Comments on: Lawmakers Urge Pfizer To Keep Contractors

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:41:27 +0000

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?

By: judith

judith — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:01:57 +0000

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.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:52:12 +0000

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.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:52:06 +0000

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?

By: Bob Freeman

Bob Freeman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:14:30 +0000

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)

By: AM

AM — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:41:56 +0000

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.

By: Zhang Wen

Zhang Wen — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:55:00 +0000

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?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:23:21 +0000

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.

By: AM

AM — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:07:36 +0000

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.

By: Bob Freeman

Bob Freeman — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:49:56 +0000

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.