Editorial

On the Politics of High-Tech Workers As this country looks abroad to solve its high-tech labor shortage problems, the IEEE argues convincingly that more immigration hurts both U.S. and foreign engineers. by Jonah McLeod

Dan Ganousis came by to see me a couple of months ago. He had recently left Veribest, where he was vice president of marketing, to start a company called Questmark Design Services based in Niwot, Colo. (near Boulder). I remembered his visit because of something that happened in the middle of May as I began this editorial: the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 1723 by a vote of 78 to 20.

Senate Bill 1723 nearly doubles the number of "temporary guest" high-technology industry workers from its current level of 65,000 up to 115,000.

My reporter's instinct told me I should get a comment from the IEEE, so I called them and got quite an earful: All interviewed were vehemently against the bill. I want to share those arguments with you and would really appreciate your views on the merits of the legislation.

But first I should note that the IEEE's opposition represents a reversal of its past position. In the 1970s and '80s, it was pro-immigration, with a vehement dissident group (headed by gadfly Irwin Feerst) opposing the larger organization and accusing it of being management-dominated. Now, the IEEE has become an advocate for engineers--U.S. and foreign--against perceived management abuses.

The IEEE's main problem with the bill is that it floods the high-tech employment market with lower-priced, indentured engineers. Under the bill, U.S. employers sponsor engineers from countries like India, Pakistan, and Russia. The employer is allowed to keep the engineer in the country for a three-year period, which may be renewed once. Thereafter, the sponsor can either send the engineer back to his country or sponsor him for a green card.

During the time the high-tech worker is indentured, the IEEE says, the sponsor determines the starting salary and any increases, which the engineer must accept to remain here. The employer thus gets a long-term worker at, essentially, a predetermined price. Furthermore, the company gets to keep the pick of the litter and return the others, replacing them with new recruits.

The inherent opportunities for abuse should be obvious. Older, higher-paid engineers can be traded for younger, lower-paid foreign nationals--a practice that clearly constitutes age discrimination. The irony, says the IEEE, is that oftentimes the company calls back the laid-off older engineer to train the new hire. The IEEE points out, though, that the victims are both the displaced engineer and the new hire--citing accounts of immigrant engineers who have received their green cards calling to complain about their treatment while indentured.

The proponents of a more relaxed immigration policy maintain that there's an insufficient number of designers to build the electronic systems our information technology­driven society needs. Certainly, ISD, among others, has hammered on the theme that a productivity gap exists between what can be designed and the much larger amount of silicon real estate available. But whether or not part of the problem lies with the sheer number of designers brings me back to Dan Ganousis.

You see, Dan contends the United States is actually producing more engineers than there are jobs. The only problem is that the jobs reside in a handful of high-tech corridors sprinkled across the country--in California, Massachusetts, and Texas, to name a few. These densely populated areas have excessive housing costs and congestion, which repel engineers with young families.

Dan related an example of a young engineer he found in Montana. The man was working as a plumber because he was unwilling to relocate. Dan convinced him to move to Boulder--to the mutual benefit of both parties.

Along with his new enterprise in Niwot, Dan hopes to provide a brokerage service that allows contract engineers located throughout the country to telecommute, working with system houses needing design work. Thus designers could live where they want while system companies stay in the urban areas.

With an abundance of indentured, low-priced engineering talent, though, will electronics companies have an incentive to accommodate telecommuting contract designers? Or will they simply hand-pick the best of a skilled immigrant workforce that they can get at a bargain basement price? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know which of the two choices makes more economic sense.

Please write me at jonah@isdmag.com with your opinion. If we get enough responses, we'll publish them.

To voice an opinion on this or any Integrated System Design article, please email your message to miker@isdmag.com.

integrated system design  July 1998