20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
20.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 20:03
20.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 20:03
Feb 1, 2017, 20:03
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 17:39:
Undocumented Alien wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 15:03:
Cutter wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 12:38:
Nucas wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:17:
this won't stop outsourcing to india, just stop them from importing indian slaves directly to corporate.

Anything that makes it harder for domestic companies to screw domestic workers is a good thing.

Trump is, of course, a hypocrite as he's always abused the HB-2 visa program for his hotels. I wonder what most of the Trumpettes would say about that if they knew.

It was clearly debated during the Primary with dumb-ass Hillary calling him out on it and then Trump properly slamming her for being in politics for 30 years and NOT stopping business owners like him from outsourcing or replacing American workers domestically (i.e. Disney).

Sometimes it takes an "insider" that knows how shit like this works to stop it in it's tracks.

I didn't vote for either of the major candidates, but I'll give Trump his chance like I did for the last person. So far, so good.

So that's Trump's excuse? It's legal so he does it? Really? That was the best he could come up with? And you're defending that? That's funny because he sure as fuck isn't touching the HB-2 program which clearly demonstrates the man is a motherfucking snake in the motherfucking grass. And insider to stop it...Jesus, Mary, and Glavin! Rolleyes

Defend him? No, he had to answer to his board and his shareholders like most people who run a company do. Why do you think most companies do this shit? If your going to comment on this stuff learn some common business sense. Jesus, Mary, and Glavin indeed.
19.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 19:22
19.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 19:22
Feb 1, 2017, 19:22
 
Not a fan of H1-B - it's been terribly abused by companies wanting to hire cheap foreign labor without the bother of going overseas - but I don't really support this change. For one thing, I don't think it's really going to change things much - the revamp is as full of abusable loopholes as the original.

More importantly, H1-B is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress, and I do not agree with the idea that the President can overturn the act on a personal whim. If he disagrees with it, he needs to work with Congress to update the law rather than just change it by Presidential fiat.

Avatar 54666
18.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 17:39
18.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 17:39
Feb 1, 2017, 17:39
 
Undocumented Alien wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 15:03:
Cutter wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 12:38:
Nucas wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:17:
this won't stop outsourcing to india, just stop them from importing indian slaves directly to corporate.

Anything that makes it harder for domestic companies to screw domestic workers is a good thing.

Trump is, of course, a hypocrite as he's always abused the HB-2 visa program for his hotels. I wonder what most of the Trumpettes would say about that if they knew.

It was clearly debated during the Primary with dumb-ass Hillary calling him out on it and then Trump properly slamming her for being in politics for 30 years and NOT stopping business owners like him from outsourcing or replacing American workers domestically (i.e. Disney).

Sometimes it takes an "insider" that knows how shit like this works to stop it in it's tracks.

I didn't vote for either of the major candidates, but I'll give Trump his chance like I did for the last person. So far, so good.

So that's Trump's excuse? It's legal so he does it? Really? That was the best he could come up with? And you're defending that? That's funny because he sure as fuck isn't touching the HB-2 program which clearly demonstrates the man is a motherfucking snake in the motherfucking grass. And insider to stop it...Jesus, Mary, and Glavin! Rolleyes
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
17.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 17:09
17.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 17:09
Feb 1, 2017, 17:09
 
BobBob wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 15:11:
Are my comments often incoherent or stupid? I rarely get responses to things I say. Just wondering ...

It's one of a hundred scenario's and our opinion means nothing. Trump has said he likes to keep things simple, which I think that is a key difference between fans of the parties. Some thinks it is common sense simple, while others think life's a bit more complex then that and certainly at this level. I'm pretty sure it started simple long time ago and became complex as the sitch's came in.

Now can the system use a re-review? Certainly. I hope in the end that is all that is happening here and won't be that destructive. But think of those in HB1 that are affected, this is a major life change in the middle of nowhere for them, obviously Trump being Prez was a major negative to their best interest. So how many of us are going to get life altering news because of simple immediate changes? The Question that needs an answer.

That is why I'm a fan of a little bit better than yesterday and why not? I'm told to plan plan plan and look the fuck here I planned... now you are just going to make sweeping changes that can affect life long plans the system told me to do, that are now obsolete? BS man. I did all the things. I haven't been a drain.
Avatar 17232
16.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 16:24
16.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 16:24
Feb 1, 2017, 16:24
 
Quboid wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 16:14:
You need to troll more BobBob, bait people like me into responding

It's an interesting thought but it's complicated and I think that would make it exploitable, by hiding profits (Hollywood accounting) and/or true employment ratios.

There would need to be some way to handle profit fluctuations. If a company's profits suddenly disappear and they need to fire half their staff, they'll fire the more expensive American workers first as their required ratio slackens. There could also be a situation where foreign workers needs to be fired because of record profits, if the business doesn't want to expand. These could surely be mitigated but it's another attack vector for lawyers and accountants.

Good point. First, the law makers would have to make "C-level" corporate leadership criminally negligent if decisions were demonstrated to have an avoidable and negative impact on employee finance, health, family, etc.

This comment was edited on Feb 1, 2017, 16:36.
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
15.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 16:14
Quboid
 
15.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 16:14
Feb 1, 2017, 16:14
 Quboid
 
You need to troll more BobBob, bait people like me into responding

It's an interesting thought but it's complicated and I think that would make it exploitable, by hiding profits (Hollywood accounting) and/or true employment ratios.

There would need to be some way to handle profit fluctuations. If a company's profits suddenly disappear and they need to fire half their staff, they'll fire the more expensive American workers first as their required ratio slackens. There could also be a situation where foreign workers needs to be fired because of record profits, if the business doesn't want to expand. These could surely be mitigated but it's another attack vector for lawyers and accountants.
Avatar 10439
14.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 15:11
14.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 15:11
Feb 1, 2017, 15:11
 
Are my comments often incoherent or stupid? I rarely get responses to things I say. Just wondering ...
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
13.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 15:03
13.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 15:03
Feb 1, 2017, 15:03
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 12:38:
Nucas wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:17:
this won't stop outsourcing to india, just stop them from importing indian slaves directly to corporate.

Anything that makes it harder for domestic companies to screw domestic workers is a good thing.

Trump is, of course, a hypocrite as he's always abused the HB-2 visa program for his hotels. I wonder what most of the Trumpettes would say about that if they knew.

It was clearly debated during the Primary with dumb-ass Hillary calling him out on it and then Trump properly slamming her for being in politics for 30 years and NOT stopping business owners like him from outsourcing or replacing American workers domestically (i.e. Disney).

Sometimes it takes an "insider" that knows how shit like this works to stop it in it's tracks.

I didn't vote for either of the major candidates, but I'll give Trump his chance like I did for the last person. So far, so good.
12.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 14:38
12.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 14:38
Feb 1, 2017, 14:38
 
Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:44:
Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. I meant when they hire Indians to come here to do the same work for half the pay, where they actually already have someone doing the job.

"We can't find someone with the skills" my effing ass.

For a real life example, see Disney World.
11.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 13:32
11.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 13:32
Feb 1, 2017, 13:32
 
Raise your hand if you think that this will just replace on-shore outsourced jobs with off-shoring US jobs.
10.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 12:47
10.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 12:47
Feb 1, 2017, 12:47
 
If they really wanted to solve this .. though it would be a difficult journey, make it so if a company sells products or services to American clients or trades with American companies, the profits earned must equally be applied to employing of a higher percentage of Americans with a living wage. This would be a blanket rule whether the company is based in America or abroad.

Put simply: If a company earns X profit, said company must hire American employees based on a certain percentage of the profit. As the profits increases, so must the ratio of American based employees increase, etc. There could be requirement to hire more (American) employees as profits rise. This would future proof such a law, where advanced automation could be used to circumvent localized employment requirements.

The counter argument, "They will just take their business elsewhere" .. and the rebuttal can be "Let them .. We are major consumer, they'll cave into our demands .. eventually .. and if they don't someone will see an opportunity and simply create a local business that abides by the new rules."

Brainstorm ...
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
9.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 12:38
9.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 12:38
Feb 1, 2017, 12:38
 
Nucas wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:17:
this won't stop outsourcing to india, just stop them from importing indian slaves directly to corporate.

Anything that makes it harder for domestic companies to screw domestic workers is a good thing.

Trump is, of course, a hypocrite as he's always abused the HB-2 visa program for his hotels. I wonder what most of the Trumpettes would say about that if they knew.
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
8.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 12:22
8.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 12:22
Feb 1, 2017, 12:22
 
Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 09:47:
For all the crazy shit he's done so far, this move I am 100% behind. H-1B has been abused for well over a decade, and companies whining that they "can't find skilled workers in the US" really just mean "for peanuts salary."

When H-1Bs are being used to outsource jobs to India, where the currently employed engineer is being forced to TRAIN his Indian replacement, you know it's gone way overboard. I'm glad someone in DC is finally paying attention to this bullshit.

I don't think hes done anything particularly crazy so far other than be serious about The Wall. I'm not thrilled with some of his appointment choices but after the FCC thing with Tom Wheeler I've learned to be patient and let time show us what these people will do. Whatever he does here will undoubtedly be an improvement, the program is such a fucking fiasco already.
Avatar 51617
7.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 12:19
7.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 12:19
Feb 1, 2017, 12:19
 
Not a Trump fan, but I fully support this. Had my entire department at Chase outsourced, then they had the nerve to actually bring them to the US.
6.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 12:14
6.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 12:14
Feb 1, 2017, 12:14
 
But what about the AI and robots?
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
5.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 11:12
5.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 11:12
Feb 1, 2017, 11:12
 
Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 09:47:
For all the crazy shit he's done so far, this move I am 100% behind.

Actually there are a number of things he says that sounds good, him being an asshole though doesn't help sell them for me. I feel a lot of them are shallow thoughts that sounds good passing by, but many times don't consider a much grander scope. I think that is why he's popular. The friends I have that like them, have similar off the cuff thoughts, thinks it is all "common-sense", but it is like they were born last night. All a sudden things are clear and easy, no two sides, no complexity, no minuses. I look at their lives and think... "When have you known anything to be that ideal?". We say our politicians are party first, well it seems most people are that way now to, I've learned to respect moderacy, for better or worse.
Avatar 17232
4.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 11:02
Quboid
 
4.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 11:02
Feb 1, 2017, 11:02
 Quboid
 
Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2017, 10:44:
Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. I meant when they hire Indians to come here to do the same work for half the pay, where they actually already have someone doing the job.

"We can't find someone with the skills" my effing ass.

This is one issue in which Trump might be able to do some good. If anyone can make it worse it's him but still, he could actually help.
Avatar 10439
3.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 10:44
3.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 10:44
Feb 1, 2017, 10:44
 
Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. I meant when they hire Indians to come here to do the same work for half the pay, where they actually already have someone doing the job.

"We can't find someone with the skills" my effing ass.
Avatar 15604
2.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 10:17
Nucas
 
2.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 10:17
Feb 1, 2017, 10:17
 Nucas
 
this won't stop outsourcing to india, just stop them from importing indian slaves directly to corporate.
Avatar 49584
1.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Feb 1, 2017, 09:47
1.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 1, 2017, 09:47
Feb 1, 2017, 09:47
 
For all the crazy shit he's done so far, this move I am 100% behind. H-1B has been abused for well over a decade, and companies whining that they "can't find skilled workers in the US" really just mean "for peanuts salary."

When H-1Bs are being used to outsource jobs to India, where the currently employed engineer is being forced to TRAIN his Indian replacement, you know it's gone way overboard. I'm glad someone in DC is finally paying attention to this bullshit.
Avatar 15604
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older