Originally posted by d1203
AC21 , also allows 485 filers to switch employers after 180 days . Doesnt this errode the so called "pool of bonded labor" ? Did AC21 not reform the 485 system (albeit not as much as we would have liked it to, but still a big difference) ?
How does big business like IBM,Sun, etc benefit by supporting AC21, if they know that 485 filers would have the liberty to quit and join elsewhere after 180 days ?
I guess AC-21 did reform the system; it reformed the system so well that the INS still has not formulated and announced the rules for its implementation.
In case it missed your attention, AC-21 requires that the target job has to be similar to the one you will be leaving; not a step up as one might imagine should be the case after being in the position for a few years. If you cannot take a job that carries more responsibility, how is the pool of bonded labor shrinking? Somebody who is previously working as programmer analyst for EDS is now the programmer analyst for Accenture. For the employee, there is clearly no future beyond the available pool of programmer analysts in the economy.
Originally posted by d1203
Please give credit where it is due. ISN started the AC21 campaign .I'm sure there must have people with defeatist attitudes throwing up "It wont work buddy, but all the best" arguments . At least there were some visionaries who still went ahead and persisted (no thanks to the naysayers) , the benefits of which we are expriencing.
Like I said, sit on the fence. Have a cigar, watch the fun. Just do not discourage people who wish to make a difference or belittle past accomplishments
Would you be so kind as to define what success would be for this petition, and how that might be reasonably achieved? I guess it is easy to whip up peoples passions and goad them into action. In my day, I have known a lot of rabblerousers that would think nothing of inciting a senseless act of defiance from the relative safety of their wrought -iron balconies knowing full well the futility of such an act and more importantly, its consequences to the people on the frontline.
Every objective needs a well formulated strategy based on an understanding of the adversary, what the relative strengths and weaknesses are of the various parties involved and the availability of resources.
CNN is part of the Time Warner media empire. If it says anything at all about the outfit, the liberal-minded Mr. Turner has fallen apart with the powers that be and is in the process of divesting his stake in the company. Programming on giant media corporations such as these does not fall in place by accident. It is compiled by hordes of highly-paid MBAs that have researched the demographics of their audience threadbare. Often times they know more about their audiences' behavior as a consumer than the individuals concerned. They are not in the business of news or entertainment, but their business is to slice and dice their viewers into various attractive packages and offer them as a product to their customers, i.e., their advertisers.
CNN has lost the most watched news channel title to Fox over the past couple of years because of their so-called liberal slant and they are under orders to claw back the lost ground. Mr Dobbs was brought back by CNN as part of this strategy. He is not paid to wax eloquent ex-tempore on his show. What he says on air is what he is asked to say by his producer and program director who have an army of researchers and focus groups at their disposal to figure out what is likely to go down well with the viewer demographic most sought after by the channel. So dont, for a moment, think that you can get their sympathies by writing a petition. If at all possible, you would have to purchase their allegiance by shelling out what the market bears. Much as we like to believe that they are a part of the fourth estate with a significant public interest role to play in a democratic system, they see themselves first and foremost as for-profit corporations (and Mr. Powell fully concurs with them) that are under enormous pressure to perform for their shareholders, especially after the fiasco with the AOL purchase.
Nobody says that you cannot fight a giant and win. However, if you do identify this media giant as your adversary and choose to fight it in their own backyard, you better thoroughly analyze the wicket you are playing on and the resources you can solidly count on. Lastly, you would still want to bide your time and wait for a moment of weakness to initiate your actions. It is good to try and try again till you succeed, but it is also important for your own welfare to not be pig-headed about it.
So, quit baiting me and try to focus on contributing to the initiative if you have anything useful. If you do not, find another thread that interests you.
