Readit NewsI'm amused and perplexed at all of the "I'm not a lawyer, but..." comments when this is literally an AMA with a lawyer.
I once got in trouble with BP because they didn't believe me that I was coming in to work on a project and thought I would be looking for a job to stay illegally. BP finally decided to let me in and told me that what I was doing was fine, but they just didn't find it credible that I would leave my GF alone for a month in Argentina.
I've done this 10+ times in my career, for big and small companies, and it was never an issue even when explicitly saying these things with border patrol/immigration.
What gets you in trouble at the border is the risk of permanently staying, and the risk of drugs&money.
What we did over those years will be recorded as one of the single biggest wealth transfers in history.
I was on a two-person team that was, due to recent client poaching, pretty severely overstaffed. Our manager had just been promoted and we got a new one hired in.
He viewed our lack of work to do as temporary and started recruiting. He eventually hired a third member and we started training her. After the first day of training, I was fired with no notice and no severance. The manager remarked, in the surprise exit interview, that he had taken a look at staffing recently and we had too much.
There are a couple interesting things to consider here:
1. We had been severely overstaffed (as advertised!) for several months before he even started hiring. He was well aware of it.
2. My team's original manager had offered to me that I was free to live anywhere in the world, as long as it had an internet connection. He left the team so soon after I joined that this didn't happen. But the new manager gave many indications of being acutely uncomfortable with the idea that I had made a request that he wasn't willing to grant immediately.
My question to you is, was I fired because we were overstaffed, or was that mentioned in the exit interview for no particular reason?
And my followup question is, did the companies discussed here do layoffs because they were overstaffed, or because they felt they had the right amount of staff, but they wanted to pay them less?
And of course, companies also have practical right to make mistakes, from overstaffing to understaffing, or to place bets that do well or do not.
The point is that these things would happen even if things were being run perfectly, so they are not indicative of nefarious practices or abuses.
> The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.
> BloomTech falsely claimed its “income share” agreements were not loans, did not create debt, did not carry a finance charge, and were “risk free.” In fact, the agreements are loans with an average finance charge of $4,000. The loans carry substantial risk, as a single missed payment triggers a default and the remainder of the $30,000 “cap” becomes due immediately. BloomTech further hid the cost and nature of the “income share” loans by not disclosing key terms like the finance charge and annual percentage rate, as required by law.
Student loans from a legitimate lender don't come with balloon payments, the APRs and any finance charges are clearly disclosed, etc., and they're not making up graduation rates.