Hi Geoff,

Thanks for the analysis of S761! My only comment is that funding for DOE graduate fellowships for "students pursuing a doctoral degree in a mission area of the Department of Energy" could extend quite broadly. For instance, the Genomes to Life Initiative (now called GTL)sponsored by the DOE Office of Science incorporated biology, engineering, and other disciplines focusing on finding uses for microbes to reduce energy dependence, clean up oil spills etc. The former director, Ari Patrinos, was doing so well in that realm that he was hired by Craig Venter to the President of Synthetic Genomics! So the DOE fellowships will probably be quite wide-ranging in application.

                  Visas for High-Tech Workers Draw Query from Senators

Geoff Davis on Wed, May 09, 12:05PM wrote: "The H-1B numbers are random and capricious because they have to be manually adjusted by a slow and painful Congressional intervention."

Geoff,

You'll have to forgive me if I take your responses to my comments with a grain of salt. In too many instances your comments sound as if you are stating the facts, like your comment above. In fact, your comments are sometimes inconsistent with past and current events.

Case in point: Below is an article that appeared in today's Washington Post. It shows how Senators Durbin and Grassley are investigating the use of H1-B visas by nine companies who are the largest users of H1-Bs.

These two senators introduced H1-B legislation back on April 2nd, 2007.

See:

DURBIN AND GRASSLEY INTRODUCE FIRST BIPARTISAN H-1B VISA REFORM BILL TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS

http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783

As I mentioned previously, the H1-B visa numbers are anything but "random" and "capricious", and the type of debate discussed below has gone on since the program's inception. It will be interesting to watch as this debate continues to unfold.

I appreciate your point that in the end, it is difficult to get Congress to act, especially when there are two sides the argument.

Bob

Here is the article that appeared in the Washington Post:

Visas for High-Tech Workers Draw Query

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401051.html?hpid%3Dsec-tech&sub=AR

By SUZANNE GAMBOA The Associated Press Monday, May 14, 2007; 8:48 PM

WASHINGTON -- Two senators are questioning several companies about their use of a visa program for highly skilled workers. Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said they are focusing on nine companies, several of them foreign-based, that used nearly 20,000 of the 75,000 H-1B visas that were available last year.

H-1B visas are for high-skilled workers and are heavily used in the high-tech industry.

"I continue to hear how people want to increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to companies," Grassley said in a news release. "Considering the high amount of fraud and abuse in the visa program, we need to take a good, hard look at the employers who are using H-1B visas and how they are using them."

Grassley and Durbin, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent letters to the nine companies asking several questions about their visa use, wages and layoffs.

The top users were identified with statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Services, the senators said.

The letters, posted on Grassley's Web site, were addressed to Infosys Technologies Ltd. in Freemont, Calif.; Wipro Limited, Mountainview, Calif.; Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Arlington, Va.; Saytam Computer Services Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, India; Patni Computer Systems, Mumbai, India; Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mumbai, India; I-Flex Solutions Inc., Mumbai, India; Tech Mahindra Americas Inc., Englewood, Colo.; and Mphasis Corp., Bangalore, India.

Under federal law, 65,000 H-1B visas are available each year for workers in specialty fields such as computer programmers, engineers, architects, accountants, doctors, college professors and fashion models.

Another 20,000 visas are available for foreign workers with at least a master's degree from a U.S. college or university. The numbers do not include current H-1B visa holders. Federal law sets requirements for H-1B holders' salaries.

The high-tech industry has long complained that too few visas are available. Microsoft Corp. is among a group of companies that has pushed for increasing the available visas. This year, the limit for applications for the visas was reached in record time.

"Collecting information is fine, but we think abuse of the system is the exception rather than the rule," said Eric Thomas, a spokesman for Compete America, a coalition that includes Microsoft, chip maker Intel Corp., business software company Oracle Corp. and others.

Increasing U.S. competitiveness by providing more visas for skilled workers has been a key issue in congressional efforts to craft a comprehensive immigration bill. At least two bills have been filed that would increase available H-1B visas to 115,000 a year.

__

On the Net:

Sen. Chuck Grassley: http://grassley.seante.gov

Sen. Dick Durbin: http://durbin.senate.gov © 2007 The Associated Press

     Students sue over residency system and training programs

Geoff Davis on Wed, May 09, 12:05PM wrote:

"Perhaps some liability-like things as well. I'm sort of surprised that there have been so few high-profile cases of postdocs suing their PIs - after all, a federal circuit court has ruled that PIs have a fiduciary duty to their postdocs."

Perhaps another good dual degree would be a PhD/JD combination. Then postdocs that are unhappy with their experience can sue their PI without paying for outside council. I am half joking and half serious here.

There is precedence along these lines five years ago when it comes to medical residents and the National Resident Matching Program. The New York Times article below provides good coverage of the issue.

In the article, one can easily see many of the similarities with issues facing postdocs in the sciences: "The suit says the defendants, including seven medical organizations and more than 1,000 private hospitals, have used the program to keep residents' wages low and hours long. Almost all first-year residents make less than $40,000 a year and often work 100-hour weeks."

I guess low-wages are something of an issue with these young folks.

As I recall, but I don't have the link, Senator Ted Kennedy quickly slip an amendment in an unrelated appropriations bill prohibiting medical residences from suing the medical residency program. I do not know where this situation stands today.

Bob

Here is an excerpt of the article:

Medical Students Sue Over Residency System

May 7, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/health/07DOCS.html

By ADAM LIPTAK

Every March, graduating medical school students wait anxiously for Match Day, when a computer tells them where they will spend the next several years as medical residents in teaching hospitals.

A class-action lawsuit to be filed in Washington today challenges the matching program on antitrust grounds. The suit says the defendants, including seven medical organizations and more than 1,000 private hospitals, have used the program to keep residents' wages low and hours long. Almost all first-year residents make less than $40,000 a year and often work 100-hour weeks.

If the suit is successful, the nation's health care system faces an enormous financial liability and the prospect of being forced to change the way that generations of doctors have been trained.

. . . There is no room for negotiations about wages, hours or other terms of employment. As a consequence, the plaintiffs say, the hospitals, which share detailed salary information with each other, can force residents to accept below-market wages for the three to eight years, depending on specialty, of their residencies.

"The match basically controls where you are going to spend the first part of your professional life," said Dr. Paul Jung, one of the plaintiffs, who is now a fellow at Johns Hopkins University. Yet, he said, "you're expressly forbidden from having any kind of agreement about any kind of salary or anything."

. . . See the link above for the entire article.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy

Subject: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program

"As I recall, but I don't have the link, Senator Ted Kennedy quickly slip an amendment in an unrelated appropriations bill prohibiting medical residences from suing the medical residency program."

Here is the link explaining why a judge dismissed the case against the Medical-Residency Matching Program: "He cited legislation, signed into law in April, that exempts the matching program from antitrust laws. That language was inserted into an unrelated pension bill at the request of U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire (The Chronicle, April 23)."

Bob

Subject: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program

http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/08/2004081701n.htm

http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/08/2004081701n.htm

Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Medical-Residency Matching Program, Citing Recent

Legislation By KATHERINE S. MANGAN

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

A federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit challenging the system that matches medical-school graduates with the programs that train them as physicians. The lawsuit, filed in 2002, contended that the system violates antitrust laws, forcing medical residents to work too many hours for too little pay (The Chronicle, May 17, 2002).

If it had succeeded, the lawsuit could have forced teaching hospitals to pay millions of dollars in legal costs and back pay to residents, and forced medical associations to come up with a new strategy to pair residents and hospitals.

In a ruling issued last week, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Association of American Medical Colleges, one of the groups that sponsor the 52-year-old National Resident Matching Program. He cited legislation, signed into law in April, that exempts the matching program from antitrust laws. That language was inserted into an unrelated pension bill at the request of U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire (The Chronicle, April 23).

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 200,000 plaintiffs who had been medical residents since 1998, was brought against the medical-school association, as well as the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and 27 teaching hospitals with residency programs.

The plaintiffs argued that the computerized matching program, which assigns each resident to a training program, forces the medical-school graduates to accept all of the terms of employment. They concluded that the system amounts to price fixing by reducing competitive pressure on training programs. Residents typically work 60 to 80 hours per week for less than $10 an hour.

Officials with the medical-school association countered that residents are familiar with the pay and working conditions of each residency program before they submit their top choices to the matching program.

Sherman Marek, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said he expects to appeal the ruling or file new claims. "One way or another, we intend to continue to pursue legal action for fair wages and safe work hours for residents," he said.

Hospitals, medical schools, and their national associations had lobbied hard for legislation that would derail the antitrust lawsuit, Mr. Marek said, adding, "They spent a lot of money getting this legislation passed because they knew they were going to lose in court."

In a written statement, the medical-school association called the ruling "a great victory for everyone in the medical-education community."

"The AAMC wholeheartedly applauds the district court for dismissing this costly and destructive litigation, which has diverted the nation's teaching hospitals from their important missions of patient care, physician training, and medical research," the statement said. Association officials declined further comment.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, was one of several senators who complained about the last-minute amendment, which was added just before House and Senate negotiators met to draft a compromise version of the pension bill. The amendment referring to the matching process was inserted about 50 pages into the bill.

"There has been no justification presented to this Congress, to any committee of this Congress, for depriving medical residents of the same protections under the antitrust laws that are enjoyed by other workers and other Americans," he told his colleagues just before the Senate voted to approve the final version of the pension bill.

"Frankly this is outrageous for Congress to be legislating in this way, without any hearings, without any testimony, without any knowledge of what it is doing."

Aides to Senators Kennedy and Gregg were not available to comment on Monday.

The full text of Judge Friedman's ruling is available on the court's Web site

Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education