The H-1B Visa: Corporate America's Favorite Loophole to Undermine U.S. Workers

In 2023, a leading tech giant laid off 6,500 U.S. workers while simultaneously sponsoring 5,400 H-1B visas. Source: barrons.com

This paradox highlights a fundamental issue with the H-1B visa program, a system intended to fill gaps in specialized skills but increasingly leveraged as a corporate tool to reduce costs and minimize worker protections. Far from serving its original purpose, the H-1B program has become a mechanism for companies to suppress wages, erode job security, and sidestep fair employment practices.

This article explores how the H-1B visa program is reshaping the U.S. labour market, to the detriment of American workers and the foreign employees it ostensibly aims to help. The result? A system that prioritises corporate convenience over the rights and livelihoods of individuals.

The Origins and Intent of the H-1B Visa Program

The H-1B visa was introduced in 1990 as part of the Immigration Act, designed to bring in highly skilled foreign workers to address labour shortages in specialised fields such as IT, engineering, and healthcare. Source: americanimmigrationcouncil.org With an annual cap of 85,000 visas (65,000 for general applicants and 20,000 for those with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions), the program was seen as a way to bolster U.S. innovation and global competitiveness.

Proponents argue that the program fills critical gaps in sectors where domestic talent is insufficient. In theory, employers are required to pay H-1B workers the “prevailing wage," a safeguard meant to ensure that foreign workers are not paid less than their U.S. counterparts.

However, the program’s implementation has revealed cracks, with corporations exploiting loopholes to prioritise profit over fairness.

The Reality: A Corporate Loophole

Lowering Costs

While the law mandates paying H-1B workers the “prevailing wage,” this requirement is often a minimum threshold rather than a true reflection of market rates. Source: epi.org

The Department of Labor’s four-tier wage system allows employers to classify positions at entry-level (Level 1), which can be as low as the 17th percentile of wages for that role. This practice enables companies to pay significantly less than they would for U.S. workers in the same positions.

Easier Layoffs

H-1B workers’ immigration status is tied to their employment, creating a stark power imbalance. If they lose their job, they must secure another sponsor within 60 days or leave the country. This dependency makes them less likely to push back on unfair treatment or negotiate higher salaries.

For a comprehensive guide to streamline global hiring, visit A Guide to the Best Employer of Record (EOR) Services in 2023.

Furthermore, employers are not obligated to provide severance or handle unemployment claims when terminating H-1B employees, making them more cost-effective and flexible to let go during downsizing.

Reduced Bargaining Power

U.S. citizens typically have greater job security and legal protections, including the ability to claim unemployment benefits and sue for wrongful termination. H-1B workers, constrained by visa requirements, are far less likely to challenge their employers.

This dynamic tilts the labour market in favour of corporations, reducing the leverage of all workers, including U.S. citizens.

Outsourcing Connection

Some companies use H-1B workers as a stepping stone to offshoring jobs.

To explore how HR strategies adapt globally, read Adapting HR for Global Success Through Flexibility.

After hiring and training foreign workers in the U.S., these firms often transfer operations overseas, displacing entire teams of U.S. employees. This practice has been particularly prevalent in the tech sector, where outsourcing giants dominate the H-1B visa allocation.

Case Study: The Tech Sector

The tech industry is a prime example of how the H-1B visa program is used to prioritize corporate profits over fair labor practices. Companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon have laid off thousands of U.S. workers while continuing to sponsor H-1B visas. In 2022 alone, over 70% of H-1B visas were awarded to workers in IT-related roles, with many employed by outsourcing firms.

Tesla, another major tech player, has also significantly increased its use of H-1B visas. Source: Staffingindustry.com

In fiscal year 2024, Tesla had 742 approved H-1B visas, nearly doubling from 328 in the previous year. This reliance on foreign talent is not unique to Tesla; other ventures associated with Elon Musk have similarly leaned on H-1B workers to address talent needs. Musk has even advocated for increasing the H-1B visa cap, arguing that the current limit of 85,000 visas per year is insufficient to meet the demand for high-tech talent.

However, critics argue that this growing dependence on H-1B workers may contribute to wage suppression and job displacement for U.S. employees. Tesla’s case underscores the complexities of balancing the need for specialized talent with the imperative to protect domestic employment opportunities.

Statistics reveal that these firms often pay salaries at or near the minimum prevailing wage levels. For example, a Level 1 software engineer in Silicon Valley might earn $85,000 annually, far below the $130,000 median for similar roles. This wage suppression affects not only H-1B workers but also U.S. employees competing for the same jobs.

Consequences for U.S. Workers

Wage Suppression

The H-1B program drives down wages by allowing companies to pay less for highly skilled roles. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in fields like IT, where outsourcing firms dominate the visa allocations.

Erosion of Job Security

As corporations lean on H-1B workers to fill roles, U.S. employees face increased job insecurity. The combination of layoffs and outsourcing reduces opportunities for domestic workers and weakens their bargaining power.

Perceptions of Displacement

The optics of corporations laying off U.S. workers while sponsoring thousands of H-1B visas fuel resentment and mistrust. While the program’s proponents argue that it addresses skill shortages, critics highlight cases where qualified U.S. workers have been overlooked in favor of cheaper, more controllable labor.

The H-1B Worker’s Perspective

Exploitation Risks

H-1B workers frequently arrive in the U.S. with high expectations, only to discover themselves in precarious situations. Their dependence on their employers for visa sponsorship limits their mobility and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation, including underpayment and overwork.

Dream vs. Reality

While some H-1B workers succeed in achieving the American Dream, many struggle to navigate the system’s constraints. The lack of long-term security and the constant fear of losing their visa status take a toll on their professional and personal lives.

The Policy Problem

Systemic Loopholes

The prevailing wage requirement, while well-intentioned, falls short of ensuring fairness. Employers can classify roles at lower wage levels, effectively circumventing the program’s safeguards. Moreover, outsourcing firms exploit the system by securing large numbers of visas for entry-level positions, often displacing U.S. workers in the process.

Calls for Reform

Proposed solutions include:

• Stricter Wage Requirements: Aligning prevailing wages with true market rates.
• Caps on Outsourcing Firms: Limiting the number of visas awarded to companies that primarily offshore jobs.
• Increased Worker Protections: Ensuring that both H-1B workers and U.S. employees benefit from fair labour practices.

Conclusion

The H-1B visa system, while valuable in theory, has been distorted into a tool for corporate profit at the expense of fairness in the labour market. Both U.S. workers and H-1B employees bear the brunt of these imbalances, as corporations exploit loopholes to prioritise cost savings over equity.

Reforming the program is not just about protecting U.S. jobs; it’s about restoring integrity to a system that should serve the interests of workers and the economy alike. The question remains: How long can the U.S. afford to let corporate convenience dictate immigration policy and labour market dynamics?

‍