More H-1B visa concerns

I read with interest the letter to the editor titled, "H-1B visa concerns" written by Sergio F. in the November 2006 issue of Structural Engineer. He writes, "How can we deal with this abuse of H-1B denying Americans their right to advance in our profession? Who are the supporters of this H-1B fiasco, and what can we do to get this eliminated?"
Let me add to the commentary and to the discussion. I’ve followed closely the "H-1B fiasco" for more than six years. To answer the author’s questions, first, there are several organizations fighting the abuses of the H-1B visa program. I direct the readers to www.techsunite.org; www.aea.org; www.programmersguild.org; www.toraw.org; www.rescueamericanjobs.org; and www.unitedprofessionals.org. There are many others.

In my opinion, the largest supporters of the H-1B program are corporations and immigration attorneys! View a partial list of H-1B supporters at www.competeamerica.org.

What can we do? So far, few (American) engineers and engineering associations seem to have concerns. Most engineering associations have been silent on the issue of H-1B visas. Not much can be done about resolving the H-1B issue until engineers confront the matter, step forward, and be heard. IT professionals and computer programmers are another story. They have already suffered abuses from the H-1B program and are outraged. Many are actively pursuing action. You are directed to www.ieeeusa.org to learn more about their efforts.

Robert B. Johnson, S.E., P.E., Chicago

Two sides to every concern

I read the letter to the editor titled, "H1-B visa concerns" in the November 2006 issue of Structural Engineer and I would like to express my point of view in regard to this topic.
I am a foreign worker that has gone through the H1-B visa program and is currently working under an O-1 visa. I understand that many Americans feel threatened by foreign workers since it appears that they could potentially prevent Americans from professionally advancing. However, they should understand that this country is graduating only 60,000 engineers a year compared to 450,000 in China and 250,000 in India. Unfortunately, the American government is not sponsoring universities or research institutes by increasing the number of grants or research resources, instead, it is decreasing them to the lowest levels yet in 2006-2007. It is well known that the structural engineering industry has a shortage of qualified professionals and that the government is not facilitating companies from bringing qualified labor from other countries.

As a result, outsourcing is or will be the only mechanism for competitive companies to succeed and to deliver on-time, quality, and professional engineering services. If this phenomenon continues over the next 10 years, the American working engineering force will not be able to keep up with the national demand, nevertheless with the incredible international growing market. I believe that those people who feel threatened should understand that this is a world-wide market, and that engineers world-wide will step up to meet the growing and demanding economy.

What I question is why the American people would like to pursue a professional engineering degree, such as the one that the American Society of Civil Engineers is proposing to consider the master’s degree the professional degree? How can students afford to support themselves during this additional education requirement only to go out into a market that does not offer competitive wages that are balanced against the risk and contributions that structural engineers provide to public safety? I think we should change our minds and accept that if there are others with equal or better qualifications, then they should be allowed to come and help with the demanding economy that made this country so proud in the 20th century.

I want to mention that this letter expresses my personal point of view and does not reflect my company’s opinion.

Nicolas S., Ph.D.

Companies are to blame

I just read several of the responses to Richard Weingardt’s "Looking into the crystal ball" from Brad Edwards, Michael J. Fortunato, and Sergio F in the "Letters" section of November’s Structural Engineer.

It makes no sense to encourage U.S. citizen students to prepare for a field in which they have no chance of making a career, especially a science or engineering field that requires so much time and cost. So long as body shopping and guest-worker abuses are all the rage, U.S. students are too bright to waste their time.

Yes, employers should invest in ongoing education and training, and there are federal tax credits for doing so. There are also tax credits for interview, relocation, and research and development costs. Science and technology executives are overly reluctant to put their personal money where their mouths are by investing in U.S. citizen employees.
Telling penniless people who were formerly employed as engineers that they should invest in training, and pointing them at a training class in something in which they are already expert, is both stupid and insulting. Pointing them to such a class when there is no way it will increase their ability to land a real job, because the relevant positions are being reserved for guest-workers, is worse.

We’ve got a million or more U.S. citizens who are capable of doing excellent work—who already have the talent and the knowledge—but are under-employed or unemployed. If your firm is having trouble hiring, then you have several choices: offer more pay; relocate from within the United States; offer education/training; or do a reality check on your requirements.

The statement that those hired fail to "develop details," sounds like they’re either unaware that the details need to be developed, or simply not conscientious. That could be a management failure to state what they want. Only on-the-job training or a mentoring program will take care of that, which takes us back to employers’ stubborn, even ornery, unwillingness to take the long-term, ethical view by investing in their employees.

Jeffrey Oleander