Federal Crimes - Austin Attorney
liukaiyuan
Call McNabb when you need an Austin, Texas, attorney for federal crime
charges. 100% federal criminal defense attorney. Call McNabb when you
need a trusted advocate.
http://www.ogogosina.cn/Attorney-Austin.htm
Old Pif
Does abuse of H1B qualify?
Stray Dog
In case it is not clear, criminal defense lawyers help criminals, not
victims. Also, victims are usually the ones that get kicked around,
are poor, and othewise defenseless. Therefore, they get kicked around
even more. Criminal defense lawyers just love to work with the
criminals because the criminals have all this excess money (stolen
from the victims, etc) to spend on expensive cars and expensive
lawyers.
Now, lets look at the use of the word "abuse".
In "child abuse" it meas a parent kicks around one or more of their
children. The abused object is the child.
Now, in "substance abuse" or (even better) "self-abuse", there is a
problem because "substance" is always a chemical, or a non-sentient,
non-thinking entity and who cares if a chemical gets kicked around?
So, the meaning is, semantically, confused and inconsistent. The
victim (of abuse) is the perpetrator, not the victim (if you get my
drift). Its like the term "hot water heater"; you don't have a hot
water heater to heat hot water because what you really do is heat cold
water. They should all be called "cold water heaters".
Now, if you want to go out and carry on with "self-abuse" go ahead.
Your free will. Ain't hurting me or anyone else.
Oh, yes, back to the H1B. Nah, nobody should kick around an H1B. Now,
if we take a regular, decent, competant, productive non-H1B and
replace the guy with an H1B, then it is "non-H1B abuse" and the
perpetrator is the CEO. They are very much like kings and emperors of
the old days: go out and take and/or kill/hurt anyone they feel like,
and if they make laws then they don't have to obey their own laws.
Only other people have to obey the laws. Right?
soup_o...@yahoo.com
Perhaps the following is H1B disabuse. I once filed a dispute to IL
dept of labor after a lawyer advised me to. Guess what happened. At
least some of the H1B's are getting back wages for bench time. Hope I
had something to do with it.
[Article lifted from misc.immigration.usa]
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Administrative Review Board
(ARB)
assessed over $250,000 in back wages and a $40,000 civil fine against
a computer consulting company, on June 30, 2005, that had unlawfully
benched H1B foreign national employees. The ARB awarded substantial
back wages to both the employer's current and former employees, even
though the employer attempted to argue that the employees had been
laid off or otherwise terminated.
It is important for employers and employees to understand that there
are legal consequences that will likely follow if there is a breach
of
obligations under immigration law. It is important to follow steps to
avoid these adverse consequences.
The common thread for all of the employees who were granted back
wages
was that the consulting company had never notified the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (or its predecessor, the
Legacy INS), that it terminated the employment of any of the
employees. The company asserted that the USCIS has the authority to
determine when termination has occurred. The ARB disagreed with the
employer, since it asserted that the DOL's wage and hour division has
the authority to decide what wages are due to an employee.
The company argued that some employees were never authorized to enter
the U.S. H1B visas were granted to these employees, however, because
the company had filed H1B petitions and sent assertions to the
consulates that the employees were needed. The employees worked in-
house for the company and/or visited or called the headquarters
routinely to inquire about work. They were not paid while working at
the company's headquarters. Neither were they paid when they were not
working, but awaiting projects. The ARB agreed with prior findings
that these employees were also entitled to back wages.
Some employees worked on projects intermittently. These employees
were
not paid during the periods when they were not working on projects.
The employer claimed that these periods were leave-without-pay or
should be considered as terminations. The ARB rejected the employer's
arguments, holding that the employer is responsible for paying for
involuntary leaves of absence until there is a proper termination of
employment.
The ARB indicated that the DOL's Wage and Hour Division Administrator
had proven a pattern and practice of failure to pay back wages
through
persons who testified against the employer. Therefore, the ARB found
that persons who did not testify, but fell under the same pattern,
were also entitled to back wages.
Stray Dog
Once in a great while an injustice is corrected by the justice system.
There are all manner of lying, double-crossing, and backstabbing of
underlings by employers under various circumstances and underlings
don't have to be born in some other country for this to happen
although foreigners are, generally, exploited more often than natives
and this seems to be true anywhere in the world.
My greatest discovery of injustices was from quite a large number of
articles in the Wall Street Journal during the entire 1980s decade
where higher executives had fired lower executives and lower level
managers in the course of one kind of dispute or another. Most of you
guys have no idea how much of this goes on and higher level managers
and executives have, during mostly in the 1990s, paid managing
consulting companies quite a bit of money to learn how to fire
underlings without incuring legal liability. There are ways to do
this. Of course, our legal system in the civil courts (not the circuit
courts) was much more liberal (i.e. easier for the plaintif to win the
case) back in the '80s and even more so in the '70s.
I'll say it again: you guys really need to find good books in your
local public libraries that explain any rights that you may have but
generally, today, the "justice" stays with the side that has more
resources (i.e. the employer) and who can prevail and even more so,
has that deck of cards stacked in its favor by exploiting loopholes in
the law, utilizing hiring procedures which leave employees with the
least possible rights, and above all keeping the employee as poor as
possible so that any legal action will be so expensive and so
prolonged that the agreived party gives up before the fight starts.
The only people who have strong cases are those with a specific
written contract that has no loopholes in it and has provisions for
recourse against an employer if anything goes wrong and the overlings
are not going to enter into those contracts unless the person hired is
at at least the vice president level or higher.
Old Pif
>
> I'll say it again: you guys really need to find good books in your
> local public libraries that explain any rights that you may have but
> generally, today, the "justice" stays with the side that has more
> resources (i.e. the employer) and who can prevail and even more so,
> has that deck of cards stacked in its favor by exploiting loopholes in
> the law, utilizing hiring procedures which leave employees with the
> least possible rights, and above all keeping the employee as poor as
> possible so that any legal action will be so expensive and so
> prolonged that the agreived party gives up before the fight starts.
>
My personal investigation in the matters reveals pretty grim picture.
Correct me if I am wrong but the only way an employee has a legal
protection is to be involved in one the notorious harassment cases or
to prove one of the legally defined discriminations actually have
taken place. Corporations are very careful with that. The corporate
legal teams have crafted the codes of conduct to clearly steer from
any even remote possibility of harassment in its legal definition and
when they plan layoffs they usually try to compile the decimation list
to be well representative of all races, ages and genders. Some
companies routinely evaluate their people bad no matter how they
perform. In the need of layoff or simple firing they just pull out the
results of the cocked performance appraisal and the guy is done.
What is not covered alas is the false performance reviews and hiring
not in good faith. For the former the courts refuse to intervene
saying it is up to the company to view an employee as its pleases.
Legally it is the matter of opinion. The fact the it might be a result
of the personal vengeance, administrative games and a like legally
does not exist.
The hiring no in good faith is especially harmful as it bears
significant financial losses for unfortunate people. They sell houses,
pay huge relocation costs to find out that the job they got does not
remotely look as it has been promised. In attempt to challenge that in
courts the cases are thrown out on the bases that the verbal promises
that nobody put on the paper have been interpreted differently and
that the needs of business might change.
In their decisions judges time and again stress the companies have
rights to conduct business as they like. Nothing is said that they
must be fair and just and all that.
Stray Dog
> On May 9, 3:56 pm, Stray Dog <straydog2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll say it again: you guys really need to find good books in your
> > local public libraries that explain any rights that you may have but
> > generally, today, the "justice" stays with the side that has more
> > resources (i.e. the employer) and who can prevail and even more so,
> > has that deck of cards stacked in its favor by exploiting loopholes in
> > the law, utilizing hiring procedures which leave employees with the
> > least possible rights, and above all keeping the employee as poor as
> > possible so that any legal action will be so expensive and so
> > prolonged that the agreived party gives up before the fight starts.
>
> My personal investigation in the matters reveals pretty grim picture.
I agree. Underlings are basically fucked, no matter what.
> Correct me if I am wrong but the only way an employee has a legal
> protection is to be involved in one the notorious harassment cases
And, ...it has to go to court (or get an out-of-court settlement)..
AND .. "find" in the favor of the plaintiff, AND if it goes to appeal,
even Supreme Court, and you still have to win, and all this can take
10-15 years and your mental and physical health will be deteriorated
from it all.
or
> to prove one of the legally defined discriminations actually have
> taken place. Corporations are very careful with that.
The more important fact is that the corporations have $billions of
resources and access to lawyers (hired guns) to protect the
corporation AND they can hire private detectives to get "dirt" on you
and ruin your case.
Also, don't ever use EAP services of the company: they own those
"confidential" files and will use them against you.
The corporate
> legal teams have crafted the codes of conduct to clearly steer from
> any even remote possibility of harassment in its legal definition and
> when they plan layoffs they usually try to compile the decimation list
> to be well representative of all races, ages and genders. Some
> companies routinely evaluate their people bad no matter how they
> perform. In the need of layoff or simple firing they just pull out the
> results of the cocked performance appraisal and the guy is done.
Yes, and they can do lots of other dirty things, too.
> What is not covered alas is the false performance reviews and hiring
> not in good faith. For the former the courts refuse to intervene
> saying it is up to the company to view an employee as its pleases.
> Legally it is the matter of opinion. The fact the it might be a result
> of the personal vengeance, administrative games and a like legally
> does not exist.
Best plan: if you can figure out that your employer is an asshole, is
becoming an asshole, and will always be an asshole...then get the hell
outta there before its too late.
> The hiring no in good faith is especially harmful as it bears
> significant financial losses for unfortunate people. They sell houses,
> pay huge relocation costs to find out that the job they got does not
> remotely look as it has been promised. In attempt to challenge that in
> courts the cases are thrown out on the bases that the verbal promises
> that nobody put on the paper have been interpreted differently and
> that the needs of business might change.
>
> In their decisions judges time and again stress the companies have
> rights to conduct business as they like.
In other words, something like dictatorships and with Hitler as boss.
Nothing is said that they
> must be fair and just and all that.
Look for websites that can help identify bad corporations. I think one
is www.corpwatch.com or .org.
Ralph Nader has had some experience with this, too.