I think this story is missing some key pieces (it seems like it was created by the plaintiff's lawyer). Still if the commentary suggested is true, then Oracle could be in trouble. The technicality that I wonder about is that this guys wasn't "harmed" by being told to pay the foreign worker less, (mental distress complaint aside) and the foreign worker presumably doesn't know this happened and so isn't suing Oracle.
And all of that is conflated by the fact that the person is already hired so it isn't a hiring question, it is a pay question. And at least in the several "managing legally" I've been to, paying people differently doesn't get you into legal trouble like not hiring or firing them does.
That said, at one of the companies where I worked there was a suggestion for engineers to go to India to help train local engineers, and having their salary be the same as their peers would have in India. (as opposed to California salaries) It was controversial to say the least.
I think his argument is that he was fired for trying to prevent Indian employees being discriminated against, which might be considered unfair dismissal. In the UK being fired for exposing wrongdoing within the company counts as unfair dismissal, I don't know if the US has a similar system in place to protect workers in situations like this.
From the article, there's some suggestion of the plaintiff himself having been discriminated against for his Irish origin... (though no details)
'... "experienced discriminatory and retaliatory conduct based on his national origin and after his complaint of various improper practices, including the company's discriminatory pay practices of employees based on their national origin,...'
No, what we have here is a SV megacorp practicing blatant racism in its hiring (or internal allocation) practices, and then firing the guy who blew the whistle on it.
Before we get too carried away. All the Supervisor needed to say was "for someone coming from India" and suddenly the context is non racial and hugely illuminating. Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally when hiring and promoting and transferring employees etc.
So hard to know if he was just making a fair assessment of the realties of different regions or saying Indian's deserve less than Caucasian's simply because they're Indian.
Doubly so if the company is considering providing any sort of relocation assistance, sponsorship, or other similar things which may help the employee realize his move from India to the US -- a move which may offer well over $10k/yr worth of benefits to his overall personal well-being (and his family's).
Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally ...
If so, then evidently they're the kind of company that seems way, way more concerned with employees who get "emotional" about discriminatory practices... then about the discriminatory practices themselves.
No. It is still discrimination, howsoever euphemistic you make it. He was not to work in India. He was coming to the US and needed to have equal salary as any other employee working there.
Based on the article, he didn't blow any whistle, he complained to his manager and asked what to do to give the guy a higher offer. Then a few weeks later he was fired.
Maybe, but there's not enough info in the article to conclude that. The Indian guy was already an employee remember. I simply don't know what the relevant laws are on inter-company transfers.
Well there is certainly scarcity, and I don't think an isolationist approach will help. We need to protect the H1Bs and equivalents coming to our countries; give them better rights, increase their leverage. This will make it harder for employees to drive down their, and by extension our, salaries. This is because foreign and domestic workers are substitute goods from an HR perspective.
I am not for political correctness but let me try to counter your perspective
Since the Indian employee has a good track record and the company is willing to transfer him to US, lets assume that he has around 8-10 years of experience.
This would qualify the person for about INR 2 to 2.5 M annual pay excluding commissions. This is about USD 35 - 40K
For such a pay, the quality of living of the Indian person would be
(might vary slightly based on the city in India)
1. Owns at least one 3BHK house / apartment right in the middle of the city (~ 10-15 minute commute to office) with groceries/malls within walking distance or max 10 mins drive
2. Drives own car (atleast Honda City, Ford Fiesta, Hyundai Verna), with a good chance of a second car
3. Owns some of the following: iPhone, iPad, Samsung G S4/Note, smart tv, home theatre system, a modern kitchen, full internet connectivity, power backup
4. Good chance of at least one child and that child studying in a leading private school
5. Has a paid help for daily chores (washing, cleaning etc.)
6. All labour for any domestic purpose electric, plumbing, car mechanic etc. are all down right affordable without even a pinch
50K definitely is higher than the 35-40K USD he is receiving and it is upto the person to accept it. However, the person would definitely be compromising as I doubt if the 50K USD will assure the above list when the person chooses to live in the US
Yes indeed, if one thing US is best at it would be marketing, but what I have explained is only true for the past decade (2000 upwards). Upto the 90s and before the tech boom, it was very difficult to make a good living in India where the only stable choice then was to take up a government job.
The generation before (those born till 70s in India) had to struggle a lot under newly independent India and its socialistic ideals. That generation also created the craze about going away from India to build their careers. Couple this with the civic issues of India (which are still prevalent) and you end up in the popular view about India in the west.
Its amazing money for someone living in India, but the guy in question was moving to America. If he's good enough for them to want him to work in the U.S., they should be willing to pay him appropriately to do so.
I switched from the helpdesk at my first job to being a senior sysadmin working with the highest paid people on site for my gig. My company wanted to give me ~2% raises a year from the helpdesk wage to what was the average for my new position, vs. bumping me up to the avg salary for the new position when I switched teams.
So I would have worked side by site with my peers for ~10 years to catch up to what I should have been paid walking in the door. Since they wouldn't pay me what I should have been worth I quit.
Experiences similar to yours are the biggest reason I'm abandoning a 10+ year career along the same path. Everyone that I've ever known in helpdesk or admin has been completely shit on by an employer with regard to compensation; myself included. I'd say it probably happens more frequently than 1/3 of the time too.
I think the email is being latched on as a motivator too much in this case (because Oracle is obviously evil).
The policy more likely is: We pay X dollars for position Y in the USA, and less than X dollars for position Y in India per company policy. There isn't anything illegal about that. Also there isn't anything illegal about not bumping up his salary if he moved from India to the USA (even though I don't agree with this).
Pretty sure whites are paid less than east Asians for same job in US.
Interestingly, the US Supreme Court ruled Asian Indians to be Caucasian, probably white, but not really white. Pretty tragicomic stuff, the old race based citizenship requirements.
That's a ridiculous statement. I recently took a job that pays 15% less than I was making, which was already much lower than I should be making, because it was either that or have my family get evicted from our home when we can't afford to pay rent. Just because someone is getting screwed doesn't mean they can avoid it.
I'll definitely be looking for something better, but until I find it I don't really have any good options. I'm sure someone trying to leave India is in a similar situation.
There's no excuse for underpaying employees because of their location or the color of their skin. The proper salary for an oracle employee is probably several million dollars per year, based on their sales, but most of it is stolen by the shareholders and top level executives.
This is not meant to offend, but your response is essentially socialist in nature. If we keep this discussion within the capitalist framework, then the proper salary is simply $1 more than a competitor is willing to pay said employee. Thus it is arguable that this particular employee was extremely overpaid.
Fine. Yes, the socialist response is that a worker should control what they produce -- a collection of workers together would democraticly control what they create together.
So sure, the socialist argument (or more accurately the labor theory of value) is that a worker (variable capital) produces some value and is then paid a wage for that value which is less than said value. This difference is the surplus value, some of which is used to pay for upkeep or new machinery (constant capital), pay capitalists and some becomes capital for future investment.
If a worker is from India or lives in India and produces the same value as one born or lives in the US they deserve the same share.
Of course, as I said, the real socialist position is not getting a share of what they produce and the rest being controlled by a capitalist but instead collectively what is surplus and how to use it.
The capitalist response is to say you don't deserve the same share (and especially not the full value), thus making the surplus value larger.
> This is not meant to offend, but your response is essentially socialist in nature.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'm not sure I agree, anyway. Paying people according to the sales value they create leads to pretty unequal outcomes; janitors, clerks, and other unrespected jobs may be forced to scrape by on less than a living wage. Sounds a lot like capitalism!
Not necessarily, but a janitor should be paid a living wage. It's very easy to imagine an executive declaring that any employee who doesn't produce quantifiable profits should get peanuts. (Or "minimum wage," which is not a living wage in most of the US.)
This article was basically written by the plantiff's lawyer. Of course it's heavily slanted to one side. Would want to hear the other side.
Even what is written doesn't sound lawsuit worthy. In the end, the company was offering an existing employee a raise to $50K per year and this one unrelated guy thought $60K was a better offer. It's a fine line. I can't see the guy winning his suit based on only $10K difference to an employee that doesn't even know this conversation is happening.
Companies are always trying to pay less than they have to, regardless of race. I've seen countless times employers being happy that a candidate, when asked how much salary they wanted, came back with a low number. Everyone in the hiring process knows the candidate is under-pricing themselves to the market, but lo and behold the offer comes at what they asked for. "More money to get the next candidate"
I don't think the numbers themselves are the problem. The problem is (if proven) that the hiring manager said those fateful words "...enough for an Indian".
Company was not offering a "raise to $50K". He was initially working in India, and was to be brought to US - where the cost of living is much higher, and there has to be equal wages for same job regardless of national origin. Have you really read the article?
I'll just comment on an experience that someone had while interviewing at oracle.
A friend, recently graduated from my school, was flown to their headquarters for a final round of interviews. She asked "What does your company look for in a candidate?"
I'm not a lawyer and I would love the hear opinion about this. Do companies use L-1 visas to workaround H1B requirements?
As far as I understand L-1 visa (which is probably used here) has no prevailing wage requirement. They can even still be on payroll of Oracle in India (or whatever Oracle's entity in India is called).
>I'm not a lawyer and I would love the hear opinion about this. Do companies use L-1 visas to workaround H1B requirements
Yes, often they come over under the veil of a 'temporary assignment' so they remain on foreign payroll. They can stay up to three years before having to renew/reapply. I worked for an immigration law firm and I saw wages as low as $15,000/year coming from South Korea to work at Fortune 500s.
This is a strategy used by Accenture's ATS division. Teams of 100+ engineers deployed in the US, being bused to hotels and given meal vouchers at night, while earning Indian wages.
THere's a huge secondary benefit (to the employee) for L-1s, though. Spouses pretty much automatically qualify for an L-2, which allows them to work at-will in the US, too. So, even if the L-1 worker is severely underpaid (based on prevailing wages in their home country), their spouse can apply for a job paid using the US salary standards. L-1 also allows for immediate Green Card application, and is a much smoother path toward permanent residency than H-1B.
And are these 100+ engineer forced to accept that term? Or more likely they think it's a good deal for them (i.e. living in India earning Indian wage)?
This is not correct. I work on H1b and have tons of friends on L1 visa. When employee is transferred from India to US, they are supposed to get salary based on US County ( that's right, its COUNTY) they will be working in. Before coming to US ( or filing visa) lawyer is supposed to file LCA ( called Labor Condition Application) which mentions prevailing wages for that particular job title. If anyone is getting paid less than what is mentioned as LCA then its blatant violation of law. You can call USCIS/ICE helpline and within 24 hrs action will be taken and most likely employer will be fined severely.
Companies use the path of least resistance. (unless they like making life difficult for themselves)
If an L-1 is easier to get they will do that, if a TN is easier they will do that, etc, etc, etc. Immigration is highly particular to an individual case.
From what I can see, it's been (for a while) that you needed to work 3 years for the current company, of which at least 1 of those years must have been in the original country of origin.
I don't believe anything in the article indicates this was Xenophobia. It sounds entirely plausible that it wasn't "offer him less because he's brown", but rather "offer him less because he lives in a lower-cost-of-living and lower-average-income country". i.e. this might be akin to saying "that's good money for someone from Alabama". It's not about race, it's about location.
I'm not saying there's a ton of evidence in favor of what I'm saying, I'm just saying it's a possible explanation.
I understand your point: different countries have different costs of living and different average income values.
Even though it's entirely hypocritical of me (I'm somewhat okay with Chinese companies paying lower wages as long as they're above the average Chinese income), I still can't let go of how "it's okay, he lives in India so he doesn't need that much money" sounds like "it's okay, she's black, she doesn't need that much money and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway" or "it's okay, he's Asian, I bet he's frugal enough not to need the same wage as our white employees".
Your examples are ridiculous. Your two "sounds like" examples are straight up racist (not that you think these things so please don't think that I'm calling you a racist). The other is just a geographical one that happens to span national borders. Even in the US, among the same race, people get paid less if they live in places that cost less. It has nothing to do with black or Asian. My company is based in California but has an office in North Dakota. The devs in ND make about 60% of what the devs in CA make. Nothing wrong about that.
But this guy was being relocated to the US. What wage is appropriate in India has no relevance to what is appropriate where he was being relocated.
Well gyc points out that I was mistaken about the nature of the situation, but I don't follow what you're saying. You're saying it's not okay for someone to pay differently based on race (and I agree), and it's not okay for someone to pay differently based on where the job is (and I disagree), but that it's okay for Chinese companies to pay lower wages? I'm not sure if you mean Chinese employees or employees IN China, or how that's different from the other things you said. I think employers should strike a balance between what you're worth and what you need, and what you need does depend on where you live.
Oracle will get kicked in the buffalo packet on the point of "retaliation." Essentially, they fired him because he was questioning them - you can't do that, especially in California which has hugely employee slanted laws. The point of whether the Indian sales hire was being discriminated against is not in the senior salesperson's domain - it would be the Indian's lawsuit to file.
My first impression was this person attempted to inject race into everything at Oracle and higher-ups simply just had enough of it and fired him.
50K is unthinkable of an offer while but 60K is not... Whatever.
It's clear the offer made was 50K because the employee was willing to take it to get the benefit of working US-side. Not because he was being discriminated against.
It's 2014, it's a globalized world. There are thousands of Americans living in India and vice-versa (probably more Indians in the US). The "good money for an Indian" if true, is clearly a despicable statement to make about a fellow employee with regards to his/her pay. I understand the posts about salary negotiation, but he/she wasn't directly engaged in it nor should someone's background/living standards shouldn't be taken into consideration when being posted in another country. Where are all the company moral values? Or quite simply where is human decency? Shameful, if true.
And all of that is conflated by the fact that the person is already hired so it isn't a hiring question, it is a pay question. And at least in the several "managing legally" I've been to, paying people differently doesn't get you into legal trouble like not hiring or firing them does.
That said, at one of the companies where I worked there was a suggestion for engineers to go to India to help train local engineers, and having their salary be the same as their peers would have in India. (as opposed to California salaries) It was controversial to say the least.