Following the lead of the New York Times, the Washington Post has now adopted the Intels Good, Infosyses Bad stance: They say Indian rent-a-programmer firms like Infosys abuse the H-1B work visa, while the mainstream firms like Intel — in the case of the Jeff Bezos-owned Post, firms like Amazon — use the program responsibly. But not only do both the Intels and Infosyses abuse the system, but the Post has its other facts all wrong as well.
The de facto indentured servitude referred to in the editorial actually occurs with the Intels, not the Infosyses. The editorial board is drawing upon a piece published last week by their writer Tracey Jan, who misunderstood one of the people she interviewed, Amit Kapoor. He was referring to H-1B workers who are simultaneously being sponsored for green cards, which the Intels generally do, but which the Infosyses rarely do.
In other words, the Post is unwittingly showing that in actuality it’s Intels Bad, Infosyses Bad (though for different reasons).
The Post is also incorrect about that now-famous $60,000 figure, which the paper says allows the Infosyses to pay below prevailing wage. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Every employer of H-1Bs must pay the prevailing wage. The prevailing wage itself is set too low, but the $60K figure has no bearing on this.
The Post says, “As a candidate, Donald Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth” about H-1B. Not true — unfortunately. Starting with his first pronouncements on H-1B in August 2015 (not 2016), Trump has consistently taken an Intels Good, Infosyses Bad stance. I don’t like it, but he has been entirely consistent.
The Post writes,”…there is no doubt that U.S. colleges and universities cannot keep up with the demand for graduates, especially with advanced and highly specialized degrees.” Where are the Post fact checkers when we need them?