Engineering Immigration Isn't Working?

[EEVblog]

Look like engineering immigration isn't working in Australia?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-06/engineering-job-vacancies-up-skilled-migrants-under-utilised/101400026

Engineering job vacancies up 176 per cent, while skilled migrants feel overlooked by employers
ABC Pilbara / By Cameron Carr

Karen Huang says being from overseas makes finding skilled employment much more difficult.(ABC News: Amelia Searson)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article

New data suggests almost half of migrants actively seeking a job as an engineer are currently unemployed, as job vacancies in the sector rise by 176 per cent.

Key points:
Australia's engineering sector is grappling with a skilled worker shortage
Despite having their qualifications recognised in Australia, migrants are less likely to find jobs compared to their Australian counterparts
A bias against workers not perceived as "local" is considered to be one of the main reasons
The National Skills Commission Labour Market Insights to June 2022 found 47 per cent of the group did not have work, although vacancy numbers in engineering continued to be the highest seen since 2012.

Engineers Australia CEO Romilly Madew said many skilled migrants in Australia could fill these roles but employers were biased against hiring migrants.
"Research shows there is a significant cohort of migrant engineers already in Australia who have long-term difficulties securing employment appropriate to their experience," she said.
"Our research found that employer bias associated with not being 'local' — whether it's experience, networks, standards, references, or qualifications — was the biggest culprit.
"Tapping into this under-utilised talent supply offers one immediate means of easing skills shortages."

Cultural background a factor
Karen Huang said she was not surprised migrants were struggling to find work in the sector.
Ms Huang moved to Australia from Taiwan in 2012 with a university degree and career aspirations.
Like many other skilled immigrants, she could only find work in hospitality.
She has lived in the Pilbara for about four years, surrounded by the country's mining and resources sector, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described as the "engine room of the economy".

Ms Huang, now the chair of the Northwest Multicultural Association, said many members moved to the region to work in the resources sector, but struggled to get a foot in the door, despite being qualified.
"It's very difficult when you come from a non-Australian culture, especially when it comes to interviews," she said.
"Skills are overlooked simply because bosses are concerned you won't fit in with your colleagues."

She said language skills could also be a barrier to employment.
"You can get knocked back from an entry-level job for a grammar mistake in a cover letter. They assume you're uneducated because your English isn't perfect," she said.

Ms Huang said she was hopeful more migrants would be able to find work in engineering and resources.
"I think if you want to do something, just do it, don't limit yourself, if you want to chase it, just keep trying, even if it take maybe hundreds of times or thousands of times, you'll get there," she said.
Experience not valued Engineers Australia is the federal government's approved authority to assess skills and competencies for the engineering profession.

Ms Madew said the organisation ran a migrant skill assessment to test people looking to become engineers.
"We're looking to see if their overseas qualifications and skills are comparative to the requirements of being an engineer in Australia," she said.

A woman with silver hair, wearing a pink blazer, smiles at the camera
Romilly Madew says poor hiring practices result in skilled migrants being overlooked.(Supplied)
After completing these programs, migrants can prove to employers that overseas studies and industry experience qualifies them to work in skilled professions.

Participants also satisfy English competency standards to confirm their language skills are up to scratch.
But even when there was recognition of prior learning and work, migrants who have completed these courses overwhelmingly said their international experience was not valued or was overlooked.
Ms Madew believed employers held an unconscious bias towards hiring non-Australians.
"Once the migration skills assessment is done, their experience and attributes should be recognised, but there is definitely a bias there," she said.
"It comes back to an idea that since they don't have local experience or networks that they won't succeed in the Australian workforce."
The ABC reached out to major resources and mining employers, which said they were committed to fair work and hiring practices.

[SiliconWizard]

Yeah, dunno. As an Australian, what do you think about that?

As to the article uh. It's a lot of words for not saying much at all. Looks like typical woke stuff, which is pretty much all that mainstream media can spit out these days.

What if they actually tried to address the matter? That is 1. Why there is a shortage of engineers and what we can do about it (maybe not *just* resorting to "migrants", whatever that really means these days), and 2. As to migrants, maybe there are yet other factors here that were conveniently not listed. The article is assuming that all people that were counted in those stats are all "skilled". Whatever that really means.

Finally, 3. Maybe those figures are also misleading?

[Someone]

Yeah, dunno. As an Australian, what do you think about that?

As to the article uh. It's a lot of words for not saying much at all. Looks like typical woke stuff, which is pretty much all that mainstream media can spit out these days.

What if they actually tried to address the matter? That is 1. Why there is a shortage of engineers and what we can do about it (maybe not *just* resorting to "migrants", whatever that really means these days), and 2. As to migrants, maybe there are yet other factors here that were conveniently not listed. The article is assuming that all people that were counted in those stats are all "skilled". Whatever that really means.

Finally, 3. Maybe those figures are also misleading?

Businesses were required to advertise and "fail" to find a local to take a role before they could obtain the justification to bring over an immigrant...

advertising for senior roles at entry level rates of pay! "why cant we find anyone fill this role" lol. Hire that desperate immigrant who doesnt know what the cost of living is over here, after a few years and gaining permanent status that immigrant also wants pay that matches the locals. More immigration will just continue driving down engineering salaries and exploiting the people brought over to do the roles.

[EEVblog]

Yeah, dunno. As an Australian, what do you think about that?

I smell BS going on somewhere here.
The majority of employers are not going to turn down the opportunity to employe a suitably qualified immigrant who will most likely work for less pay than a citizen.
Of course electronics is a very different field to other fields of engineering like construction, cival, mechnical, and even power/electrical.

[EEVblog]

advertising for senior roles at entry level rates of pay! "why cant we find anyone fill this role" lol. Hire that desperate immigrant who doesnt know what the cost of living is over here, after a few years and gaining permanent status that immigrant also wants pay that matches the locals. More immigration will just continue driving down engineering salaries and exploiting the people brought over to do the roles.

I'm sure there is a lot of that.

One thing a lot of people overseas don't understand is that aussie don't like to move their city for work (or education). Heck, many won't move within a city. So makes it harder to find people here. Immigrants are more likely to move to where the jobs are though.

[Rick Law]

Yeah, dunno. As an Australian, what do you think about that?

I smell BS going on somewhere here.
The majority of employers are not going to turn down the opportunity to employe a suitably qualified immigrant who will most likely work for less pay than a citizen.
Of course electronics is a very different field to other fields of engineering like construction, cival, mechnical, and even power/electrical.

I suspect BS also.  In the USA, employers are always saying "too many job opening, not enough applicants..." yet new local college graduates in the exact same field couldn't get a job.   With whatever "push" industries use to drive the politicians, the gate opens wider and wider.  That had gone on for years.  By now, in many fields here, English is a foreign language.

...Businesses were required to advertise and "fail" to find a local to take a role before they could obtain the justification to bring over an immigrant...

USA had the same rule for "skilled labor" (such as IT professionals, programmers, nurses and doctors...) work visas -- employers were suppose to advertise the job for a number of months and demonstrate to the immigration authority that no (legal US citizens or legal US work visa/status) qualified candidate applied.  Only when that is proven can the H1B work visa application move forward.  Now H1B's are handed out like candies, and I see more and more friends/colleagues laid off...

[magic]

How are those "migrants" even living in Australia if they are unemployed?
Are you guys paying for that much deadweight?

Or are we talking undeportable "humanitarian migrants" who self-identify as engineers

[YurkshireLad]

If they're looking for software people, sign me up! 

[Warpspeed]

Big difference between qualifications and experience.

Private companies are looking for engineers that can actually do successful things. 
You are highly likely to be interviewed by the company owner that is an engineer himself. 
He is going to be far more impressed by a long string of prior successful projects he may know something about, and a frank discussion about his projects and the problems you may be expected to solve.
Just fronting up with a piece of paper in your hand from a school, may not cut it in his eyes.

The public service is totally different.  You will be interviewed by some non technical office person from the HR department. 
They are likely to be really impressed if you are from an ethnic minority, are woke, and look a bit odd. 
A degree in gender studies, or political science, would be perfect for a non technical engineering supervisory position.

[vk6zgo]

Big difference between qualifications and experience.

Private companies are looking for engineers that can actually do successful things. 
You are highly likely to be interviewed by the company owner that is an engineer himself. 
He is going to be far more impressed by a long string of prior successful projects he may know something about, and a frank discussion about his projects and the problems you may be expected to solve.
Just fronting up with a piece of paper in your hand from a school, may not cut it in his eyes.

The public service is totally different.  You will be interviewed by some non technical office person from the HR department. 
They are likely to be really impressed if you are from an ethnic minority, are woke, and look a bit odd. 
A degree in gender studies, or political science, would be perfect for a non technical engineering supervisory position.

In larger companies, there are very few Engineers in management positions, the default being  people with MBAs, who treat their Engineering & Technical staff like a "bloody nuisance"!
The choice of job applicants then devolves to the HR Dept, who haven't the slightest clue about most of the jobs they are interviewing people for.

Another thing is that, in the past, students who come to Australia to study subjects which for some reason or other were difficult to get into in their home countries, normally returned home & placed their new skills at the service of their homeland.

Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that graduates these days don't want to go home, & will try to find work in Australia.
Those that do fit this stereotype are in direct competion with those who have migrated in the usual way, & tend to colour perceptions of all "foreigners".

In my last job before retirement, when I wanted to leave, I was involved in interviews of my replacement.

I at least managed to prevent them from advertising for an "Engineer", as the job was really that of a "Technical Officer", but we were still besieged with applications from recent graduate EEs, almost all from the PRC, with really serious engineering qualifications, but not a clue about the core skills required for the job.

OK, given time, they would have learnt the "hands on" stuff, but time was not a common commodity!
In any case, it would be wasting the stuff they had learnt.

I think that in the PRC, EEs, particularly those working for the smaller enterprises survive on a "gig" basis, as the company we bought some of our most vital equipment from seemed to have "lost contact" with the EEs who designed the stuff, less than a year previously.
Sort of "rent an EE!".

[vk6zgo]

How are those "migrants" even living in Australia if they are unemployed?
Are you guys paying for that much deadweight?

Or are we talking undeportable "humanitarian migrants" who self-identify as engineers

Probably working as Baristas!
We are looking to a "coffee fed recovery!"

[CatalinaWOW]

USA had the same rule for "skilled labor" (such as IT professionals, programmers, nurses and doctors...) work visas -- employers were suppose to advertise the job for a number of months and demonstrate to the immigration authority that no (legal US citizens or legal US work visa/status) qualified candidate applied.  Only when that is proven can the H1B work visa application move forward.  Now H1B's are handed out like candies, and I see more and more friends/colleagues laid off...

I haven't paid attention for a while, but the classic ad, posted widely so that the immigration people could see they tried was something like:  "Wanted BS or MS degree with 3-5 years experience in (enter highly detailed work experience - something like design of aviation band RF front ends for comm gear in commercial airlines) with a modest to low ball salary range." 

Written to specifically get a soon to graduate grad student who could use his TA/research work for the experience.  Only a few people in the world would meet the qualification and only the starving grad student would be interested in the salary.

That seems to have reduced here as the jobs are exported rather than importing the engineers.

[Rick Law]

First, I agree with you CatalinaWOW:

Prior to retirement, I used to look at job ads regularly to keep informed about what skills may be I should bone up on just in case.  Yeah, the "immigration job ads" are easy to spot.  There is always some odd requirements that begs the question: "Why on earth do they need that for that job."

Now as to general view:

I actually am supportive of highly educated people staying where they want.  If their educated skills are desirable and above average at their desired residence, they are bring that place up.  When they became experienced and ambitious, some return to their home country and built their career and their home country up.  Way back around the time when home broad-band internet was just becoming popular, I recalled reading about how returning Koreans helped drove Korea's transition into a high tech power house.  Korea can't be alone in experiencing that.  But, and this is a big BUT, what would be the gauge? College degree used to be a good indicator of education, now it is merely a credential instead of proof of a real education.

If tech hires continue to be price-driven and movements are all price based, new arrivals are but clogging up the field, taking away the first few steps of the ladder from the locals.  Once that occurs, better but not top local candidates can't get in.  Now we are left with a two tier system.  The top and then the bottom feeders with very little in between.  Salaries (plus perks) will be > 100% difference.  My kid graduated from college not so long ago.  That is what my kid found (at least here in the USA).

Even lost of un-skilled and/or non-tech has a big negative impact.  Painting houses, doing people's lawns, working in a factory or a warehouse counting inventory...  Those used to be summer or part-time jobs for college kids.  Now college kids use their student loans for travel and "experience the world", missing the opportunity and experience to lean the discipline in making a living and the true meaning of being a productive citizen.  More and more bottom feeders are being created every day.

Could a hi-tech society even exist with just a few percent of real creative minds, then the rest are all just hands -- merely finishing up grunt jobs.  I am not optimistic but I wish I am wrong in this case.

EDIT:  Typo correction only.

[rstofer]

As everybody knows, the US has the H1B Visa program for skilled workers and models of distinguished merit and ability.  That's how Melania Trump got here!

First sentence in Overview here:

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b

In theory, a company has to get approval and then sponsor the immigrant.  In theory, when the immigrant loses that job, they are supposed to self-deport or get some other company to sponsor them.  In theory, no US citizen is available for the posting and the applicant fills a vital need and, in theory, they are paid the same as locals.  In practice, I suspect it is a good deal different.  Silicon Gulch is filled with H1B immigrants and there is a lot of friction when jobs get scarce.

I have always thought that the US should import every applicant with an MS or PhD - raid the brain trust, we can find something for them to do.  Make it easy for smart people to come here and prosper.

ETA:  Maybe limit it to STEM, we need more of those candidates!

When I lived and worked in Singapore, I had a 'green card' stapled to my passport.  Oddly, it seemed to expedite my passage through Customs into Singapore.  In any event, it was never a big deal to anybody.  Everybody knew I was leaving when the job was complete.  What a great place to live and work!

[fourfathom]

[... H1B Visa program ...]

In theory, a company has to get approval and then sponsor the immigrant.  In theory, when the immigrant loses that job, they are supposed to self-deport or get some other company to sponsor them.  In theory, no US citizen is available for the posting and the applicant fills a vital need and, in theory, they are paid the same as locals.  In practice, I suspect it is a good deal different.  Silicon Gulch is filled with H1B immigrants and there is a lot of friction when jobs get scarce.

You are probably correct about this, but when I was working in the 1990's at small, growing companies we hired a good number of H1B engineers, and it wasn't because they would work for cheap.  In our case these were highly-capable people, with skills and experience superior to the few "locals" who we could find.  Often the foreign engineers were former associates of our own engineers, so we knew what they could do.  The interview process was run my the engineering department (with HR participation), and the interviews were technical and deep. This was during times of industry growth, where qualified engineers were hard to find.  The dynamics may be different during down times or in larger companies.

[rstofer]

[... H1B Visa program ...]

In theory, a company has to get approval and then sponsor the immigrant.  In theory, when the immigrant loses that job, they are supposed to self-deport or get some other company to sponsor them.  In theory, no US citizen is available for the posting and the applicant fills a vital need and, in theory, they are paid the same as locals.  In practice, I suspect it is a good deal different.  Silicon Gulch is filled with H1B immigrants and there is a lot of friction when jobs get scarce.

You are probably correct about this, but when I was working in the 1990's at small, growing companies we hired a good number of H1B engineers, and it wasn't because they would work for cheap.

In Silicon Gulch, the topic of H1B visas is pretty toxic.  Nearly 3/4 of tech workers in the valley are foreign born according to the Mercury News.  How does that possibly help locals?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens-make-up-nearly-three-quarters-of-silicon-valley-tech-workforce-report-says/

As the article says, it costs around $10k just to sponsor an H1B.  That cost gets paid somehow.  Companies are not in the benevolence business.

[fourfathom]

In Silicon Gulch, the topic of H1B visas is pretty toxic.  Nearly 3/4 of tech workers in the valley are foreign born according to the Mercury News.  How does that possibly help locals?

(I'm not arguing with you, just providing some balance based on my time on both sides of the equation, and playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate)

How does it help locals?

• Helping create local companies and helping them succeed, which supports all sorts of local activity
• It wasn't hurting locals because there honestly wasn't enough "local" talent skilled in the fields where we were hiring
• We hire the best we can find, so perhaps this gives "locals" an incentive to up their game?
• BTW, I was a "local".  Hiring great engineers sure helped me in many ways.

I think the solution is for "locals" to get the training and skills needed to be outstanding engineers (or outstanding whatever).  I know I sound like the old geezer I am, but if our best and brightest locals are preparing for the field of video game test and review, or Influencer, or [any other unlikely-to-succeed field] then this is what happens.  I'm not going to hire a bad engineer just because they look like me.

[Rick Law]

[... H1B Visa program ...]

In theory, a company has to get approval and then sponsor the immigrant.  In theory, when the immigrant loses that job, they are supposed to self-deport or get some other company to sponsor them.  In theory, no US citizen is available for the posting and the applicant fills a vital need and, in theory, they are paid the same as locals.  In practice, I suspect it is a good deal different.  Silicon Gulch is filled with H1B immigrants and there is a lot of friction when jobs get scarce.

You are probably correct about this, but when I was working in the 1990's at small, growing companies we hired a good number of H1B engineers, and it wasn't because they would work for cheap.  In our case these were highly-capable people, with skills and experience superior to the few "locals" who we could find.  Often the foreign engineers were former associates of our own engineers, so we knew what they could do.  The interview process was run my the engineering department (with HR participation), and the interviews were technical and deep. This was during times of industry growth, where qualified engineers were hard to find.  The dynamics may be different during down times or in larger companies.

One can always find exceptions.  But regardless of whether they are mostly capable or not, it make sense for an industry to maintain a good pipe line of employable local people or the local industry is going to collapse as a local industry.

A company needs a good stable core staff of it's own to maintain it's own core knowledge base for both operations and strategic core competence.  When those strategic core competence are carried by those with no long-term attachment (emotional investment) to the company, the company no longer has a future.  When the operational knowledge base got carried away as well, the company cease to have a present.  Often, it happen sooner than that - when the culture (quality expectations, mode of operations, commitment,... ) that has sustained the company no longer exist, the dying begins.

... ...
Nearly 3/4 of tech workers in the valley are foreign born according to the Mercury News.  How does that possibly help locals?
... ...
As the article says, it costs around $10k just to sponsor an H1B.  That cost gets paid somehow.  Companies are not in the benevolence business.
... ...

They do contribute to the local economy.  Coffee shops, grocery stores, etc., and they do pay tax.  But with no long term commitment to the country or the company... (fill in what you like to finish the sentence.)

Mostly, H1's are used as stepping stone to permanent residency.  Permanent residents is the so called green-card which decades ago turned  pink rather than green in color.  Green-card holders have all the rights of citizen except they can't vote.  There may also be issues with certain jobs such as those defense related ones.

During that H1 to green-card process, they are captive by the company that signed the paper work -- ie:they can't switch employer without starting over.  The H1 visa hold can apply for spouse visa.  The spouse can work any where.  Who pays depends on what deal the employee got.  Those directly hired by the tech companies probably have a better deal.  Those hired by contracting firms (aka: body shops) just to contract them out would get a much lesser deal.

(Depending on who is the White House...)  H1 doesn't mean it will become green-card.  So H1 employees do not normal consider themselves part of the country.  They may have long term hope, but they likely don't have long term commitment.  Not too long ago, you can't even get a mortgage as merely a temporary resident.

[Rick Law]

...
...
I think the solution is for "locals" to get the training and skills needed to be outstanding engineers (or outstanding whatever).  I know I sound like the old geezer I am, but if our best and brightest locals are preparing for the field of video game test and review, or Influencer, or [any other unlikely-to-succeed field] then this is what happens.  I'm not going to hire a bad engineer just because they look like me.

To your last point (last sentence) first, it is not how they look, but how they think.  I prefer to hire people that think different.  If they all look different but think the same, they will not be able to contribute in ways that count most - ideas and work ethics.  Both ideas and work ethics are from the brain which regardless of culture, race, or origin, it is going to be grey.

As to the other points...  I used to think the same as you...    I also used to think it only happens to others (so I thought) until it happened to me...  (and then again, and then again...)

If you have been to a job lost support group, or in a room of over 100 trained, skilled, and experienced but replaced employees all looking for another shot elsewhere, you may feel different.  I also had the sad experience of being one on a panel of advisors.  As "management from established firm" sitting in front of dozens of new college grads looking for advice - good grads, and reasonably bright grads (judging from their questions), but can't get on the first step of the ladder.

You can't have a successful company surrounded by unemployed locals -- Silicon Valley started there because there was a critical mass of educated and trained people right there.  Had Silicon Valley been a valley of unemployed "has been's" with outdated experience, Silicon Valley might well have been elsewhere.

[fourfathom]

When those strategic core competence are carried by those with no long-term attachment (emotional investment) to the company, the company no longer has a future. [and more good stuff]

I agree with everything you have written.

Many of the H1 and Green Card holders we employed ended up becoming full-time residents, with families.  Some later started their own companies, and hired locals as well as other non-locals.  If we provide a good environment for success then good people tend to stick around.  I hope we don't destroy that good environment.

[mag_therm]

When those strategic core competence are carried by those with no long-term attachment (emotional investment) to the company, the company no longer has a future. [and more good stuff]

I agree with everything you have written.

Many of the H1 and Green Card holders we employed ended up becoming full-time residents, with families.  Some later started their own companies, and hired locals as well as other non-locals.  If we provide a good environment for success then good people tend to stick around.  I hope we don't destroy that good environment.

Yes,I did that,took the opportunity to get out of Australia, came to USA on L1B visa (specialist intra-company).

Later started the business, became citizen.
In my experience, conditions were much more favorable in USA compared to Australia for engineers and business owners.
 
Don't know if that will always be the case, however I think engineering was in decline in Australia particularly since the automotive industry failed back in 1990s.
Post WW2 Australia had electronics, agri-machinery, automotive manufacturing industries, steel and paper etc, but they mostly declined except for mining.

[fourfathom]

[...] good grads, and reasonably bright grads (judging from their questions), but can't get on the first step of the ladder.

This is a sad observation, and no doubt true.  We, as engineers, should ask ourselves why this is the case.  Has engineering become essentially unskilled labor, where we are replaceable cogs in the machine and "cost to employ" is the main factor by which we are judged? This has not been my experience, but perhaps things have changed in the last 20 years.  And/or perhaps some companies or industries are more sensitive to employee costs than they are to employee productivity.  I'm sure that all these factors vary by industry sector. 

But if this is the direction we are heading, what can we do about it?  This is not a rhetorical question -- how can a someone who wants to be an engineer attain a satisfying career?  How can a current engineer avoid being left behind on the scrap heap?

FWIW I have seen what looks like racism or culturism, or something similar, but in those cases it was in Si Valley companies run by Indian-heritage people.  But we all have a group of associates and friends, and we naturally draw from that pool first. No doubt the "good old white boy" network works the same way -- in my last company I hired many good "local" people who I knew and had worked with and trusted, and many of them looked like me.  But my boss was Indian descent, and our main ASIC designer was a Vietnamese refugee via Australia and Canada, who we had previously hired on the recommendation of another Vietnamese engineer (who later was founder of another local company.)  Hell, we even had a few Frenchmen.

[AndyBeez]

Define "qualified"? Australia has a lot of state level qualifications and certifications that even the most experienced migrant engineers must attain. Which is a big surprise for ex-pats who, might have arrived with a sense of entitlement in the land of milk and honey/flies. Because that's what the Insta brochure suggested. It comes down to, you maybe experienced over there mate, but here you're the newbie.

Anyway, there is nothing to stop Australia from exporting it's vacancies to more qualified staff in China. It's what British and American companies have been doing for decades.

[coppice]

We, as engineers, should ask ourselves why this is the case.  Has engineering become essentially unskilled labor, where we are replaceable cogs in the machine and "cost to employ" is the main factor by which we are judged?

There has always been a conflict in industry where good engineers are massively more effective than poor ones, and hard to find, but HR departments put their fingers in their ears and scream when faced with this reality.

[fourfathom]

We, as engineers, should ask ourselves why this is the case.  Has engineering become essentially unskilled labor, where we are replaceable cogs in the machine and "cost to employ" is the main factor by which we are judged?

There has always been a conflict in industry where good engineers are massively more effective than poor ones, and hard to find, but HR departments put their fingers in their ears and scream when faced with this reality.

When a company started to be run by HR was usually when I quit.  I'm probably lucky that Hewlett Packard didn't hire me when I was interviewing for my first tech job.  It was still a great place back then and I would have likely stuck around for a very long time and missed a lot of career growth and learning experiences.  Never get too comfortable, it's not healthy.

[Someone]

Define "qualified"? Australia has a lot of state level qualifications and certifications that even the most experienced migrant engineers must attain.

Pretty much only for civil and building/construction engineering branches, the rest are outside any certification.

[Rick Law]

When those strategic core competence are carried by those with no long-term attachment (emotional investment) to the company, the company no longer has a future. [and more good stuff]

I agree with everything you have written.

Many of the H1 and Green Card holders we employed ended up becoming full-time residents, with families.  Some later started their own companies, and hired locals as well as other non-locals.  If we provide a good environment for success then good people tend to stick around.  I hope we don't destroy that good environment.

Yes,I did that,took the opportunity to get out of Australia, came to USA on L1B visa (specialist intra-company).

Later started the business, became citizen.
In my experience, conditions were much more favorable in USA compared to Australia for engineers and business owners.
 
Don't know if that will always be the case, however I think engineering was in decline in Australia particularly since the automotive industry failed back in 1990s.
Post WW2 Australia had electronics, agri-machinery, automotive manufacturing industries, steel and paper etc, but they mostly declined except for mining.

re: "...Many of the H1 and Green Card holders we employed ended up becoming full-time residents..."

This is true but there is another aspect.  If you look at overall stats, it is many but low in overall H1 percentage.  More failed to convert than those who did.  This is of course administration dependent.  From what I have read, currently just about anyone and their brother gets converted resulting in many who may not become productive citizen of their new homeland.

re: "...Some later started their own companies, and hired locals as well as other non-locals.  If we provide a good environment for success then good people tend to stick around.  I hope we don't destroy that good environment. ..."

Yeah, I have seen plenty of examples of that.  I am supportive of providing that opportunity as well as good environment.  It is the pure price-driven hiring resulting in clogging up the lower rungs of the ladder that I object to.  It also hurt the immigrants: once they become a green card holder, they are no longer captive by the paper filing firm, they can look for a new job that pays normally.  Upon doing that, they are no longer price-competitive with those in the earlier phases of paper-work.

re: "...Later started the business, became citizen.
In my experience, conditions were much more favorable in USA compared to Australia for engineers and business owners. ..."

I am also very supportive of that!  In fact, for business starting there is also the "investment visas" to look at.  If you have the funding, you can apply come to the USA to start a business with a different visa other than H1B.  There is minimum investment one must start with (low 6 figures if I recall correctly), and one must hire two locals within the first year (or months).  Bare in mind, in general (not just visa created companies), only one in five new business survives more than a year.

When I was in college, I needed to work for college money.  One of my two jobs was from a fellow who used the investment visa years ago (he was established and became citizen years ago before he hired me).  Folks who came for the opportunities (instead of for hand-outs) tends to thankful of the opportunity and utilize it well.  Many of them became great contributors and valuable citizens.  To this day, I am still thankful of that fellow for giving me my second job - as I had two jobs while at college, he was very flexible with my hours.  Without his understanding and generosity, I probably would have had a much harder time getting enough $ to finish college.

[...] good grads, and reasonably bright grads (judging from their questions), but can't get on the first step of the ladder.

This is a sad observation, and no doubt true.
...
But if this is the direction we are heading, what can we do about it? This is not a rhetorical question -- how can a someone who wants to be an engineer attain a satisfying career?  How can a current engineer avoid being left behind on the scrap heap?
...

(bold added)

Yeah, so sadly true.  Of all my former staff (dozens, at multiple firms), I don't know of one who has not been laid off at least once after training their lower priced replacement.  One guy I picked for hire at a job fair (and became his mentor upon his hiring).  He resigned a couple of years later for a better job, only to be laid-off at the two subsequent jobs.  I was at a different firm by then and I hired him to join me...  There we were both hit.  We trained our replacement and off we went.

What we can do about it is simple, getting it done is hard.  It is price - a numbers game, so we fix it with numbers.

Imagine if say a company hires an H1 "because they need the skill" - well hire a foreigner if you must, but the employer must pay a "skill training tax "to ensure that particular skill will be available locally in the future.  Whatever the total compensation to the H1 hire (total means include all perks such as medical insurance, etc., etc.), an additional 30% tax will be paid by employer.  This revenue will be use to create a scholarship at a near-by university for students who major in (and/or) studies in exactly what that job requirement is.

So companies that truly need that skill can hire a foreign immediately, while also help fund an increase of local supplied of that skill.  Companies that merely seek lower price, well, that 30% tax will fix the problem.  If not, make that 50% or whatever number works.

Knowing what can fix the problem is one thing, getting the politician to get it done would be quite another.

[fourfathom]

Imagine if say a company hires an H1 "because they need the skill" - well hire a foreigner if you must, but the employer must pay a "skill training tax "to ensure that particular skill will be available locally in the future.

This is effectively an import tariff on foreign engineers, or a minimum wage of sorts.  This kind of trade barrier might work to increase the pool of qualified "local" engineers and level the playing field, but I'm not completely comfortable with it.

We seem to be struggling with two different problems:  Are we hiring foreign engineers because there are too few qualified and technically competitive locals?  If so, the tariff-funded education may improve the situation.

But if good experienced engineers are being set aside because cheaper engineers can be imported then this is different dynamic.  If we already have an excess of good locals, then why would we want to add to the pool by training even more? (Of course we always need to train young engineers to keep the pipeline filled as old ones retire.)

This is much like the low-end construction, ditch-digger-type and farm jobs here in California.  Immigrants (mostly illegal from Mexico) congregate at the local gas station, waiting for contractors to pick them up for day jobs.  They work for low under-the-table wages.  The "locals" mostly refuse those jobs, even at a higher wage.  Have engineers become the grape-pickers?

I think it's difficult to make generalizations, because engineering is a broad field with some areas requiring higher skills than others.  And most of the imported engineers are themselves highly skilled.  We can keep them out with trade barriers, but is this the best solution?

As for training more engineers, how many and what kind do we really need?  I wouldn't want to see us, in the name of "diversity", training people who actually don't want to do engineering.

This is something that the trade unions deal with, and in my outside experience (never been in a union) I don't look forward to engineering unionization.

So I actually don't know what we can do.  I doubt there is a perfect solution, but perhaps incremental improvements are worthwhile.

[rstofer]

So I actually don't know what we can do.  I doubt there is a perfect solution, but perhaps incremental improvements are worthwhile.

For a start, improve public education such that more than 26% of high school graduates are competent in math.  That's a real number from my local school district in their annual assessment, state mandated.

Then work on getting college and university tuition back to some kind of affordable.  The costs are insane!  It's true that California State Colleges are substantially cheaper than California State Universities but still pricey.

Finally, the Board of Regents needs to understand that they don't own the universities, the taxpayers do.  The parents of the kids who don't get to attend because, well, foreign students pay more.  There shouldn't be a single foreign student in any taxpayer funded college/university until EVERY in-state candidate has been accomodated.

We improve K-12 education, reduce tuition and educate our own. 

Can you remember a time when employers paid for grad school?  I do!

Every state should have a Hazelwood Act like Texas.  https://www.tvc.texas.gov/education/hazlewood/ 

The Hazlewood Act is a State of Texas benefit that provides qualified Veterans, spouses, and dependent children with an education benefit of up to 150 hours of tuition exemption, including most fee charges, at public institutions of higher education in Texas. This does NOT include living expenses, books, or supply fees.

Way to go, Texas!

[rstofer]

As for training more engineers, how many and what kind do we really need?  I wouldn't want to see us, in the name of "diversity", training people who actually don't want to do engineering.

This is something that the trade unions deal with, and in my outside experience (never been in a union) I don't look forward to engineering unionization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Engineering_Employees_in_Aerospace

There are professional employee unions, primarily in aerospace.  I don't know how it works out.  I did belong to a trade union while I worked my way through college.  Working as an industrial electrician in an aerospace plant was probably the 'best' job I ever had for some definitions of 'best'.

[armandine2]

a couple of fairly obvious thoughts:

It is a huge own goal for a country to prevent highly able overseas professionals in shortage occupations to apply for their job's vacancies.

Another own goal, is/was the failure of the business community to progress (get) wannabe professionals of their own country to start their professional careers in occupations where they had significant aptitude/qualifications.

[Rick Law]

but the U.S. has five engineers on one visa.

There are too many ways to cheat these days.

Even if we accept the idea that there is not enough local qualified engineer, H1B is not the solution.  It merely covers the symptom and does solve the issue -- it does not create more local engineers.  If it is a temporary burst, I can see that.  But to use H1B'ers for decades, that doesn't solve the problem.  It increases the problem by reducing opportunities for local engineers.

If the reason for hiring H1B'er is cost to to employer, and I believe it is.  My opinion therefore is "cost is the fix."  An H1B tax/fee for employer (not employee) may solve the problem: 60% to 100% of total compensation including benefits.  The money will be use domestically for scholarships for the fields where H1B is hired.  Starts at 60%, each year, it goes up 20% till it reach 100%.  In the USA, 50% is common for overtime pay, so at 60% H1B'er tax/fee, even asking current staff to work overtime would be less costly to the employer.  Employer can have as many H1B'ers as they need, it just costs them more than hiring locals.  This solution should actually be familiar to people in the film industry today.  In some countries, union rules makes bringing in a foreign camera operator and other support staff way more costly than hiring locals.

With the H1B tax/fee going into scholarship funds for domestic students, the more the need, the more the scholarship funds.  Presumably, more domestic student would go into those fields if scholarship funding is more available.  So that will solve or reduce the availability problem as well.

For someone who is truly a catch, people like Schrödinger, Einstein, Christiaan Barnard... Many institutions would be happy to taking them paying 2x their salary just to get them on their staff.  For someone who is a average C coder, 100% employer tax will stop it stone cold.

I pick the name "Christiaan Barnard" for a reason.  He was the first to do a heart transplant (Cape Town, Dec 3, 1967).  A friend of mine who works as an immigration lawyer once told me, H1 visa was designed to with people like Christiaan Barnard in mind.  Not sure if my friend (RIP) was just picking a name or he knows for sure, but each time I trained an H1B'er, be it my replacement or replacement for someone on my staff.  I am fairly confident this H1B'er is no Christiaan Barnard.

[tooki]

I suspect BS also.  In the USA, employers are always saying "too many job opening, not enough applicants..." yet new local college graduates in the exact same field couldn't get a job.   With whatever "push" industries use to drive the politicians, the gate opens wider and wider.  That had gone on for years.

The problem is, as I see it, the way that many companies have deflated the experience levels so they can pay less. That is, they categorize as “entry level” a job whose requirements are in no way entry-level. (IMHO, 3-5 years experience and a master’s diploma is in no way “entry level”.) This creates a gulf between true job entrants and the jobs themselves. The companies that do try to bridge the gap do so with unpaid internships, which many people simply cannot afford to do.

IMHO this is all just companies shirking their responsibility to create the experienced workers they actually need.

In much of Europe, one way this problem is solved by formalized apprenticeship systems. But this requires buy-in from industry, in that they recognize their responsibility in creating their “new blood”. They accept that this costs money, but benefits their industry in the long run. The flip side is that they get to “mold” the apprentices a bit, in that they’re gaining experience in what that company does.

(I have experience with both approaches: I have a university education from a very good university in USA, and did an apprenticeship in Switzerland.)


And let’s not forget another problem with employers and their inability to find applicants: brain-dead HR staff and software. HR people who don’t properly understand the jobs they’re processing applicants for use software to manage incoming applications, using keyword filtering to eliminate “unqualified” applicants who, in actuality, would be excellent candidates if given the chance. That and truly stupid crap like wanting “experienced” programmers for a specific technology, and then define “experienced” as some minimum number of years —on a technology or product that hasn’t existed that long. (I recently read about this happening to someone, rejected for not having sufficient experience with some open source program. A program he wrote.  )

[temperance]

Maybe Faringdon can move to Australia. Some immediate advantages:

-The weather is better.
-Beaches filled with cute ladies in red swimming costumes with window cleaning lips. That's if you're into that or happen to have a fish tank.
-You don't have to sip tea all day long to blend in. No more waiting in front of the bathroom where most difficult engineering discussions take place.
-Border control is very stringent so no more CE SMPS to look after. Fake components are non existent. If it blows up, take mirror and talk to yourself because it must be your own fault.
-If you're tired of fixing the SMPS's you can mine some gold. It is so abundant you only need a shovel and a strong accent.

At least, that's what they show us on TV in Europe.

EDit: I forgot to mention that all those engineers, doctors, dentists and shoe sole repairers went to the EU. But we don't need doctors, engineers,...

[CatalinaWOW]

but the U.S. has five engineers on one visa.

There are too many ways to cheat these days.

Even if we accept the idea that there is not enough local qualified engineer, H1B is not the solution.  It merely covers the symptom and does solve the issue -- it does not create more local engineers.  If it is a temporary burst, I can see that.  But to use H1B'ers for decades, that doesn't solve the problem.  It increases the problem by reducing opportunities for local engineers.

If the reason for hiring H1B'er is cost to to employer, and I believe it is.  My opinion therefore is "cost is the fix."  An H1B tax/fee for employer (not employee) may solve the problem: 60% to 100% of total compensation including benefits.  The money will be use domestically for scholarships for the fields where H1B is hired.  Starts at 60%, each year, it goes up 20% till it reach 100%.  In the USA, 50% is common for overtime pay, so at 60% H1B'er tax/fee, even asking current staff to work overtime would be less costly to the employer.  Employer can have as many H1B'ers as they need, it just costs them more than hiring locals.  This solution should actually be familiar to people in the film industry today.  In some countries, union rules makes bringing in a foreign camera operator and other support staff way more costly than hiring locals.

With the H1B tax/fee going into scholarship funds for domestic students, the more the need, the more the scholarship funds.  Presumably, more domestic student would go into those fields if scholarship funding is more available.  So that will solve or reduce the availability problem as well.

For someone who is truly a catch, people like Schrödinger, Einstein, Christiaan Barnard... Many institutions would be happy to taking them paying 2x their salary just to get them on their staff.  For someone who is a average C coder, 100% employer tax will stop it stone cold.

I pick the name "Christiaan Barnard" for a reason.  He was the first to do a heart transplant (Cape Town, Dec 3, 1967).  A friend of mine who works as an immigration lawyer once told me, H1 visa was designed to with people like Christiaan Barnard in mind.  Not sure if my friend (RIP) was just picking a name or he knows for sure, but each time I trained an H1B'er, be it my replacement or replacement for someone on my staff.  I am fairly confident this H1B'er is no Christiaan Barnard.

The overall idea makes sense.  But it you believe that the way the system works now has limited the supply of domestic engineers, which is at least partly true in my opinion your solution will cause two things - a painful transition and export of jobs.   

Maybe modify it with a graduated kick in, roughly equal to the pipeline delay for domestic talent.   Roughly four to five years.  Start the tax at 15% and grow 15% each year until it reaches your starting point and go  from there.

[CatalinaWOW]

If you want to get talent from another country to immigrate, don't set up a special category (H1B) that doesn't allow immigration and doesn't recognize the social ties that these talented people may have.  Give real, permanent resident status to the gifted resource and spouse and children and presumably the potential of citizenship.  In many cases this talent is a cluster (doesn't matter whether it is genetics or social) so expanding to other near relatives would be a win for the accepting country.

Of course expecting immigration officials to recognize such desirable talents is kind of like asking HR to supply superior talents.  It is theoretically possible, but the reality often falls very short of the theory.

[Rick Law]

If you want to get talent from another country to immigrate, don't set up a special category (H1B) that doesn't allow immigration and doesn't recognize the social ties that these talented people may have.  Give real, permanent resident status to the gifted resource and spouse and children and presumably the potential of citizenship.  In many cases this talent is a cluster (doesn't matter whether it is genetics or social) so expanding to other near relatives would be a win for the accepting country.

Of course expecting immigration officials to recognize such desirable talents is kind of like asking HR to supply superior talents.  It is theoretically possible, but the reality often falls very short of the theory.

Immigration official are not the ones who creates immigration laws, nor do they judge the worth of the applicant's knowledge.  Existing H1B laws of today merely requires that they advertised the job (for a certain duration if enforced) and could not find qualified US citizen (or non citizen already with work permission) for the job.  But -- job requirements can be so readily worded/created that only one person can ever fulfill.  So current requirement (if it is even enforced) at best merely slow down process a bit but cannot stop employers merely looking for a cheap hire.

Even if Congress creates a law to put an employer tax on H1B, congress did not judge the worth of the H1B'er.  The employer did the "worth judging" by offering the H1B a job of $X compensation.  The tax or fee(if done as I suggested) would just be a fixed percentage of that value $X as determined by the employer.

Importing exceptional talent is beneficial to the receiving country.  Importing unexceptional talent for lower cost merely hollows out the industry and turn it into an industry of cheap, unimaginative, and low quality product creator.  It is damaging to the receiving country.  If the employer is not willing to pay extra, it is an indication that the talent isn't worth the extra.

If tech industries continue to use CPA (cheapest price available) methods of purchasing and recruiting, we will just be another creator of junk products.  From all the indicators I can observe, we (the USA) are well on the decline.  I am fearful Idiocracy is already in the making.

[shabaz]

Talent will leave and take skills with them if they notice unwelcome rules/atmosphere to others.

No matter how much they want to mix, people will often only want to settle down in an area where there may be at least one or two others from their own background, within a mile radius or whatever.

Repeat that many times, and natural clusters will form, just due to geography and math. Same reason communities of expats naturally form in all countries. Therefore it's an uphill fight against nature if immigration rules are so stringent that only talented are accepted.

In any case, untalented people present in a country (local or immigrant) are happy to work, too - this is why it's normal to see immigrants working (if they can; some are legally forbidden to work) just as much as locals, no matter how low-paid the jobs are, and having to house-share with half a dozen others because rents are so high.

Another example of the disconnect between typical laws and human nature: when things are very unfair to those untalented but trying to get on, it's human nature to always support the underdog (local or immigrant) so that no-one suffers. It's what people do, they stick up for those less capable than themselves, and if financial support is needed then so what. It should be a sign of pride to see people being supported while they visit job/recruitment advisers etc., or free (to the student at the time so that it's one less thing to stress about) higher education. Same with medical aid, should always be free, but different country governments "think different". The laws should be devised to reflect reality (because life is unfair to some, we can't all be permanently healthy, some of us will not be as talented as others), but of course it doesn't, since laws are people-made. "If all men were angels there would be no need for laws" (horribly misquoted, but still there's a lot to think about in that quote which is timeless and could also be applied to doing right with regards to dealing with people).

It's not as if it is significant enough to even be considered by an individual to be their tax money paying for it, since it's just pennies/cents per person. There's so much government waste, plus individuals waste more on half uneaten lunches etc., which is fine, it's their lunch, but clearly two-faced if those same individuals then turn around and complain that their salaries are being depressed or their tax-money is being wasted.

Despite living in a Western country, I've worked for about 10 years for overseas managers, with a completely remote team and occasional visits since firms are so global nowadays. Organizations will always find ways of hiring the people they want, whether that takes lawyers to build their case for bringing in an immigrant, or simply outsource or have remote offices.

[Rick Law]

...
If the reason for hiring H1B'er is cost to to employer, and I believe it is.  My opinion therefore is "cost is the fix."  An H1B tax/fee for employer (not employee) may solve the problem: 60% to 100% of total compensation including benefits.  The money will be use domestically for scholarships for the fields where H1B is hired.  Starts at 60%, each year, it goes up 20% till it reach 100%.
...

The overall idea makes sense.  But it you believe that the way the system works now has limited the supply of domestic engineers, which is at least partly true in my opinion your solution will cause two things - a painful transition and export of jobs.   

Maybe modify it with a graduated kick in, roughly equal to the pipeline delay for domestic talent.   Roughly four to five years.  Start the tax at 15% and grow 15% each year until it reaches your starting point and go  from there.

I think that would work too (starts at 15%...) but less effective. 15% is easily fudged -- I like to see something that make the employer re-think it immediately.  May be 30%.  It gotta hurt.

One thing very damaging is the the H1B's filling up the spaces in the first few rungs of the ladder.  Not being able to get on the ladder really damages the new graduate the entire career.  College kids are not competitive upon graduation.  They should have the first shot within their own country -- a place where they, and their parents have been funding by taxation presumably for years already.

If the tax/fee rule is implemented, I would readily accept un-capped H1B, and after say 7 or 10 years with the same employer, they can seek a conversion to permanent resident status.   After all, employer shown they are really to pay this guy 2x the amount for years already.  Yeah, there will be those who hired their brain-dead brother-in-law and pay the fee just to get the brother-in-law a green card.  Additional refinements to the rules will be necessary to catch as many of those abusers as possible.

[Rick Law]

...
In any case, untalented people present in a country (local or immigrant) are happy to work, too - this is why it's normal to see immigrants working (if they can; some are legally forbidden to work) just as much as locals, no matter how low-paid the jobs are, and having to house-share with half a dozen others because rents are so high.
...

I admit, it is a lost-lost situation.

Mathematics dictates that if current average is 100, and you add more that is below 100, the average will go down.  So if we import "the untalented people happy to work" as you put it, we become less talented on average.  So it is a lost.

On the other hand, if we only import those more talented, we become on average more talented.  But we are taking the talented away from their home land where their talent may be missed.  The so called "brain drain."  So it is lost too.

I am comfortable with a freeze.  You (generic "you", not personal "you") keep your talent, and we keep ours.  We (the whole world) should share knowledge and thus each gain talent in our own pace and in our own place.

[shabaz]

What about talented locals who want to work elsewhere in order to sell globally to turn a bit more profit?

When they take their untalented families along with them, the average might have a chance of getting back up to 100, or perhaps increasing further. Unfortunately, that would be asking other countries to accept what you're unwilling to do, which, unfortunately, they would consider to be hypocritical.

Mathematics dictates that if current average is 100, and you add more that is below 100, the average will go down.  So if we import "the untalented people happy to work" as you put it, we become less talented on average.  So it is a lost.

EDIT: Also, there's a false equivalency you've sneaked in there. Adding talent, and 'untalented' people isn't a 'loss'. Those 'untalented' can still work, study, and contribute. Not everyone needs to be exceptionally talented like the person you mentioned earlier, to contribute to society.

[CatalinaWOW]

If you want to get talent from another country to immigrate, don't set up a special category (H1B) that doesn't allow immigration and doesn't recognize the social ties that these talented people may have.  Give real, permanent resident status to the gifted resource and spouse and children and presumably the potential of citizenship.  In many cases this talent is a cluster (doesn't matter whether it is genetics or social) so expanding to other near relatives would be a win for the accepting country.

Of course expecting immigration officials to recognize such desirable talents is kind of like asking HR to supply superior talents.  It is theoretically possible, but the reality often falls very short of the theory.

Immigration official are not the ones who creates immigration laws, nor do they judge the worth of the applicant's knowledge.  Existing H1B laws of today merely requires that they advertised the job (for a certain duration if enforced) and could not find qualified US citizen (or non citizen already with work permission) for the job.  But -- job requirements can be so readily worded/created that only one person can ever fulfill.  So current requirement (if it is even enforced) at best merely slow down process a bit but cannot stop employers merely looking for a cheap hire.

Even if Congress creates a law to put an employer tax on H1B, congress did not judge the worth of the H1B'er.  The employer did the "worth judging" by offering the H1B a job of $X compensation.  The tax or fee(if done as I suggested) would just be a fixed percentage of that value $X as determined by the employer.

Importing exceptional talent is beneficial to the receiving country.  Importing unexceptional talent for lower cost merely hollows out the industry and turn it into an industry of cheap, unimaginative, and low quality product creator.  It is damaging to the receiving country.  If the employer is not willing to pay extra, it is an indication that the talent isn't worth the extra.

If tech industries continue to use CPA (cheapest price available) methods of purchasing and recruiting, we will just be another creator of junk products.  From all the indicators I can observe, we (the USA) are well on the decline.  I am fearful Idiocracy is already in the making.

Apparently I did not express myself clearly.  Nothing I said was intended to be contradictory to your reply.  I support immigration by exceptional talent.  But will stand by my comment that we seem very incapable of judging that, whether through corporate or government organizations

[Rick Law]

...
...
Apparently I did not express myself clearly.  Nothing I said was intended to be contradictory to your reply.  I support immigration by exceptional talent.  But will stand by my comment that we seem very incapable of judging that, whether through corporate or government organizations

My lack of writing skill actually.  Mea Culpa.  Apology included.

I understood your points and I got the agreement.  The only difference you proposed was the starting point 15% vs 60%.

I was using that reply to also address the other points I have read here on this thread, but failed to adequately express well enough to distinct that from other replies verses those your writing...  Writing isn't one of my talents, I suppose.