How not to hire an American worker

[Xiahou]

This is certainly.... interesting. It's a seminar by a law firm that explains to employer how to make sure that no American worker will get hired for their jobs so they can get immigrant workers instead.

Make what you want of it.

[Proletariat]

If it's legal, great. Shows how stupid our system is.

[KukriKhan]

HR Trix 101.

It's the same tired scheme gov't has used to workaround reg's and hire the guy/gal they really want, for decades. But with a new twist: outsource the resume' review.

O'course, these guys' jobs could also be outsourced. I reckon the moderator of that discussion has a job-stability rating of: 6 months.

[Spetulhu]

As long as there's a law and money things can be manipulated.

While my experience isn't in finding employees I have a story along the same lines. One of my employer's customers is a public institutions where the managers are very pleased with our way of handling their business. In order to keep us and avoid dealing with bigger, less flexible companies they do some questionable things. Contracts above certain sums are subject to public bidding, so just break them into parts and avoid the bidding. And of course, their legal department offered to help if things are shook up so that all outside contracts must be put up for bidding. They said "we'll agree on the price, write your bid for you and make sure it's the only one that meets our standards".

Not a bad decision when the only competing bids are likely to come from a multinational company (you pay us and do the work yourself) and another local talent (you pay me, I drink the money and leave the job undone).

[Xiahou]

If it's legal, great. Shows how stupid our system is.

I sort of agree. It does show how lousy our current system is. It also highlights what employers really mean when they say they can't find "qualified" American workers- often it really just means that they don't want to pay American workers the going rate.

I also think these lawyers/employers are pretty scummy- but they don't seem to be breaking any laws either.

[KukriKhan]

As long as there's a law and money things can be manipulated.

While my experience isn't in finding employees I have a story along the same lines. One of my employer's customers is a public institutions where the managers are very pleased with our way of handling their business. In order to keep us and avoid dealing with bigger, less flexible companies they do some questionable things. Contracts above certain sums are subject to public bidding, so just break them into parts and avoid the bidding. And of course, their legal department offered to help if things are shook up so that all outside contracts must be put up for bidding. They said "we'll agree on the price, write your bid for you and make sure it's the only one that meets our standards".

Not a bad decision when the only competing bids are likely to come from a multinational company (you pay us and do the work yourself) and another local talent (you pay me, I drink the money and leave the job undone).

Sad, but true here (in US) too.

[KafirChobee]

In the newest and latest techniques for sucspeeding (intentional) in business, it is just one more lame excuse to justify the gain of a few by increasing the woes of others. It is no better or worse than the "down sizing" scheme, or the Peter principle (to maintain a friend by another doing his work), or the blame someone else for the the failure of the execs. It is a matter of maintaining the statusquo to the life style they have become accustom to, as apposed to making them responsable for their gains. That is, when a company they rule over fails, so should they - versus their giving themselves unwarranted bonuses even when they fail to generate a profit or dividends for the investors they are suppose to be responsable to.

Presently, since Reagan, it has been acceptable that a CEO name his board - that is, those that determine his worth (salary). It is why we have CEOs making $Billion$ a year while their companys lose money. Reagan was a visionary, for the unqualified to become billionares. In fact, the man that sponsored him was the visionary - he knew that by allowing a CEO to name his supporters it would sound democratic while actually creating a capitalistic wet dream.

Down sizing was the initial key to what was being presented by those that wanted to subvert the american work ethic. It now became a matter that workers weren't working hard enough. To put the workers on the correct path the corporations had to prove that sending Americans jobs overseas was in fact "global economics". Not a matter of downsizing wages from minimum to minimal.

Slaves after all has always been the goal of manufacuters. It is a simple matter of economics - for the future $Trillionaires$.

fur sum splellins