International employees

Just heard on NPR this morning that the H2B visa program for non-agricultural workers has a cap that has almost reached it's limit for this year. Many resorts yearly seasonal workers have been denied this year, they said.

Why am I not surprised? Too many in Congress, and Americans in general, think that foreign workers are taking jobs away from Americans. They are not! They are doing the jobs that Americans won't do. We are a nation of entitlement, especially the younger generations. It is beneath them to make a hamburger or clean a bathroom. Work more than four hours a day, come in before noon, stay after six o'clock--you've got to be kidding!

It will be interesting when lines at amusement parks and resorts and vacation attractions are longer than normal and service is poor. In stead of blaming Congress for the restriction on foreign workers or the lazy entitled Americans, they will blame the employee for being slow or lazy.

We may be in for a long hot summer!

That's why I think it's ridiculous to limit H-1B's as well. Yes, there is some abuse (particularly in the less skilled IT professions), but I've worked with a number of H-1B's in software and I can assure you that they weren't making any less than me. If we could find the American bodies to fill those jobs, we certainly would. I recently hired two people, and of the 300 that applied (they're remote positions), neither of them were local and I didn't have a lot to choose from that could do the work. If I was constrained to local people only, I'd still be looking.

I've talked to numerous managers on the engineering/management side of the auto industry, and their experience has been the same. They would much prefer to hire locally, but there just aren't local people that fit the needs in many cases.

This H1-B limitation hurts businesses in the short term, and hurts American workers in the long term, by artificially augmenting their value to employers.

But don't you all feel a lot safer visiting Cedar Point knowing fewer terrorists are strapping your children into rides?

That was always part of the excitement for us. Sort of our own "Face Your (Irrational) Fears" project. :-)

Good! Maybe they will pay more to entice decent locals to work for them...Crappy wages equals crappy service. You get what you pay for.

Yes, rather than reward people for hard work and acquiring marketable skills, we should just artificially increase their value to the marketplace. Brilliant long term strategy you have there.

I don't know, Zoug, I worked at the park for a season and I knew plenty of local people who were working minimum wage but busting their ass at their job. I mean, $7.30/hr and some of that going to rent at the dorms and didn't include any type of food. And we were still out there in the 100 degree heat making sure everyone was safe and had a good time.

Would I like to see wages at CP increase above minimum wage? Yup. Is it feasible for the park to do so? Maybe, but then again, I'm not looking at their financials, bottom line, and forecasts.

It looks like some jobs are being replaced by ordering kiosks. That can eliminate the need for a few jobs. But I'm not sure if the cost to purchase and upkeep them is cheaper than an actual worker. But then the actual workers can concentrate solely on preparing and serving food rather than taking orders in addition to that.

Of course kiosks or cheaper to operate than humans. Plus they don't call in sick or have personal problems. Maintenance is most likely minimal, especially if it is all touch screen. I can see wide spread automation in fast food in the future, possibly cutting staff to half of what is in a typical fast food restaurant now.

The very near future, if fast food/service workers continue to push for doubling the minimum wage.

Many stores are installing self checkouts. At one of my local Giant Eagle's, that's the only way you can check out if you go in during the overnight hours.

The reasoning for this is based upon the macroeconomic theory that by imposing a regulation that restricts the available labor pool, you cause the supply of available jobs to exceed the demand of individuals to fill them. By doing so, businesses must make their jobs more enticing (through increased wages or other incentives) to make the demand rise to meet the supply. An alternative to maintain productive efficiency would be to invest in technology, as stated above. It is beneficial at least in theory to US workers because it gives them negotiating power with employers but is detrimental to employers because it increases the value of their employees. In my opinion it is a better alternative to minimum wage increases because not all incentives are monetary.

The problem I see is that this policy is going into place with minimal time for employers, especially seasonal employers, to readjust to find US workers to fill their positions when they need to have them filled.

I read that NPR article and listened to the associated podcast. The article pertains to non-agriculture visas yet talks about an agriculture setting with the winery. Cedar Point and all amusement parks in Ohio are actually considered agriculture because the overseeing department of Amusement Ride Safety is a division of the Ohio Department of Agriculture. I do not know if it will be affected.

Anytime you raise the minimum wage, or any wage, you are also raising the cost of production. Thus you are raising the cost of the item. As prices go up the buying power of the minimum wage earner decreases. It is a never ending cycle.

djDaemon said:

The very near future, if fast food/service workers continue to push for doubling the minimum wage.

Yeah but regardless, once it makes financial sense it won't matter if the minimum wage is 3 bucks an hour. Corporations will do anything to increase quarterly profit, regardless of who they step on. From my experience food service requires more skill than many give it credit for. For some reason we look down on these jobs because we think they are so easy. But then wonder why people don't want them and on top of that scoff that they want a living wage.

When I started working minimum wage was around 5 bucks, now it's 9. No matter how hard I worked the only way I got a raise was from NYS. And oh the bitching and moaning when it would go up from my bosses. As if that extra buck meant I now could afford a yacht.

I'm very blessed in my life. I make alot of money on that backs of people making next to nothing so the company's I invest in keep the dividends up. We have a fantastic system that creates a ton of wealth, but it isn't perfect and I feel at times it creates a very cynical attitude.

For the record I'm not an expert on any of this and most certainly not looking for a debate. But personally I think if you work 40 hours a week you should at least make a living wage. Instead we have lovely people in congress saying the reason people can't afford health care is because they buy I phones. Back when I was 17 this customer was chatting with my boss about the wage going up and he said "They should be scrubbing the floor with toothbrushes for that". And no the guy wasn't kidding.

Let me be clear this isn't aimed at anyone on here. Just my general thoughts.

If you work 40 hours a week, you should make a living wage.

Here is my side of this argument. If the company values you enough to give you full time, you are more valuable than minimum wage. If the company values you to only produce part-time, you may not be more valuable than minimum wage. As someone that employees a majority minimum-wage part-time staff, the most valuable employees are the ones that get the most hours, and the better compensation.

Now, the other side of the argument comes from what "living wage" means. At $15/hour, working full time, I was able to purchase a good home and pay off my 2nd vehicle. Financial stability is a personal responsibility.

But I've taken this far enough off-course.

Çp4€và04 said:
For some reason we look down on these jobs because we think they are so easy.

Who's claiming these jobs are easy? A job doesn't need to be easy to be of low value. If you can be quickly replaced by a 14 year old with zero experience, your job has very little value.

But then wonder why people don't want them and on top of that scoff that they want a living wage.

What's a "living wage"? To me it would seem that affording a dwelling and food would qualify as a "living wage". Two people working 40 hours/week at $7.25/hr brings a monthly after-tax income of around $1,800. I could feed and shelter my family for that much if needed.

But I didn't want to provide the bare necessities, so I got a valuable education (at my substantial expense), and work more hours than I'd like doing a job that's more stressful than I'd like so I can provide a better life.

If your value to an employer is limited to flipping burgers, then chances are you've not taken opportunities to increase your market value as an employee. And in that case, why should you be handed "extra" money?

Instead we have lovely people in congress saying the reason people can't afford health care is because they buy I phones.

Except there is at least a kernel of truth to that, in my opinion. An iPhone is by no stretch of the imagination a necessity. It is a luxury item, and as such, need not be attainable to those offering the barest minimum of marketable skill.

Remember though that some jobs are meant to be had by people needing a living wage to support a family and other jobs are meant to be temporary or first jobs for teenagers and young adults while still getting an education to eventually get a living wage job. The problem comes in when people who have a temporary job think they have a living wage job and should be making a living wage. Somehow our society got lost in it's thinking.

There is a kernel of truth to both of our view points. Can we agree on that? From there I have nothing but respect for what you said DJ. Actually I don't disagree with much of you're rebuttal. However for whatever reason I view the world slightly different.

My view is that anyone working hard should get paid a living wage, just because you could do something else is irrelevant in my mind. Because someone cleaning you're toilet should be paid a good wage. Just as you chose to get an education to better support you're family, along with the debt that comes with it. They for whatever reason chose a different path and decided food service, janitorial, ect was right for them.

Now you will come back with if you don't like it do something else. I totally agree. But does that mean the pay has to be ****? That's where we differ me thinks and that's fine :)

Honestly it's a conversation that I'm just not educated enough on. More of a gut feeling, hence why I won't debate you on it, just state my opinion.