Does this make sense to you?
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
December 2, 2007 8:15am CST
Here in the US, we all know that gas prices are rising, food prices are rising, and so are a lot of other expemses.
The contractors who process the applications for visas and immigration requests have been receiving record numbers to process with no additional hirings.
NOW, just three weeks before Christmas, these workers are going to be "rewarded" for keeping up with the increase; by DECREASING their pay and removing any opportunity for overtime.
Here is the full story - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02immig.html?th&emc=th
Without overtime, they cannot possibly keep up with the increase; so, these applications will REALLY develop a back log very quickly.
With a decrease in pay, how are they supposed to keep paying their bills and paying for necessities which are increasing while their wages are decreasing?
If they quit their jobs, will they be able to find other jobs to pay the bills? How can a new untrained employee possibly process as many applications as a trained employee in a shorter work day?
This does not make any sense to me. Does it make sense to any of you?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@wisedragon (2325)
• Philippines
3 Dec 07
This is very frustrating. We, the visa applicants, already have to wait so long, like 2 years, to get a green card. And now, the workers who process them will not be allowed to work overtime? The backlog would get worse.
You can blame the US government for this, spending so much money on wars thereby incurring a budget deficit.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Dec 07
I know, it penalizes both our workers and applicants.
It could be worse though. A lot of times when one contractor loses a contract and another one gets the contract; ALL of the workers are replaced by new workers. That would mean that the original workers would be out of work and a whole new untrained group of workers would take over everything that was left behind. At least this way, the people who are working these applications continue the work uninterupted and they do know what they are doing.
But, this actually has NOTHING to do with the war and/or spending on it. The government's policy has ALWAYS been; to accept the lowest bid for a contract as long as all of the specifications of the contract can be met by the lowest bidder.
I would also like to point out that the Philipines was more than happy to have the US spending "money on wars" when the Japanese were invading the Philipines during World War II and spending dollars to help rebuild after that war - which I might point out - the US did not start.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Dec 07
As a former contractor for the US government doing work for the USPS, yes, I believe the US government would screw over their contractors.
I found the US government to absolutely be in violation of its own IRS regulations concerning contractors and possibly guilty of felony RICO violations in the manner in which they routinely conduct business.
You are only looking at the tip of the iceberg as to how badly the US government treats its contractors.
If I did not like it, why did I not contact a lawyer and / or quit?
Actually, I did both. The lawyer told me the case would cost about $500,000 dollars and 10 years to pursue and the government could at any time just rule in its own favor by having the case dismissed.
As to obtaining a finding that the government itself is guilty of RICO violations, it is not going to happen, even though, in my opinion, the government is conspiring to knowingly cheat contractors out of justly earned money while also cheating the IRS.
The day is coming when "the work Americans won't do" that has to be done by illegal immigrants is going to be contracting work for the US government.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Dec 07
"The day is coming when "the work Americans won't do" that has to be done by illegal immigrants is going to be contracting work for the US government."
That day has come already. After 9/11, they increased the security checks on contracted workers who were working on military bases and found that a lot of the contracted workers WERE illegal immigrants.
When it comes to sueing the Federal government - good luck. in some cases, they actually have LAWS that say that you cannot sue them for certain acts and since they control the courts no lawyer will take a case against them on contingency.
The way our legal system currently works; the only ones that always win are the lawyers. They get paid ridiculously high fees no matter what the outcone is.
@lyndaj70 (293)
• United States
2 Dec 07
That is our wonderful government bureaucrats at work. It's a free country: They can always find other jobs.
One bright spot: at least no one got fired due to "downsizing."
Not trying to downplay how horrible it is, but I AM pointing out how bad it could be: They could not have a job at all...
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
2 Dec 07
The timing in particular is very bad. Three weeks before the holidays. You would think they could have waited until after the first of the year at least. But, yes, this is a bad time of the year for anyone to be laid off, fired, "downsized", or get a pay cut.
@LittleMel (8742)
• Canada
2 Dec 07
no it doesn't, but this is how it is in the world of business. they need money to whatever they say it is for and any kind of cutbacks has to be done.
Another thing I see is that some companies give the overtime to certain people only, this means there is not much work for the rest and so they get laid off. I feel that this is also unfair. I mean regular hours is not bad compared to nothing, but because they give certain people over time, the rest don't even get regular hours.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
2 Dec 07
Part of the situation you described is so they can get around having to pay for benefits. Most "part-time" workers get no or very few benefits and benefits can be very costly almost doubling a person's salary in some cases. By giving the full-time employees over-time, the part time employees can't be "upgraded" to full time status and be eligible for those benefits. Some companies ONLY use part time employees for this specific reason.
@foxyfire33 (10005)
• United States
2 Dec 07
From aa employee's standpoint, no this doesn't make a bit of sense. But from the employer's perspective the plan is genius. They can save a little money by paying lower wages to good employees and then save a lot of money when those emploees get fed up and quit allowing the company to hire less experienced workers for even Less pay. It's all about the money in the contract, they don't care about the employees or the work needing to be done.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
2 Dec 07
It may make financial sense for a very short period of time. This is going to result in them failing to meet ALL the terms of their contract because they are not going to be able to process all of the applications in a reasonable timeframe.
Defaulting on a government contract will result in fines, fees, penalties and loss of the contract. So, in the long run it is not good business sense.
It would make better sense to keep salaries the same, stop ALL overtime (time and a half) and hire a couple more people. They would still save money - same number of hours being worked; but, without the overtime pay would actually reduce costs. (One part time employee working 30 hours can do more work that 2 people putting in an extra 10 hours each at the same cost and with fewer errors due to stress and fatigue.)
That is why this does not make sense to me.
