From: Joachim Feise (jfeise@ics.uci.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 13:32:18 PDT
Of course, Mr. Matloff Cc'ed his original answer to everyone on his
list of anti-immigration advocates.
Who are the "thousands of high tech workers" who share the same anecdote?
Again and again I see you and your collegues arguing with some numbers that
nobody seems to know except you. Apparently, these numbers circulate in
anti-immigration circles, and at some point become "facts".
And then you throw in another anecdote about recruiting at UCD, which
again does not show anything.
Just a consideration: maybe recruiting at UCD is down because the people
already have jobs.
It is known that all US universities have problems getting graduate students
because of the worker shortage. People are leaving undergraduate curricula
even before graduation.
And why is the fact that a CEO said that they screen people something
newsworthy? This happens all the time, in all industries. People apply for
jobs they don't have the qualifications for, and they are screened out
during the process. This has happened for centuries. Maybe you need
an education in business management.
-Joe
Mark Mendlovitz wrote:
>
> When thousands of high tech workers are sharing the same "anecdote", the
> anecdotal evidence of discrimination becomes hard evidence. Consider this:
> In the midst of an alleged "shortage" of workers, why is recruiting of CS
> students (for programming jobs) at UC-Davis down for the second year in a
> row? And Cisco's CEO just admitted recently that they interview only a small
> percentage of job candidates. Why? On the other hand, there is nothing to
> suggest a worker shortage except the anecdotes from a relatively small
> number of industry lobbyists seeking to prevent a rise in wages, all in the
> commercial high tech sector. The burden of proof should be on EMPLOYERS, not
> employees, since employers are free to send work outside the U.S., while
> most American are not able to get work overseas. What proof do you have Joe?
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: "Eric D. Sherman" <EricSherman@Alum.MIT.edu>
> To: jfeise@ics.uci.edu, Norm Matloff <matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu>
> Sent: June 8, 2000 6:55:35 PM GMT
> Subject: RE: National Sign-On Letter to House on H-1Bs, U.S. Immigration
>
> I have over 25 years' perience in the IT field, both in the U.S. and abroad.
> In my personal experience, every word Norman Matloff has ever written has
> been deadly accurate.
>
> Moreover, Norm's positions have the overwhelming support of over 80% of the
> American population. Even legislators have admitted that the reasons they're
> taking their anti-American positions on H1B/immigration are because industry
> is PAYING them to do so.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joachim Feise [mailto:jfeise@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:46 PM
> To: Norm Matloff
> Cc: Adam L. Beberg; FoRK; sramjee@hss.hns.com; RRivers297@aol.com;
> billreed@ticnet.com; jdensler@ziplink.net; c0030180@airmail.net;
> rogermadden@cs.com; miano@colosseumbuilders.com;
> netmouser@earthlink.net; 110077.3677@compuserve.com; terryo@flash.net;
> robertsb@mindspring.com; infosurf@cybernex.net;
> EricSherman@alum.mit.edu; KFran95011@aol.com; mendlovitz@prodigy.net;
> RobSanz@worldnet.att.net; rtax@bellatlantic.net;
> DamonScott@cs.ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Re: National Sign-On Letter to House on H-1Bs, U.S. Immigration
>
> Norm Matloff wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:13:07AM -0700, Joachim Feise wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 sramjee@hss.hns.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
> >
> > > > I remember reading this a couple years ago just after it was
> presented.
> > > > Unfortunately ever word of what he says is true.
> >
> > > Well, it is not.
> > > Of course, the anecdotal things he quotes from newspapers may be true,
> > > but given the way newspaper editors work, these things are likely to be
> > > blown out of proportions and sensationalized.
> > > Age discrimination sure exists in some instances, but Norm Matloff makes
> > > it sound as if this is the rule, without giving sound (and provable)
> evidence.
> > > This is a bad approach, one that lobbying organizations take.
> > > Because of this, everything he says in that paper is suspect.
> >
> > Hey, Joe, why don't you actually try READING my paper. There's
> > a lot more than just anecdotes, with lots of cited data, graphs,
> > tables etc.
> >
> > Norm
>
> You may remember that we had the same discussion before.
> And repeating the assertion that I didn't read it doesn't make
> the paper any better.
> In fact, I have read parts of it, but couldn't stand reading the
> whole thing because my blood started to boil reading unsubstantiated
> claims.
> It still is a biased lobbying paper, and therefore not really worth
> serious consideration.
>
> -Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 13:43:00 PDT