of wealth into American universities and communities. Denying them a fair chance to compete for jobs means taking their money while closing the door to long-term participation, which is both unfair and economically wasteful.

- intentionally barring foreign talent to artificially inflate wages for domestic workers undermines U.S. competitiveness. High labor costs without corresponding productivity gains make companies sluggish and less adaptive to global competition. The U.S. became great by being open to talent and ideas from everywhere, reversing that openness risks slow growth and stagnation.

The real solution is domestic reform, not exclusion, for example by redistributing wealth more fairly through tax reforms that ensure the rich contribute proportionally.

America grew strong by opening its doors to talent and competition. Shutting out qualified foreign workers to protect wages may feel safe in the short run, but in the long run it weakens our economy, breeds complacency, and wastes the very investment we’ve already taken from those who studied and contributed here. If we want Americans to compete better, fix student debt and inequality at home, but don’t impede the nation by closing the market to global talents.

itake 9/13/2025||
The problem is the inconsistencies. Fine, if a company wants to source talent from a news paper, great! But to only make postings in hard to find places, away from where the 'good' talent looks is bad.

The problem is its not a free competition. I applied for one of these jobs 2 years ago, but a company was trying to sponsor a green card for an internal employee. The recruiter said I can't interview for that team, but I could interview for another similar, but different role. These companies aren't even offering interviews for these jobs!

> many foreign students

Schools limit how many people can attend. Foreign students take seats away from American students. These programs deny American students a chance to compete for American jobs before they even start college. An American student, rejected from Stanford, will not have as strong of a job application as the foreign Stanford graduate.

Maybe the foreign student was more qualified and wasn't an affirmative action case. Maybe the university doesn't select % of students to be foreign to help subsidize the costs of american students. I don't know.

IshKebab 9/13/2025||
> intentionally barring foreign talent to artificially inflate wages for domestic workers undermines U.S. competitiveness

Sure, but the Americans here don't really care about American competitiveness - they care about their inflated wages! The biggest thing they fear is that American wages will become more in line with the rest of the world.

And to be fair, the American tech industry is still doing pretty well in spite of the enormous wages. Probably because America is such a friendly environment for startups.

2OEH8eoCRo0 9/12/2025||
Didn't Apple used to post job openings in small local newspapers in the Midwest?
the_real_cher 9/13/2025||
Has anyone started to think that tech industry in the USA is going the way of the manufacturing industry?

And by that I mean mostly gone/offshored?

bubblethink 9/13/2025|
That is what everyone is asking for though. As you can see from the complaints in the thread, people are angry about jobs going to immigrants in the US. The alternate is for jobs to go to immigrants abroad, i.e. offshoring. It appears that people are generally happier about the latter.
the_real_cher 9/13/2025||
I mean it's six of one half a dozen of another to an American who lost their job.
pavel_lishin 9/12/2025||
> How many 20-something software engineers even know how to use a post office in 2025?

Ok, come on, this is just an insulting "kids these days" throw-away line that is absolutely not necessary.

ajross 9/12/2025||
That's an editorial point, not a substantial one. Obviously requiring an application be submitted by an inconvenient and antiquated method that isn't used by the demographic in question is going to create friction and reduce the number of applications.

That this is expressed in a whimsical way (personally I liked the turn of phrase, but that's an issue of taste) might personally offend you but doesn't change the substance of the article.

BobbyJo 9/12/2025|||
It also has the effect of making the job posting seem fake, or like a scam, because who in their right mind would believe META, who has their own, in-house operated, online job application portal, would require a job application to be mailed in.
Terr_ 9/12/2025||
Right, imagine if the same posting was onlinen in a legitimate-looking spot, but for some reason the process required credit-card validation up front.
pavel_lishin 9/12/2025|||
I'm not complaining about the substance, but the tone feels weirdly disdainful of the people impacted across the whole thing. It almost feels like the author was assigned this topic & overall goal, but hates the people she's writing about.
nancyminusone 9/12/2025||
Doubley stupid because the task is about mailing a letter, which does not require a post office.
thatfrenchguy 9/12/2025||
> However, in order for applications for permanent residency to be successful, companies must certify their inability to find a suitable American candidate to take the position they’re looking to fill with a foreign national

I mean, you know, if you already have an employee working on H1B, why would you take the risk to hire someone else to replace them? The perm process is pretty broken in that way.

Bratmon 9/13/2025|
Or companies could, you know, train people to fill permanent positions instead of claiming permanent positions are temporary and acting shocked when they aren't.
Bratmon 9/13/2025|
Abolish the H1B. Now.
More comments...