are we talking about just switching or getting fired and trying to find new h-1b job? because these are two completely different procedures from uscis standpoint. the claim about h-1b being "indentured servitude" that people are trying to make usually hinges on it being hard to transfer (which is not the case), not the short grace period after getting fired.
I find it rather strange that you talk about them as if they are two separate things when they are intrinsically linked. You have ~60 days from the date of employment termination to have your work permit transferred or you are out of status, period. Leaving your job (whether via resigning or getting fired or laid off) without something already lined up is thus quite obviously much more risky than it is for someone who doesn't have that sword hanging over their head. I'd sincerely hope it doesn't need explaining how this tilts the balance of power even more in the employer's favour.
What the hell else supposed to happen to your temp worker visa when you’re no longer a worker? Are you supposed to just get an immigration hall pass indefinitely?
Same point as in sibling thread - if you cant get a new job lined up while still employed or within 60 days of being laid off, you clearly dont possess "distinguished merit and ability" which is the entire purpose of this visa
> if you cant get a new job lined up while still employed or within 60 days of being laid off
Lining up a job while you are still employed is something you control. Being unexpectedly thrust into the job market due to layoffs for instance is something you don't, and the state of the job market you enter is equally something you don't control. Additionally I am not sure you understand what 60 calendar days from termination to being out of status means. You don't have 60 days to "line up a job". You have 60 days to be employed again, which for this purpose means that your new employer has properly filed a petition on your behalf.
Again, does it really need explaining that this puts pressure on H-visa holders specifically that other workers don't have, especially when the companies that do sponsor visas often have interview processes that can take over a month? Does it need explaining that risking their residence and not just a paycheck means that they are less able to both:
- leave a toxic, failing or otherwise dysfunctional employer (since you practically need to secure something else first versus being truly able to resign at will)
- reject substandard employment offers (under the pressure of literally not having the time to do any more interviews)
How is it not incredibly obvious that as I said, this tilts the balance of power even more in the employer's direction? Why does someone pointing this out raise your hackles?
Also, why do you assume that the US is the only country on earth that has non-immigrant skilled workers? For instance the EU's Blue Card programme (which despite the deliberate naming is not actually a permanent residence permit like the US' green card) is far more sensible and less exploitable by employers.