"The chief objection to this usually relates to the details of the recruiting requirement and how this would significantly slow the process for bringing in a worker that may be needed immediately. Employers would have to advertise a position for 30 days before they could seek an H-1B approval."H-1b proponents also object that the Durbin-Grassley bill would stem H-1b bodyshops. "This is seen as potentially very disruptive to the information technology sector..." writes Siskind. Rather than being hired for a specific job, H-1b bodyshops first secure H-1b workers, then they agressively apply for external job openings. Legally U.S. employers cannot give preference to Americans - even when several American applicants are clearly qualified for the job: If just one of the 100 H-1b resumes from H-1b bodyshops is "more qualified," by law, the employer must hire the H-1b, or be subject to a claim of "discrimination based on immigration status or national origin" - thus drumming up more business for AILA lawyers.
Currently the DOL and USCIS know of 130,000 U.S. job openings that will not be filled until October 2007. But these agencies will not disclose these jobs to U.S. workers. Instead they conspire against Americans by reserving these jobs for H-1b workers. The Durin-Grassley bill would require that DOL make post the job openings represented by H-1b applications on their website for 30 days, giving Americans the opportunity to inquire about the positions.
Both AILA and H-1b employers are aware that qualified Americans are being displaced by H-1b workers. And their opposition to the basic protections in the Durbin-Grassley reveal their true motive of keeping it that way.
This "we don't have the time to hire American workers" posture goes far beyond any legitimate claim of a labor shortage. Congress should act in the interests of American workers and co-sponsor the Durbin-Grassley protections.