Lawmakers Urge Pfizer To Keep Contractors
23 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 4th, 2008 // 1:00 pm
Two Connecticut politicians - US Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Joe Courtney - wrote a letter to Pfizer ceo Jeff Kindler to urge the drugmaker not to cut outside contractors, who reportedly are soon to be replaced by foreign workers (here is the letter).
The move comes after The Day newspaper, which reported the letter, yesterday wrote how Pfizer has been training foreign workers in its Groton and New London, Connecticut, R&D facilities over the past few months in anticipation of transferring much of its IT work from local contractors to outside contracting firms.
The new policy, known internally as Procedure 117, will force many contractors, or ‘contingent workers’, some of whom have been working at Pfizer for a decade or more, to leave by year’s end, according to employees who spoke with the paper.
At the same time, Pfizer is adding foreign workers, mostly from India, who are arriving at R&D headquarters on controversial H-1B visas. These special visas were created to allow foreign workers to take jobs in the US that could not be filled by Americans, but Pfizer has been using them to replace American workers. This upset Dodd and Courtney, as you can tell by reading their letter…
Dear Mr. Kindler,
We are writing today to express our concerns over media reports that Pfizer has been training foreign contractors to replace local information technology workers at the New London and Groton facilities as part of a new, company-wide policy known as Procedure 117. In our view, any reorganization that would result in the loss of jobs for local workers would be troubling, and we would urge you in the strongest terms to reconsider any such action.
We are also concerned that, thus far, Pfizer has not publicly released information about any pending moves under Procedure 117. The only information available has come piecemeal from the workers themselves, who are understandably worried about the possibility of losing their jobs
Given Pfizer’s critical importance as one of the largest employers in southeastern Connecticut, we hope you will be able to provide us with information regarding these potential workforce changes at Pfizer. First, we would like to know if these press reports are accurate. If these initiatives are indeed under consideration, we would appreciate answers to the following questions:
- How many workers will be affected by these changes? Will any compensation be offered to those contractors who are not re-hired?
- How will the salary and benefit packages of those who are retained following this reorganization be affected?
- Of the jobs currently performed by Pfizer employees or local contractors in Groton and New London, how many will be relocated overseas?
- How many workers in Groton and New London will be replaced by foreign contractors residing in the United States on H1-B visas? If skilled workers are already available for these jobs locally, why does Pfizer find it necessary to hire workers from abroad?
Thank you in advance for your response to this request. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this request further, please feel free to reach out to us at any time.
Christopher
It’s unfortunate for the workers who will lose their jobs but this is also nothing new. Many professional workers have been ‘Bangalored’ across most industries. Many argue for market forces to determine companies’ actions (perhaps not always Democrats like Sen. Dodd especially at election time) and this is often the consequence. The validity of the H1B visa is interesting; it was once used to justify hiring foreign workers of exceptional experience or talent which could not be found easily in Americans, or words to that effect. In this case that sounds absolutely not to be so.
AM
Christopher,
The H1-B visa has been abused for years. Even the claimed justification that you point out has not held water for decades.
Let’s take the example of scientists in the pharmaceutical industry. Ph.D. programs that prepare scientists for the pharmaceutical industry for years have claimed that they can’t even find US students to go into these programs.
Look at it from the student’s perspective. Many of the students who are likely to go into these programs work in the labs of these faculty members to get a leg up. What do they see but 1 or 2 US BS or MS level technicians, 2 graduate students usually foreign, and maybe 6-10 foreign post-docs on H1-B visas. These foreign post-docs go from 1 post doc to another every 2 - 3 years, for up to 6 years. The lab maybe graduates 1 PhD who may become a postdoc and replace other post-docs every 3 - 4 years.
The postdocs do the same lab work that US citizens with BS degrees do but they work twice as many hours for much less pay and they don’t get the health or other benefits. Plus they can do things like write the professor’s grants, write their papers and book chapters, and make their slides that the US technicians can’t. So it makes economic sense to hire foreign H1-B visa holders instead of US citizens. For a pharmacy student or biochemistry student it makes much more economic sense to go to work in a pharmacy at $95 K or to medical school than go into a PhD program because even when you get done who does it make more sense for industry to hire someone right out of school at 30 years old or someone with an additional 6 years of post-doc work experience.
For the post-docs it’s worth it because in some cases they may even be coming originally from a village with no electricity or running water, and it’s worth it for 6 to all cram into an apartment together and send money home.
The competition to stay in the US can then be fierce, sabotaging US citizens lab experiments or not really helping those undergraduates who you’re supposed to be tutoring is not uncommon.
In spite of this there are US citizens who still pursue a career in science, yet are turned down for jobs because of discrimination or because of schools will prefer to hire someone who is known to go along with the corrupt rainmaker and is thus likely to also bring in money. I’ve seen major Universities testify in front of Congress that they need more money to train foreign nationals because there are no US citizens who they can even hire, when in truth they’re actively turning down highly qualified US citizens.
For those of us who have gone through this and wind up with a job finally at the FDA, the pressure to not make waves that could jeopordize our livelihoods is very great.
As for those foreign post-docs who don’t find jobs. Well where do you think Saddam Hussein likely got his scientists who worked on nerve gases, or India and China are getting all the scientists for those Pharma outsourcing jobs.
KwadGuy
How about Chris Dodd uses some of that money he got from all his shady deals to help out the people who’ll be losing their jobs?
Oh wait, this is government. Do as we say, not as we do.
Too bad Pfizer didn’t offer Dodd a discounted mortgage under the FOK (Friends of Kindler) program. If they had, he’d be defending their actions now.
Scott
Why does Pfizer get the tax benefits to create US jobs and then they outsource. Do one or the other: get the tax break or get low cost labor–not both
Christopher
AM - I respect your points which are obviously based on personal experience which I do not share; however, my point was that Pfizer’s use of the H1-B visa is questionable based on its criteria. And when I came in on one (not decades ago) those criteria were reasonably valid. I can see that job competitiveness is crucial, especially now, for those who have undertaken the burden and cost of higher level education. But I suspect that not all those foreign students you refer to came from villages without running water, sabotaged US students’ work, or even ended up working for Saddam.
Is it possible that some of them were just better qualified - or perhaps more motivated - than their US counterparts? US competitiveness came up on another thread and I think we are seeing that one of the biggest threats to US (and European) dominance is an increasingly better educated, more motivated and harder working population in Asia that is quickly moving into what was oonce assumed to be ‘ours’.
PaulGGG
When will regulators who are acting purely for political expedience realize that when they create a hostile or unfriendly environment (with stupid legislation, for example) that companies will not want to invest in those places or may even disinvest?
AM
Christopher,
Some are extremely well qualified and the best boss I ever had came to the US as a foreign student. It’s really an issue of supply and demand. Pharma and Universities have a strong financial motive to keep that supply of foreign students and H1-B visa holders extremely high in order to hold down pay. It’s this excess supply that drives US citizens out of science, it’s also unfair to many of the foreign nationals who come to the US and slave away for years and years for virtually nothing and then it doesn’t pay off. It’s clearly a minority of unscrupulous foreign students who do the things I describe. Colleagues who I speak to who are immigrants also feel that they have to work twice as hard to compete with Americans, whereas Americans who are A students in hard sciences are frustrated because they also feel they have to work even harder and longer to complete with someone from China or India who is the number one student from a province with 500,000 students from the same high school graduation year.
These visas are only supposed to be if there isn’t enough US citizens in the first place, not to simply drive up supply and lower wages.
As for Saddam that is hyperbole but I have seen labs filled with students from Korea and mainland China working on technology with important industrial and military applications.
As for better educated maybe at the early grades but graduate school education is far and away still better in the US than anywhere else. That’s due to the resources available and the breadth, intensity, and length of programs in the US (6- 10 years) vs. 3 years in the UK. Any US student who gets a PhD from a top level US program can compete with anyone in the world. It’s just not financially worth it when it cuts your average lifetime income by half. So when someone like myself does it anyway it’s not due to lack of motivation.
For me it’s frustrating to then see the mediocre foreign nationals who do get into the US to discriminate against better qualified and harder working US citizens.
I believe that if someone becomes a US citizen that opportunities and advancement should be decided on merit. That’s not always the case and it hurts not only native US citizens but immigrants as well.
Pharma and Universities should not be allowed to abuse the system.
Plus you have to realize that Pharma is having the US taxpayer picking up the tab for research, and training researchers and they are then cherry picking and sending the benefits from these tax dollars overseas. A major purpose for US taxpayers to invest in research is to result in benefits to our own citizens.
Christopher
AM thanks for explaining. I’m interested in your statement that graduate school education in the US is far and away better than anywhere else in the world because of the breadth, intensity and length of programs (6-10 years) vs 3 years in the UK. And yes, I am British, amd I am not questioning the quality of US grad school education per se, but it puzzles me that the system here is geared towards keeping students in school for such a long time whereas other highly-developed education systems (some have been going even longer than in the US) manage to produce well qualified graduates in much less time. I suspect that the high school curriculum and that of the first year or two in college coupled with the fees accruing have something to do with it. ANyway, thanks for your clarification.
AM
Christopher,
My understanding is similar to yours is that the difference is largely due to pre-graduate education. In addition to that is the fact that some extremely highly regarded US programs will have students take classes, do seminars, write books etc. for years before students are even allowed to begin work on their thesis.
The average length of time of the program I went through was 8 years and you could still be taking classes into your 5th year. This is in one of the most highly ranked programs in the country and that attracts many high caliber students (e.g. validictorians). I got out in just over 7 years but I worked 90+ hour weeks.
The difference I see in the best UK vs. the best US Ph.D.s is that the US Ph.D.s have more breadth. The ex-US Ph.D.s thus need more post-doc experience. Unfortunately Pharma doesn’t appreciate this difference and in the US will hire based on years of experience post PhD regardless.
ZaZona
I read Procedure 117. It seemed like a rather mundane document about contractors and didn’t seem to imply that any of them were foreigners using H-1B visas. Could somebody please explain why they think 117 is a plan for replacing Pfizer employees with H-1Bs?
If Pfizer is replacing employees with nonimmigrant workers it’s possible that they are using L-1 visas. It’s very difficult to find out if the company or contractors are using L-1, but if they are using H-1B it’s easier, assuming Pfizer is following the law. Pfizer employees should all understand the laws regarding public access to this information, and I would appreciate anything they find out. Don’t rely on word of mouth — find the documents and copy them — it’s your right.
Use this link to find out more:
http://www.jobdestruction.info/ShameH1B/H1BFAQs.htm#WhatIsAccessFile
About the only way you will find out if L-1s are being used is to ask the contractors. Ususally they aren’t reluctant to discuss their visa status if you ask them the right way.
Contact me at news@jobdestruction.info
CT Constituent
Senator Dodd — You can not have it both ways. Voting for drug reimportation on the one hand (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Chris_Dodd_Health_Care.htm) while then complaining when pharma revenues have dried up and they must reduce headcount — including in your state — to cut costs.
Doc
Sen dodd,
Doc
Sen. Dodd,
Well, well - I guess we’re in a global economy, imagine that?! Now that you will seemingly have total control of Washington, why not jack up US corp tax rates and throw in a little protectionism for affect. Now we will see U.S. jobs speedily flow overseas.
Bob Freeman
Very interesting discussion on the differences between UK and US grad programs. The only thing I would add is that the top-tier US programs maintain their relative positions by limiting supply of Ph. D. students.
I would disagree slightly in that most US-trained Ph. Ds will also expect to complete one or perhaps two post docs before securing academic appointments.
This is somewhat due to the high standards for tenure, notably the receipt of a NIH RO1 grant. You generally don’t become that competitive without post-doc experience. Interestingly the average age of the first-time RO1 grantee is about 42, a “signficantly” older age than in the past.
AM
Bob,
I agree that US trained PhDs will need 1 - 2 postdocs. However there is a difference between a US PhD and 2 post-docs and a UK PhD with 2 postdocs, both in total number of years of training and age.
Doc,
Those jobs are already flowing overseas. Why should our tax dollars go to basic research, including developing new drugs in academia and having the phase I studies done by NIH using tax dollars so that companies can cherry pick the best ones the results and have the development jobs go overseas.
Some EU companies pay their taxes on US sales to their home countries specifically to avoid US taxes even though they moved R&D to the US to take advantage of US taxpayer funded research.
Christopher
AM - this has become a very interesting discussion and I’m learning from it. Even though I still do not understand why a US Ph.D is superior - I think that’s the message - to a UK one primarily because of its duration. I have not had that educational experience (but have employed Ph.Ds and MDs here and in EU) and still keep an open mind.
As far as tax dollars funding projects that originate here and then go overseas for cheaper development - I believe that many of those projects that you cite are sent overseas by US based companies that see cost savings in having the work done offshore. So yes, there is work conducted overseas which otherwise could be done here in the US, and so that results in less available work for US based workers, but the US companies commissioning that work are accruing value that is ultimately taxable which flows back to the US system.
Hopefully, after tonight at least, some of that tax revenue will benefit the education system amongst other needy causes.
Interestingly earlier we discussed the impact of foreign workers immigrating to the US on H1-B visas and taking US jobs. Now we are considering ‘US jobs’ being exported overseas. Somehow I can’t help feeling that the common denominator (or one, at least) is skilled, highly educated, lower cost foreigners who can compete with the US equivalent. Like it or not that’s the reality and those of us living and working here had better deal with it because the present economic climate shows no signs of the god old days returning anytime soon.
Zhang Wen
AM,
I have to say I do not agree with you almost everything you said in your posts. It is not just narrow-minded and short-sighted, it is also misleading to the people who read them and do not have first-hand experience. The things I can see form your posts are how little you respect other scientists and how little you love science itself.
I just want to point out one thing to show how wrong the numbers you said are. I dont have the data to say anything conclusive. But I have heard that many schools have the 8-year limit for Ph.D. program, which means you have to stop your program if you cannot finish in 8 years. Most people I know finished in around 5 years.
Two last questions. How are your posts relevant to the topic? How can you find so much time in a normal working day to write so many long posts?
AM
Zhang,
I am opposed to abuse of the system. Many people I know who were hired on H1-B visas are highly trained and highly competant scientists and deserve to be be here. My direct supervisor was one of these and was the best boss I ever had.
Yes I have heard that many programs are capped at 8 years. Mine wasn’t capped. However even 5 years is longer than a 3 year PhD from the UK or even some US programs.
Where I worked it wasn’t only native born US citizens who were getting abused. With a name like Zhang you would have also not been from the right country and would have possibly have also been forced out as I was and replaced with someone less qualified (or even incompetant) but with the right nationality.
From having been a faculty member and talking to potential grad students for programs in the pharmaceutical sciences I know that the high number of foreign nationals in graduate programs in pharmaceutical sciences and the difficulty in finding jobs does prevent native US citizens from pursuing graduate education.
I even observed other faculty members telling well qualified affirmative action eligible US citizens who applied for post-doc positions that they were instead going to bring in someone from their own country who weren’t even in the US yet.
There is virtually no oversight of this system and it is being abused.
Christopher while you are right that US basic research benefits US companies it also benefits EU and now Japanese companies whose tax dollars go elsewhere. I believe that the US still spends much more on basic biomedical research than other countries, e.g. Switzerland - Roche, Novartis, UK - Glaxo.
AM
Bob Freeman
A point of clarification, generally when one successfully passes the Ph. D. written exams (qualifying exam), most universities have a 5-year period by which the dissertation must be completed and defended. (in rare cases, the clock can be stopped but that’s the exception)
Kevin
Thank you all for a very interesing discussion, with some very informative comments. But coming back to what seems to me to be the main question - these two Connecticut politicians - US Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Joe Courtney are in the government/legislature of the US, and there seems to be a clear feeling that the visa / immigration process is being abused by this company - so why are they not approaching the part of the government and it’s politician that oversees the examination and approval of these visas?
Perhaps this is naive of me - is going to the media first the way to get action?
Christopher
Good point Kevin - it seems the norm that politicians go to the media first, otherwise no-one would know how nobly they are fighting for their constituents, right?
The idea that the visa use is actually abuse is interesting. ZaZona said earlier that L-1s might be used but they are used for existing employees transferring into the US parent for a max of 3 years. IF Pfizer is replacing US based contractors (presumably not employees) with its own staff (L-1 holders) the issue is one of ‘US’ jobs being lost to foreigners, at least as I read it. Not abuse of visas, their right actually, but somehow emotive enough to raise an issue.
If the same contractors are losing jobs to foreign contractors (H-1b holders) that seems very different ans perhaps more suportable in debate.
judith
Some of us who work at Pfizer do not fall into the information technology group yet we are still being cut. I am a contractor who is a communications professional and my job is not being outsourced to India. It’s just being cut for financial reasons and Procedure 117. So be very aware, folks, that it’s not just the IT Group being outsourced and offshored. It’s any contractor whose contract is up cannot be renewed EVER in a contractor capacity. So what do we do? We have to find a new job, probably in another state. Uproot our children from their schools and leave the state we have lived in our entire lives because the greedy are getting greedier.
anonymous
There is a small generic pharmaceutical company located in Middlesex, NJ by the name of Corepharma LLC. This company has a practice of hiring people from abroad (specifically India),sponsoring these people, and paying them a fraction of the salary that American people are making for the same position. This is out-sourcing right under the American people’s noses and it’s happening in our own backyard. They are paying these people well under industry standards for jobs that the American people should be doing. In our economy today it’s an outrage that this is being permitted to happen. Americans are losing jobs and not able to support their families while companies like this are hiring non-American’s to do our work. It’s no wonder that our economy is suffering and it’s an outrage. These jobs should be going to the American people and not people who are sponsored from other countries, such as India, to do our job. These people are willing to take our jobs for pennies, leaving us with no way of supporting our families. This company is 98% Indian and more than half of their employees are sponsored from India – why is this being permitted to happen? How is this helping our economy?