Category Archives: immigration

B-School Applications Are Up

Applications for graduate business degree programs are up this year, suggesting a bumper crop of potential recruits down the road, reports the Graduate Admissions Council. The nonprofit association of B-schools administers the GMAT admissions exam.

Among larger programs, 73 percent reported an uptick in applications in the council’s latest annual survey . Smaller programs saw increases of 39 percent to 51 percent. The survey polled 965 degree programs at  351 business schools in 45 countries.

The survey also showed growth of a trend we first noted early this year: amid uncertainty about the nation’s immigration policies, foreign students are steering away from U.S.business schools. About 75 percent of full-time two-year MBA programs in the United States saw a decline in foreign-student applications. By contrast, 22 percent saw increases in U.S. applications.

 

The report quotes one unnamed admission official at a U.S. school  offering an explanation: “Anecdotally, we have had prospective and admitted students express concern about applying for and enrolling in [graduate management programs  in the United States because of the current political situation and fears of finding employment/H1Bs after graduation.”

 

Speaking Up in the C-Suite

A recent series of experiments, which we wrote about here at HRE, sought to get a sense of employees’ feelings about corporate leaders who base business decisions on their moral beliefs.

In that study, researchers found that workers saw executives who staked out positions on moral grounds and later changed their minds as being hypocritical, and “less effective and worthy of their support than leaders whose initial stance was pragmatic.”

So, CEOs take a chance when they choose to travel the moral high road, especially if they flip-flop on an issue in the future.

A newer survey, however, finds that, yes, there are hazards that come along with speaking out on controversial subjects. But there are also reasons to remind your CEO that saying something might be better than staying quiet, at least in the eyes of some (mostly younger) employees.

In partnership with KRC Research, New York-based public relations firm Weber Shandwick polled 1,021 U.S. adults, gauging respondents’ attitudes toward “the trend of chief executive officers speaking out on hot-button societal topics,” according to a Weber Shandwick statement.

They ultimately found that one generation of employees in particular—millennials—feel that CEOs actually have a responsibility to make their voices heard on matters that are important to society. Nearly half of millennials polled (47 percent) said they feel this way, while just 28 percent of Generation Xers and baby boomers agree. And, given the current cultural climate, it’s not exactly surprising that a larger portion of Generation Y (56 percent) feels that CEOs and other business leaders have a greater duty to take a stand on societal concerns now than they did in the past.

In addition, the report sees 51 percent of millennials saying they would be more apt to buy from a company whose chief executive spoke out on an issue they agreed with; an 11 percent increase from a 2016 Weber Shandwick survey. From an employee perspective, 44 percent of full-time Gen Y workers said they would be more loyal to their organization if the CEO took a public position on a “hotly debated current issue,” in comparison to the 16 percent of Gen Xers and 18 percent of boomers saying the same.

What exactly is the cost of a CEO’s silence? Overall, 47 percent of respondents said that some form of criticism—from the media, customers, employees or the government—would be the biggest downside to a CEO’s decision to sit out a social debate. Another 20 percent suggest that the organization could be hurt financially, while 14 percent reckon that potential job candidates would instead shy away from applying with the company. Twelve percent foresee current employees quitting.

The risk of incurring such damage apparently depends on the issue at hand. When asked which topics—all of which relate to the workplace in some way—that CEOs and other business leaders should express an opinion on, job and skills training was the most common response among all respondents, closely followed by equal pay in the workplace, healthcare coverage, maternity and paternity leave, and gender equality.

That said, there seem to be instances when executives should think carefully before entering the fray. Less than 35 percent of all respondents said business leaders should weigh in on immigration, for example, with roughly 25 percent saying the same about LGBT rights, gun control and refugees, respectively.

As a PR firm, Weber Shandwick is happy to offer tips on how to approach activism in the C-suite, of course. And this report does just that. But, however they decide to broach thorny subjects like those mentioned above, CEOs and other executives should be aware that the call for them to take at least an occasional social stand is only going to get louder.

“CEOs are expected to make a strong business case for any environmental or social issues they speak up about or which they commit time and resources to,” says Paul Massey, global lead of social impact at Weber Shandwick, in a statement. “This research tells us that millennials, more so than older generations, will also be vigilant when it comes to CEOs being held accountable for defending corporate values and conduct.”

 

Will Foreign Students Shun the U.S?

The Trump administration’s increased scrutiny of H-1B visas affects not only experienced foreign workersit also could pinch the flow of talented international students who, after earning U.S. graduate degrees, traditionally start their careers in the lower rungs of major American companies.

A May 2017 survey by the Graduate Management Admission Council, which administers the exam that students usually must take to enter an MBA or other business-focused graduate program, found that two-thirds of 700 foreign students seeking admission to a U.S. graduate business program would consider shifting their destination to another country if they couldn’t get a work visa after graduation.

The U.S. remains the top choice for graduate business education, with 62 percent of respondents listing it as their first choice. India, at 9 percent, was the overall second choice. Canada, at 6 percent, was third, with China, the United Kingdom and France also mentioned.

But already there is evidence that U.S. visa policies are discouraging graduate business students. About two-thirds of MBA programs are reporting a decline in foreign-student applications, the council reported. And 56 percent of students who plan to study outside the U.S. cited American immigration policies as the reason, the GMAC survey found.

Life at Ground Zero

If anybody in HR sits in the middle of  the  chaos over U.S. immigration rules, it might be Vicky Turk. She works for SimCorp, a Copenhagen-based maker of advanced financial software with 1,376 employees all over the world. Based in New York, she’s  head of HR for a region that includes both the U.S. and Canada.

Lately, that hasn’t been easy.

Over recent months, the Trump administration has twice shut the door on visitors from certain countries, only to be stymied  — temporarily — each time by the courts. The legal battle is far from over; a federal judge in Hawaii on June 28 extended an earlier order blocking the ban.

Turk says the North American division of SimCorp has had two employees blocked by the travel ban as they tried to return from overseas.

 

“As a global company, Simcorp has consultants that travel on short and long term assignments between countries,” Turk says. “The uncertainty surrounding the travel ban and its potential evolution make it more difficult for the company and employees to plan with confidence.”

 

Ready for More Immigration Audits?

With tougher immigration rules on the front burner in Washington, nearly every employer should be prepared for a visit from ICE agents sooner or later, warns an immigration lawyer who defends employers.
With President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” policy increasing scrutiny of employer-sponsored work visas like the H-1B, “I do believe we’ll see increased enforcement with respect to audits and site visits,” says Montserrat Miller, a n employment attorney partner at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Washington who specializes in helping employers with immigration issues.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents aren’t just targeting packing houses and other businesses with a history of hiring undocumented workers, Miller says. And they’re no longer just looking for “criminal aliens” and gang members, common targets of ICE workplace enforcement operations under previous administrations.

Any business with workers who have “H” or “L “visas—commonly issued to let foreign citizens work in the U.S. for a sponsoring employer—should be prepared for a sudden visit by ICE agents looking to see that all the paperwork is in order, Miller says.

“Everybody has the potential to be detained if they’re not authorized to be in the United States,” she says. (Watch for more coverage of changes in immigration law, including a Human Resource Executive® magazine cover story to be published this month that looks at how employers are affected.)

Miller says it’s key to be prepared for these visits. First, she says, make sure people on the front lines, such as receptionists, know what to do when an agent arrives. They also should know what documentation ICE agents are required to present when they arrive, she adds, and whom to summon for help, including HR leaders and legal counsel.

Employers, Miller says, should also determine before any site visit where agents may and may not go to inspect company records.

Employees with work visas should be familiar with details provided on their visa applications “so they don’t accidentally say something [to agents] that raises questions” during a site visit, according to Miller.

The bottom line:”You need to have a plan in place.”

Trump Takes on H1-B Visas

President Trump is expected to sign a new executive order today “aimed at making it harder for technology companies to recruit low-wage workers from foreign countries and undercut Americans looking for jobs,” according to the New York Times.

The order is expected to be signed during the president’s visit to a Wisconsin toolmaker today, and is a continuation of Trump’s line of attack from his campaign.

From the Times:

As a candidate, Mr. Trump often assailed the government’s H-1B visa program, under which the government admits 85,000 immigrants each year, mostly to work in high-tech jobs. Mr. Trump pledged to end the program, which he said was allowing companies to fire Americans and replace them with lower-cost foreign employees.

The president’s order, according to officials who spoke to the newspaper on the condition of anonymity, seeks changes to the program that would require applicants and their potential employers to demonstrate that the visas are going only to “the most highly skilled workers” in their fields.

As a result,  the H-1B visa would no longer be a cheap way for companies to replace American workers. But technology executives, who have argued that the program is vital to their ability to recruit talent, are likely to be frustrated by the change:

Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research group sponsored by several tech companies, predicted in January that a crackdown on H-1B visas would be counterproductive.

“The effect would end up being exactly the opposite of what Trump wants,” he said. “Companies would go offshore, like Microsoft did with Vancouver, Canada,” to seek talent.

Earlier this week, Peter Cappelli, an HREonline.com columnist and Wharton professor, posted a column on the topic of H1-B visas and whom the program really benefits:

When we talk about programs like this one, the question of whether it is “good” or “bad” for the country is almost impossible to answer objectively. What we can answer is, good for whom and bad for whom? A new study by John Bound, Gaurav Khanna and Nicolas Morales  examines that question, and the results should be familiar to anyone who has studied supply and demand.

So who benefits?

The companies that employ them, leading to lower prices for the goods and services they produced and in turn benefits for consumers.

Who loses?

U.S. employees in computer science see their wages lower as a result. Here’s the finding that may be a surprise: College enrollment in IT programs declines when the H1-B visa program expands. Why should that be? Because there aren’t as many IT jobs available to U.S. workers, and wages for them are lower, so some students would otherwise pursue that field go elsewhere.

Cappelli says that, while the notion of bringing in foreign workers to make up for worker shortfalls makes sense in smaller countries, it doesn’t work in the U.S.:

Young people in particular are constantly trying to figure out where the jobs will be, colleges hunt for job-market niches where they can attract students and workers move thousands of miles if there are good jobs available. What we know from this study — which parallels what we learned years ago in fields such as nursing — is that bringing in foreign workers slows down the process through which the U.S. labor market adjusts to new demands.

That seems to be the case for the H1-B program and the IT industry.

Cappelli says the fact that so many U.S. IT companies seem so reliant on these foreign temp workers points to a definite problem here. It remains to be seen how Trump’s anticipated order will solve that problem.

 

Using Data To Defend H-1B Visas

As the federal government this week began accepting H-1B visa applications for 2017, Trump administration officials sent new signals that they will more carefully scrutinize employer use of the popular tool for recruiting skilled workers.

Meanwhile, a new study disputes the idea — espoused by the president himself –that employers use H-1B visas to hire “cheap labor” from overseas, undercutting Americans who would like the jobs.

The study, by the job site Glassdoor, concluded that foreign workers with H-1B visas on average earn nearly 3 percent more than Americans holding comparable jobs. Overseen by Glassdoor chief economist Andrew Chamberlain, the analysis compared salaries reported on H-1B applications with those reported by Glassdor users for comparable jobs.

While a study in the 1990s suggested that wages for computer scientists were hurt by an influx of H-1B workers at the time, the current data show “there’s no evidence that H-1B workers are paid any less” than America counterparts today, Chamberlain writes.

Overall, the foreign workers earn 2.8 percent more, the study found.The pay gap varied by job title and location; for example,H-1B workers were more likely to earn less than their American counterparts in Washington, D.C. than in other major U.S job hubs.

But the program remains a target for critics, including many in the Trump administration, who say it hurts native-born workers by creating a back door for foreign applicants.UnderTrump, the federal government has begun to tighten regulations that govern the program. Last week, for example, officials said computer programming jobs, long a popular use forH-1B visas, would no longer automatically qualify.

It’s unclear what further restrictions may follow. But just this week immigration officials vowed to redouble enforcement efforts against employers that skirt the rules. “Too many American workers who are qualified, willing and deserving to work in these fields have been ignored or unfairly disadvantaged,”said a statement issued Monday by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Travel Ban Would Impact Many

Though President Trump’s travel ban has been frozen indefinitely, a decision made Thursday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it’s still worth noting how many organizations would be affected should Trump proceed successfully in appealing the decision to the United States Supreme Court. He has vowed to do just this, according to the New York Times report linked above. (More recently, on Friday, he said he is now considering rewriting the immigration executive order in question.)

Whatever we end up with,  a survey of 261 companies by the Seattle-based Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) — conducted just a few days after Trump signed the order restricting entry to the U.S. by travelers from seven majority Muslim countries — reveals more than a third (36 percent) of organizations would be impacted by the travel ban. Another 21 percent were still scrambling to make that determination at the time of the poll.

Within a week of the signing of the executive order, nearly 100 companies — including many of the largest global-tech organizations such as Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and Uber — responded by joining in the filing of a brief in support of a lawsuit against the travel ban filed by the state of Washington. It was that lawsuit that was at the heart of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision Thursday.

In its release about the survey, i4cp describes the responses as very mixed:

“While some respondents lauded the executive order for protecting the safety of employees, others drew attention to its potentially negative impact on the recruiting and motivation of a diverse, inclusive global workforce, a clear illustration of the polarization of views and reactions.”

Some respondents reported they are simply unsure of the impact of the travel restrictions because of a “lack of transparency in their global contract workforces, which are managed by vendors,” the release states.

Human resources, however, was the predominant responsible party (at 41 percent) for managing internally anyone affected by the ban, followed by legal, 7 percent; CEO, 6 percent; other senior executive, 5 percent; and security, 1 percent. (Other responses included don’t know, 10 percent, and other, 30 percent.) As i4cp states:

“Often, [HR’s lead] is in conjunction with legal teams responding to the needs of individual employees.”

In a few cases, companies reported having multifunctional “SWAT” teams in place responding to the situation. And nearly a third said they are providing legal assistance to affected employees and their families.

Of course, these were the actions in place when the ban was in place. No doubt things have returned to normal since the freeze and its being upheld in appeals court. But should Trump succeed at the Supreme Court level, these challenges would be back on employers’ plates immediately. Would be wise to stay poised to help these employees — and clearly, there are a lot of them — once again if need be.

So Where Are We on H-1B Visas?

Here we are one week ahead of the presidential election, and it’s still clear as mud what the result could mean for one issue of great interest to HR: the future of employment-based immigration.

Athinkstockphotos-523158854s I wrote in our Sept. 2 cover story, the prospects for employers are not especially positive either way. With trade agreements in the political crosshairs and rising concern about how foreign workers may put residents out of work, this is not a good year to promise companies more access to talent from abroad.

But both candidates have been elusive on the subject. This spring, for example, GOP  nominee Donald Trump appeared to stake out contradictory positions, first proposing a higher bar for companies sponsoring worker visas and later announcing that “I’m changing,” recognizing the need for skilled workers, particularly in the tech industry.

More recently, Politico’s Morning Shift blog points out, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Trump surrogate, suggested in Iowa that a Trump administration might stop issuing H-1B visas entirely.

“We shouldn’t be bringing in people where we’ve got workers,” he said at a campaign event, according to the Des Moines Register. “I don’t think the republic would collapse if it was totally eliminated.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has kept a low profile on the issue, though she appears more open than her rival to supporting the tech industry’s need for workers. Her campaign, for example, promises a President Clinton would support “stapling” a green card to certain advanced degrees earned in the U.S. by foreign workers in STEM fields.

But neither candidate addressed the issue in the three presidential debates, leaving companies that depend on foreign workers left to guess what policies they might pursue.

As befits a story important to the tech industry, there is a way to use data to get a sense which candidate might be best for the industry. The data-heavy political blog 538 this week looked at contributions from Silicon Valley to the two campaigns.

With 95 percent of the money from these donors, Clinton outdistances Trump by a huge margin. That might signal optimism about her policies on employment-based immigration.

Or it could mean something else entirely. After all, Silicon Valley is in the heart of ultra-blue California.

The Democratic Party Platform: A Cheat Sheet

ThinkstockPhotos-476244660Turnabout is fair play — at least when it comes to politics in 2016. Last week I gave you a rundown on HR-related provisions in the Republican Party platform. Now it’s time for the Democrats.

Reflecting the unusual character of this year’s race, the document — formally approved on Monday — contains many direct attacks on GOP candidate Donald J. Trump. In some cases the narrative has to stretch a bit to do so. In declaring the party’s support for small business, for example, the platform says:

“The Democratic Party will make it easier to start and grow a small business in America, unlike Donald Trump, who has often stiffed small businesses—nearly bankrupting some—with his deceptive and reckless corporate practices.”

Anyway. Back to HR. Following are the main provisions of interest.

Minimum Wage: Language in the platform on the federal minimum wage reflects some tension between the party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Clinton favors a raise from $7.25 an hour today to $12, leaving states and cities to set higher minimums. Her now-vanquished rival, Bernie Sanders, pushed for $15. What emerged in final platform language was a compromise: $15 … “over time.” The party also calls for eliminating minimum-wage exemptions for tipped workers and those with disabilities.

“No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. … We should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over time and index it [to inflation].”

Employer incentives: The party also favors federal support for employers who “provide their workers with a living wage, good benefits, and the opportunity to form a union without reprisal.” The language doesn’t specify the form of this support, but suggests such employers would get preference in existing programs.

“The one trillion dollars spent annually by the government on contracts, loans, and grants should be used to support good jobs that rebuild the middle class.”

‘Card Check’: The platform reiterates a long-held argument in favor of allowing unions to organize workplaces where a majority of workers have signed cards indicating approval — with no election. The idea, called “card check,” has been proposed in Congress for more than a decade, so far without success.

The provision is part of a larger argument the party makes in favor of stronger legislative and regulatory support for labor unions.

“A major factor in the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits have been under attack at all levels. … We oppose legislation and lawsuits that would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers and other public employees. We will defend President Obama’s overtime rule, which protects of millions of workers by paying them fairly for their hard work.”

Mandatory Arbitration: Federal regulators have been going after companies that require workers to sign arbitration agreements that waive their rights to sue or join class-action suits. The topic got a big boost this month with news that former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes is citing such a clause in the contract of former Fox commentator Gretchen Carlson to keep her sexual-harassment lawsuit out of court.

The 2016 platform adds the cause to a list of labor measures.

“We will support efforts to limit the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment and service contracts, which unfairly strip consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors of their right to their day in court.”

Paid leave: After a passing reference to the party’s support for gender-based pay equity, the Democratic Party platform gets more specific about laws that would mandate family and medical leave.

“Democrats will make sure that the United States finally enacts national paid family and medical leave by passing a family and medical leave act that would provide all workers at least 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child or address a personal or family member’s serious health issue. We will fight to allow workers the right to earn at least seven days of paid sick leave. We will also encourage employers to provide paid vacation.”

Profit-sharing: Suggesting a program that may appeal to some employers, the party also backs an unspecified government incentive to some that provide profit-sharing bonuses to employees.

“Corporate profits are at near-record highs, but workers have not shared through rising wages. … we will incentivize companies to share profits with their employees on top of wages and pay increases, while targeting the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most.”

International trade: Trade policy is a sore subject for both parties, with Trump and Sanders railing against NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Democratic Party platform walks a narrow line, calling for tougher bargaining — without shutting the door on the TPP.

“Trade agreements should crack down on the unfair and illegal subsidies other countries grant their businesses at the expense of ours. … These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Immigration: The 2016 party platform reaffirms longstanding calls for comprehensive immigration policy reform — but makes no mention of increasing employment-based visa allowances to help companies recruit talent abroad.

“Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country.”