I'm sorry but treating these as equivalent things is rather disingenuous to me:
> if you cant get a new job lined up while still employed or within 60 days of being laid off
Lining up a job while you are still employed is something you control. Being unexpectedly thrust into the job market due to layoffs for instance is something you don't, and the state of the job market you enter is equally something you don't control. Additionally I am not sure you understand what 60 calendar days from termination to being out of status means. You don't have 60 days to "line up a job". You have 60 days to be employed again, which for this purpose means that your new employer has properly filed a petition on your behalf.
Again, does it really need explaining that this puts pressure on H-visa holders specifically that other workers don't have, especially when the companies that do sponsor visas often have interview processes that can take over a month? Does it need explaining that risking their residence and not just a paycheck means that they are less able to both:
- leave a toxic, failing or otherwise dysfunctional employer (since you practically need to secure something else first versus being truly able to resign at will)
- reject substandard employment offers (under the pressure of literally not having the time to do any more interviews)
How is it not incredibly obvious that as I said, this tilts the balance of power even more in the employer's direction? Why does someone pointing this out raise your hackles?
Also, why do you assume that the US is the only country on earth that has non-immigrant skilled workers? For instance the EU's Blue Card programme (which despite the deliberate naming is not actually a permanent residence permit like the US' green card) is far more sensible and less exploitable by employers.
You're absolutely right - I should have taken that sweet blue card $60K/y gig instead of slaving away here on h-1b all those years. Nvm you get paid like third to a half of what average h-1b makes but you get all this power in the form of additional 30d to find a new gig.
> if you cant get a new job lined up while still employed or within 60 days of being laid off
Lining up a job while you are still employed is something you control. Being unexpectedly thrust into the job market due to layoffs for instance is something you don't, and the state of the job market you enter is equally something you don't control. Additionally I am not sure you understand what 60 calendar days from termination to being out of status means. You don't have 60 days to "line up a job". You have 60 days to be employed again, which for this purpose means that your new employer has properly filed a petition on your behalf.
Again, does it really need explaining that this puts pressure on H-visa holders specifically that other workers don't have, especially when the companies that do sponsor visas often have interview processes that can take over a month? Does it need explaining that risking their residence and not just a paycheck means that they are less able to both:
- leave a toxic, failing or otherwise dysfunctional employer (since you practically need to secure something else first versus being truly able to resign at will)
- reject substandard employment offers (under the pressure of literally not having the time to do any more interviews)
How is it not incredibly obvious that as I said, this tilts the balance of power even more in the employer's direction? Why does someone pointing this out raise your hackles?
Also, why do you assume that the US is the only country on earth that has non-immigrant skilled workers? For instance the EU's Blue Card programme (which despite the deliberate naming is not actually a permanent residence permit like the US' green card) is far more sensible and less exploitable by employers.