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.

 

Another Strange Turn at Fox News

The news hasn’t been kind to Fox News lately.

As a messy sexual harassment scandal began unfurling last year, the television network and its corporate parent, 21st Century Fox, were battered with unflattering headlines. Besieged with employee  suits alleging a systemic culture of sexual harassment and retaliation, the company had to spend $20 million last fall to settle claims from former star anchor Gretchen Carlson. Months earlier, Fox also had spent $40 million in a deal to dismiss network CEO Roger Ailes. Other sex-harassment cases against the company remain pending. But new ones keep coming.  Most recently, the storm returned after The New York Times on April 1 reported that sex-harassment claims were piling up against Bill O’Reilly, host of the news channel’s most popular show. The network has paid five women a total of $13million to settle their claims, the Times reorted.

Once again, Fox’s image took a beating.  So did revenue: This time, advertisers left the channel to preserve their own reputations. As a high-profile law firm conducted an investigation on behalf of management, some news outlets reported O’Reilly could be ousted.

We can only imagine how challenging life is today in the Fox HR department.

We may not have to wonder. If one news report is true, HR leaders at 21st Century Fox took a bold step to change the company culture: they launched a training program that features a video that Americans have come to know well: The infamous “Access Hollywood”outtakes featuring host Billy Bush exchanging salacious banter with now-President Donald Trump.

The newspaper reported  that Fox has shown the tape as a regular part of employee seminars warning against sexual harassment.

Hollywood Reporter said employee reaction has at times been incredulous: “There was an audible gasp in the room, like, ‘Can you believe this is happening?’”one tipster told the newspaper.

Giving Workers a Reason to Stay

If you’re looking for more proof that recognition matters, check out this Friday morning the results of OfficeTeam’s latest survey.

Exactly two-thirds (66 percent) of the 750 workers surveyed said they’d likely leave their job if they didn’t feel appreciated, up from 51 percent who responded that way in 2012. That’s certainly a pretty substantial jump over a five-year stretch. In contrast, just over half (54 percent) of 600 senior managers questioned believe it’s common for staff to quit due to lack of recognition.

Asked to share the best form of appreciation from a boss or colleague that they received, those questioned offered up some wide-ranging answers, including: a handwritten thank-you card from the chief operating officer; a new car; being named employee of the year; an all-expenses-paid trip to Jamaica; and a donation to a nonprofit in my name.

In a press release on the findings, OfficeTeam District President Brandi Britton noted  …

“All professionals like to be acknowledged for their contributions, and not just once or twice a year. While monetary rewards are always crowd-pleasers, companies don’t need to spend a lot to show appreciation to their workers. Regular praise and even tokens of gratitude can go a long way.”

Employees were also asked to share the strangest form of recognition they personally received at work—and their responses included a few dozzies, including a loaf of bread, a custom statuette of the recipient, edible flowers, an expired gift certificate, a $0.03 raise and socks.

Just a few things to consider—and not consider—as you plan for Administrative Professionals Week, which runs from April 23 to 29.

A Costly Skills Gap

How much does it cost the average company when open job positions remain unfilled for 12 weeks or longer? Almost $1 million a year, according to a pair of CareerBuilder surveys released today. The surveys, which were conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Poll late last year and from Feb. 16 to March 9 of this year, found that the average cost HR managers say they incur for having extended job vacancies is more than $800,000 annually. Nearly 60 percent of the employers surveyed report that they have job openings that stay vacant for 12 weeks or longer.

We’re not just talking those hard-to-fill computer science jobs, either. “The gap between the number of jobs posted each month and the number of people hired is growing larger as employers struggle to find candidates to fill positions at all levels within their organizations,” says CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson. “There’s a significant supply and demand imbalance in the marketplace, and it’s becoming nearly a million-dollar problem for companies.”

Indeed, a supply imbalance appears to exist for a variety of occupations, including truck drivers, marketing managers, web developers, industrial engineers, sales managers, HR managers and information security analysts, CareerBuilder finds.

Two in three employers (67 percent) say they’re concerned about the skills gap, and more than half (55 percent) say these extended job vacancies are hurting their organizations. Forty-five percent say they lead to productivity loss, while 40 percent say they cause higher employee turnover, 39 percent cite lower morale, 37 percent mention lower quality work and 29 percent say the vacancies leave them unable to grow their business.

Not everyone agrees the “skills shortage” is real; some economists (and our HREOnline Talent Management columnist and Wharton School professor Peter Cappelli) argue that the real culprit is a reluctance by many employers to pay for the sort of workplace training programs that were commonly offered in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of other surveys also show that employers in a range of industries are contending with hard-to-fill positions, including the manufacturing industry. In fact, given President Trump’s stated desire to “make America great again” by, in part, bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country from overseas by imposing tariffs on foreign-made goods, some manufacturers are trying innovative ways to “grow” their own talent by reaching out to high schools and community colleges to ensure they’ll have talent on hand and won’t be caught short.

More Woes for Whistleblowers

Even a CEO’s authority has its limits.

James Staley, the U.S. chief executive of British banking heavyweight Barclays was recently reminded of this fact, and offered other executives a case study in how not to handle a whistleblower complaint in the process.

As the New York Times reported this week, Staley finds himself being investigated by British authorities after he called on Barclays’ internal security team to try to uncover the identity of a whistleblower in an “‘honestly held’ but ‘mistaken’ belief that he had clearance to do so.” According to the Times, the Barclays security team even received assistance with the search from a United States law enforcement agency.

Staley’s effort did not sit well with the bank’s leadership, including Chairman John McFarlane, who the paper reports had “personally chastised” Staley, and had expressed his disappointment in the CEO’s actions directly to him.

The roots of McFarlane’s frustration trace back to last summer, when Stanley brought on Tim Main—a friend and former colleague of Staley’s at JPMorgan Chase—to chair Barclays’ global financial institutions group.

“Mr. Main, who was known for his team-building skills at JPMorgan, seemed like a great hire” for Staley, the Times wrote.

In order to join Staley at Barclays, Main left New York-based investment banking advisory firm Evercore Partners, where he had been “a star,” according to Roger Altman, the firm’s founder and chairman.

Just a month after Main’s hiring, however, Barclays officials received letters sent by an anonymous whistleblower who claimed that Main had “acted erratically” while at JPMorgan; a claim later supported by two JPMorgan employees who reported to Main during his time there.

Barclays did not disclose the details of the letter, but Staley reportedly took offense to the whistleblower’s allegations leveled against Main, which “related to personal issues from many years ago,” Staley wrote in an email to employees. “The intent of the correspondents in airing all of this,” he told workers, “was, in my view, to maliciously smear this person.”

In response to these claims, Staley twice asked Barclays’ internal security team to find the letter’s author. The inquiry didn’t reveal the whistleblower’s identity, and the bank ultimately disregarded his or her assertions.

While both Main and Staley have declined to comment on the situation, Staley did release a statement saying he has apologized to the Barclays board and “will accept whatever sanction it deems appropriate,” which will include a “very significant compensation adjustment,” according to the bank.

An independent law firm was commissioned to investigate Staley’s attempts to unmask Main’s anonymous former colleague, and determined that Staley “erred in seeking out the … whistleblower, but that his belief that he had clearance to do so was an honest mistake,” according to the Times.

That could very well be. But the Barclays brouhaha serves as just the latest example of the hostile treatment that whistleblowers continue to face.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, told the Times as much.

“Whistleblowers are typically treated horribly, even in the government, let alone in the private sector,” said Pfeffer. “People don’t like to have problems pointed out.”

Wells Fargo Shows Its Claws

Months after the revelations that Wells Fargo had engaged in highly questionable (some say illegal) practices, including creating fraudulent accounts, its board of directors has taken action to recoup some of the compensation from the bank’s leaders during the time the nefarious schemes were ongoing.

According to the New York Times, an additional $75 million in compensation will be “clawed back” from the two executives the company’s says bear the majority of the blame for the scandal over fraudulent accounts: the bank’s former chief executive, John G. Stumpf, and its former head of community banking, Carrie L. Tolstedt:

The clawbacks — or forced return of pay and stock grants — are the largest in banking history and among the largest in corporate America. A four-person committee of Wells Fargo’s directors investigated the extensive fraud.

The Times says that while the amount of money customers lost was relatively small — the company has refunded $3.2 million — the scope of the fraud was huge: 5,300 bankers were fired for creating as many as two million unwanted bank and credit card accounts:

In one detail revealed by the board’s report, a branch manager had a teenage daughter with 24 accounts and a husband with 21.

According to Time magazine, Wells has instituted several corporate and business changes since the problems became known nationwide. Wells has changed its sales practices, and called tens of millions of customers to check on whether they truly opened the accounts in question.

Wells Fargo board Chairman Stephen Sanger also acknowledged in a Monday conference call with reporters that board members “could have pushed more forcefully to change leadership at the community bank,” according to USA Today.

While conceding he could not “promise perfection” in the efforts to regain trust from customers and regulators, Sloan said, “I’m very confident we’re on the right track.”

 

Report: HR is ‘Behind the Curve’

New research from the Hackett Group finds that many HR departments are lagging when it comes to helping their organizations deal with talent shortages in key areas, and — due to a lack of resources — sufficient progress likely won’t be made anytime soon.

The report, The CHRO Agenda: An Urgent Need to Close Large Gaps in Talent and Technology Capabilities (registration required), is based on survey results from executives at 180 large U.S. and foreign companies, most with annual revenue of $1 billion or more. It finds that HR at many organizations lacks the ability to fully support key enterprise goals such as adapting talent-management strategies and processes to deal with changing business needs, address talent shortages in critical areas, manage change more effectively and develop agile executives fully capable of leading in a volatile business environment.

HR leaders at these companies don’t suffer from a lack of ambition: The report finds that they’re planning to address issues such as talent-related change and strengthening their organizations’ HR tech and information capabilities and organizational structure and processes. However, their departments are held back by limited resources, with the number of full-time equivalent HR employees expected to decline by 1.4 percent this year on top of a decline of 1.3 percent last year and budgets that are projected to decrease by an average of 1.6 percent, compared to a reduction of 0.3 percent in 2016.

“The consistent finding here is that most HR organizations are simply too busy fighting fires to get out in front on strategic issues,” says Harry Osle, Hackett’s global HR advisory leader. “In many cases, they are in reactive mode, with too much on their plates and an inability to say no to work that does not allow HR to become more strategic.”

HR must change this mindset if it’s ever going to deliver strategic value, he says. “To build a true leadership position within the organization, it is essential that HR find ways to more effectively manage and prioritize its service portfolio, adopt proactive demand management techniques from IT and make headway on transformation and improvement in key talent areas.”

Hackett finds that HR organizations are planning to “dramatically increase” their mainstream adoption efforts in several digital technology areas, including cloud applications and Software-as-a-Service, social media and collaboration technologies and advanced analytics.

Limiting Subpoena Power

As you might have heard, the Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case of McLane Co. Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Monday’s ruling addressed the standard of review for a district court in determining whether to enforce or quash an EEOC-issued subpoena, with the Court reversing the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and holding that federal appellate courts must review a district court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC subpoena for abuse of discretion, and not de novo.

The case centered on a former McLane Co. employee’s claim that the Temple, Texas-based supply chain services provider discriminated against her on the basis of her gender.

In 2007, Damiana Ochoa took three months of maternity leave from her job at McLane, which requires new employees and workers returning from medical leave to undergo a physical evaluation if their job is physically demanding—which Ochoa’s was, according to court documents. Ochoa attempted the evaluation on three separate occasions, and failed to pass each time. She was subsequently fired, which led to her filing a charge of gender discrimination with the EEOC.

As part of its investigation, the EEOC issued subpoenas to McLane, requesting the names, Social Security numbers and contact information for other employees that had been required to take the same evaluation. The EEOC filed actions to enforce the subpoenas after McLane refused to comply with that request.

Finding that the aforementioned information was not relevant to the charges, a federal district court refused to enforce the subpoenas. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, determining that the district court had erred in characterizing the information as irrelevant.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn that Ninth Circuit ruling offers “a good reminder that there are limits to the EEOC’s subpoena power,” says Melissa Raphan, a Minneapolis-based partner at Dorsey & Whitney.

“The practical effect of this decision for employers is twofold,” says Raphan, who is also chair of the firm’s labor and employment group. “First, it is a good reminder that the EEOC does not enjoy unfettered discretion to obtain information about other current and former employees. Second, the battleground to push back on the EEOC’s subpoena is in the district court.”

The EEOC’s subpoena power “does not allow the agency to bypass the burden of showing that the material is relevant, and, even if relevant, the employer can still show that the request is unduly burdensome.”

Ultimately, the decision’s impact on employers figures to be “somewhat limited in scope,” says John Alan Doran, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based partner at Sherman & Howard.

Noting that only the Ninth Circuit took the position that it could review these trial court decisions “from scratch,” Doran adds that “every other jurisdiction has held that a trial court’s decision to quash or modify the scope of an EEOC opinion is subject to searching review by the appellate courts.”

As such, the decision directly affects only those employers doing business within the Ninth Circuit, continues Doran.

That said, “there is useful language for all courts to consider with respect to the scope of the EEOC’s subpoena power that employers will likely use in future run-ins with the EEOC throughout the country.”

The case is “largely about whose ox is getting gored, so it is hard to describe the decision as pro- or anti-employer,” says Doran. “In cases where an employer fails to convince a trial court to modify or quash an EEOC subpoena, this decision makes it that much harder to reverse the trial court’s decision on appeal. But where an employer successfully convinces a trial court to modify or quash a subpoena, its likelihood of success on appeal of that issue is considerably better.”

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.

Getting Under Employees’ Skin

No, this story isn’t about a new and unpopular workplace policy sweeping through the nation’s workplaces.

At least not yet.

The Associated Press is reporting today on a Swedish company that turns its willing employees into “cyborgs” by inserting microchips into them:

What could pass for a dystopian vision of the workplace is almost routine at the Swedish startup hub Epicenter. The company offers to implant its workers and startup members with microchips the size of grains of rice that function as swipe cards: to open doors, operate printers, or buy smoothies with a wave of the hand.

Epicenter’s co-founder and CEO Patrick Mesterton told the AP the move will bring a heightened sense of ease for workers:

“The biggest benefit I think is convenience,” he said. “It basically replaces a lot of things you have, other communication devices, whether it be credit cards or keys.”

According to the AP, the small implants use Near Field Communication technology, the same as in contactless credit cards or mobile payments: “When activated by a reader a few centimeters (inches) away, a small amount of data flows between the two devices via electromagnetic waves. The implants are ‘passive,’ meaning they contain information that other devices can read, but cannot read information themselves.”

The technology is not new, of course, but it has never been used to tag employees on a broad scale before, and the AP says Epicenter and a handful of other companies “are the first to make chip implants broadly available.”
Way back in 2006, however, colleague Mark McGraw tackled the topic of tagging workers:

Cincinnati-based private video-surveillance company CityWatcher.com recently embedded silicon chips in four of its employees, as the company tested the technology in an effort to control access to a room where it holds security video footage for government agencies and police.

The dime-sized chips, manufactured by Delray Beach, Fla.-based VeriChip Corp., were implanted into the employees’ arms, says Sean Darks, CityWatcher CEO, after the company explored various types of biometric applications such as fingerprint and handprint identification systems. CityWatcher turned to radio-frequency identification chips, a less costly alternative to typical biometric systems, to “make security improvements,” he says, and eliminate the possibility of employees losing or misplacing proximity cards or other forms of identification.

RFID chips are inexpensive radio transmitters that emit a unique identifying signal. The chips are commonly used for tracking merchandise in transit, but they can also be implanted in pets to identify them in the event they’re separated from their owners and can be used in humans for medical purposes — to link patients to their medical records in emergency situations, for instance.

However, CityWatcher’s implementation of RFID is the first known case in which U.S. workers have been “tagged” electronically as a way of identifying them, and is likely to add to a growing controversy surrounding RFID , predicted as one of the next big growth industries.

Not everyone McGraw talked to for the piece was excited at the prospect of having more workers walking around with chips inserted under their skin.

“Whether or not implanting  … chips in humans becomes a common workplace security measure remains to be seen,” said Liz McIntyre, a critic of the technology and the communications director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, a nonprofit group focused on consumer privacy issues.  “This is just the beginning,” says McIntyre.
Eleven years later, though, that trend is apparently still in its beginning stages, as the only progress seems to be in the chip’s size shrinking from a dime to a grain of rice, not in expanding the number of companies using such technology.