Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Monday, Jul 03, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eWorld
-
Human Resources `Underpaid' Moumita Bakshi Chatterjee
In what could arm critics of the H-1B programme with additional ammunition, a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has found that 3,229 H-1B visa petitions between January 2002 and September 2005 received Labour Department certification, although the wage rate specified on the applications waslower than the prevailing wage rates. Although this represents a small percentage of the overall applications reviewed, the Federal auditors' finding assumes significance in the backdrop of reports such as one by the Centre for Immigration Studies (CIS), which claimed that the wages for H-1B workers in computer programming occupation are overwhelmingly concentrated at the bottom of the US pay scale, despite a Federal stipulation that US employers must pay H-1B workers the same as US professionals.
Case for more stringent checks
In its latest report on the H-1B visa programme, the GAO has said that while Labour's H-1B authority was limited in scope, the agency could improve its oversight of employers' compliance with programme requirements. "Labour's review of employers' applications to hire H-1B workers is timely, but lacks quality assurance controls and may overlook some inaccuracies," it has said. The GAO report notes that from January 2002 through September 2005, the Labour Department electronically reviewed more than 960,000 applications many of them for workers in computer systems analysis and programming occupations and certified almost all of them. "By statute, Labour's review of the applications is limited to searching for missing information or obvious inaccuracies and it does this through automated data checks. However, our analysis of Labour's data found certified applications with inaccurate information that could have been identified by more stringent checks. Although the overall percentage was small, we found 3,229 applications that were certified even though the wage rate on the application was lower than the prevailing wage for that occupation," it said.
Erroneous numbers
Additionally, about 1,000 certified applications contained erroneous employer identification numbers, which raises questions about the validity of the application. It also stated that from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005, Labour reported an increase in the number of H-1B complaints and violations, and a corresponding increase in the number of employer penalties. In fiscal year 2000, Labour required employers to pay back wages totalling $1.2 million to 226 H-1B workers; by fiscal year 2005, back wage penalties had increased to $5.2 million for 604 workers. "Labour, Homeland Security, and Justice all have responsibilities under the H-1B programme, but Labour and Homeland Security could better address the challenges they face in sharing information. Homeland Security reviews Labour's certified application but cannot easily verify whether employers submitted petitions for more workers than originally requested on the application because USCIS's database cannot match each petition to Labour's application case number," it said. It may be recalled that a report released in December 2005 by John Miano for CIS, a non-profit research organisation in the US, had claimed that in spite of the requirement that H-1B workers be paid the `prevailing wage', H-1B workers earned significantly less than their American counterparts. "On average, applications for H-1B workers in computer occupations were for wages $13,000 less than Americans in the same occupation and state," the report, titled The Bottom of the Pay Scale Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers had pointed out.
More Stories on : Human Resources | Foreign Relations
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2006, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|