Why Skilled Immigrants Are Leaving the U.S.

Immigration, legal or illegal, has been a political hot button in recent years. Now, it seems, many immigrants are returning home -- unfortunately, these folks are the people that the US needs to keep.

There's no question but that innovation is the key to creating and sustaining competitive advantage, whether its on the level of the individual, the organization and the country (and if this doesn't compute, flip back in your notes to Michael Porter). What appears, though, to be happening, as described in this article, is that highly skilled individuals, often from India and China, are returning home and taking their skills with them. The article puts it quite simply:

The U.S. is no longer the only land of opportunity. If we don't want the immigrants who have fueled our innovation and economic growth, they now have options elsewhere.

So, where does this leave the US economy. Well, again, I think it's pretty simple. People such as:

• Vinod Khosla (one of the founders of Sun Microsystems)
• Arun Netravali (Bell Labs and Lucent)
• C.K Prahalad (Distingiushed Professor of Management at the University of Michigan)
• Roger Y. Tsien (2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry and professor at the University of California - San Diego)

aren't the people that we need to pack up and leave the US.

Court says Wal-Mart must face bias trial

The ongoing class-action suit against WalMart, brought by women claiming they did not receive the same pay raises and priomotions as their male counterparts, is back in the news.

WalMart would really realy like for this to not be a class action suit. In a class action suit, the plaintiffs comprise all possible individuals who belong to the class -- in this case, any woman who has worked for Walmart since December 26, 1998. Class action settlements tend to be quite expensive for losing defendants; the news story is using the term "billions".

WalMart can affort the expensive lawyers, who are attempting to demolish the whole concept of class action lawsuits. however the plaintiffs appear to be in this for the long haul.

The suit is entering into its fourth year, but don't be looking for a resolution any time soon. All that's been settled here is the class action certificantion. The testimony, expert witnesses, etc. are way off in the future.

A lot of employment discriminations suits are settled out of court. But, I really don't think WalMart is likely to settle, since any settlement is going to involve some admission of guilt, as well as a financial settlement. My best guess is that we won't see any resolution for 4 to 5 years, and longer wouldn't surprise me out of a year's growth.

Do I have an opinion? Glad you asked.....of course I do. This is a classic "adverse impact" suit, meaning that discrimination is established by statistical evidence establishing that outcomes are significantly different form men and women (the dreaded "4/5 rule"). Once that's done, Walmart has to prove that their promotion and pay practices are business-related (validity). I haven't seen any of the evidence, but, first, I suspect that there'll be a lot of statistical byplay on the 4/5 rule. Also, it isn't a matter of "guilty" or "not guilty" here. I'd guess that the plaintiffs can establish that there is discrimination going on. What the plaintiffs are going to need, though, is to find something in writing (internal memos, etc.) that establishes that the discrimination is intentional. That's, strictly speaking, not necessary for this type of suit, but it would sure help.

Stay tuned for more developments.

Court says Wal-Mart must face bias trial I'll add a more permanent link later on

Janitors' Drive in Texas Gives Hope to Unions - New York Times

Read this story from the New York Times, then watch the 60 Minutes segment entitled "Living Large" (3d story down). Am I the only one who sees a major disconnect here?

Your thoughts?

WalMart and Health Insurance

For those of you who have been following the controversy over WalMart and health care......

For the rest of you. The controversy here is over WalMart and how their workers are receiving health care. Although WalMart does provide health insurance for its workers, critics claim that WalMart makes coverage unaffordable for rank-and-file employees, forcing their folks to rely on publicly-funded plans such as TennCare. There are anecdodal accounts of WalMart management actually coaching employees on how to go about reciving public benefits. The Maryland legislature passed legislation earlier this year to basically force WalMart to provide affordable coverage or contribute to the state's costs (rather than sticking the state and taxpayers with the cost) , but the act was vetoed by the governor.

Md. Passes Rules on Wal-Mart Insurance

Now, it's a question of whether or not the legislature has the votes to override the veto.

Wal-Mart Girds for Battle on Md. Bill

Stay tuned for further developments....

Your thoughts ???????

Bogus work excuses on the rise: 'God didn't wake me'

Bogus work excuses on the rise: 'God didn't wake me'

This is a Yahoo news item, so I don't know how long this link will work.

My favorite -- "The voices told me to clean the guns today."

What are yours?

Employment Discrimination in Sweden

This was on Yahoo's front page, so I thought it might be a good idea for me to note a few things. First, this case is in Sweden. As the International Business folks have gotten very tired of hearing, culture and laws differ. True, there have been employment discrimination cases in the US where height requirements and other physical requirements have been struck down (as I recall, some were on gender and others I think on ethnicity). However, in the US cases, the finding was that the requirement wasn't something actually needed for the job [Note 1]. From what was reported here, it sound as though the minimum height requirement was a job requirement -- if a US employer could establish that efficiency or safety really did require the minimum heights, the employer would, I think, probably win the suit.

[Note 1]. The interesting case was with firefighters. Traditional selection requirements for that job included the ability to lift, I think, 250 or 300 pounds. When this requirement was challenged, and a job analysis actually performed, what came out was that the ability to lift that amount of weight wasn't essential; what was essential was the ability to carry a lesser amount over a distance. In other words, endurance rather than strength. Women actually do better on endurence than men. That doesn't mean that many women will qualify as firefighters -- it's not office work. But, if you think through it, doesn't it make sense to take the time to find out what the job really requires, and find people who meet those qualifications?

WalMart and their overseas suppliers

According to this article ("Wal-Mart Accused of Denying Workers' Rights") in The Washington Post,

An American labor rights group filed a class action lawsuit today against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., alleging that suppliers in five foreign countries denied workers a minimum wage, overtime pay and the right to unionize.

The group is suing...

...on behalf of 15 foreign workers, who contend they were subjected to
illegal working conditions, and four California business owners, who argue
Wal-Mart's alleged conduct amounted to unfair business practices.

Should be interesting. Your comments? Both the HR and International folks should be interested in this.

Bush Suspends Pay Act In Areas Hit by Storm

The Davis-Bacon Act, Federal law since 1931:

"requires all contractors and subcontractors performing work on federal or District of Columbia construction contracts or federally assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 to pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits for corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on similar projects in the area" (Department of Labor)

For Louisiana rates, see this DoL page (scroll down to Orleans County [yes, I know it's not "county," but "parish" -- you tell the Department of Labor]).

However, it is legal to suspend enforcement in a national emergency:

Bush Suspends Pay Act In Areas Hit by Storm

Your thoughts???

Of Interest to both HR and International Business

This article from the New York Times deals with the efforts of workers, many of them immigrants, to organize labor unions in poultry processing plants.

Union Organizers at Poultry Plants in South Find Newly Sympathetic Ears

For the HR class -- as we discussed last week, there is a rationale for a low-cost HR strategy, such as in cases where jobs are low-skill and there's a lot of price pressure on the company (to deliver a low-cost product). What you want to think through is just how far should that strategy be followed? In other words, what are the ethical implications here?

Your thoughts?