Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
68. Why pay workers some percentage is US prevailing wages (H1B visas) when you can
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:29 PM
Mar 2016

wait a year or two and pay them a fraction of that under an L1 under these new agreements with no quotas on numbers.

No necessity tests, no economic means tests,

You can find some outlines on movement of natural persons provisions from Hamid Mamdouh, Director, Trade in Services Division, WTO

This is from 2004, so a lot has changed since then..

Definition of Trade in Services:
(1) Cross border supply
(2) Consumption abroad
(3) Commercial presence
(4) Presence of natural persons


The supply of a service by:

“a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”


MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS UNDER THE GATS

Hamid Mamdouh
Director
Trade in Services Division, WTO

Article I – Scope and Definition
Definition of Trade in Services:
(1) Cross border supply
(2) Consumption abroad
(3) Commercial presence
(4) Presence of natural persons
Mode 4 - Article I definition
The supply of a service by:

“a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”

What natural persons?
Natural persons who are service suppliers of a Member
Self-employed

Natural persons of a Member who are employed by a service supplier of a Member and sent abroad to supply a service
For the ‘same’ company which has commercial presence in another Member’s territory (Intra-corporate Transferees)
To a consumer in the territory of another Member. The contract is made between the home and host companies (juridical contractual service supplier)
The Annex on
the Movement of Natural Persons
The GATS does NOT cover:
natural persons seeking access to the employment market
measures regarding citizenship, residence or employment on a permanent basis
Governments are free to regulate entry and temporary stay, provided these measures do not nullify or impair the commitments
footnote 1:differential visa requirements, not to be regarded as nullifying or impairing benefits under a specific commitment
A snapshot of Mode 4 commitments
Governed by horizontal commitments
Positive listing of measures:
“Unbound except ...”
Absence of full liberalization
Access mostly for those with high-level of training and expertise, often as intra-corporate transferees
Specified duration of stay: 3 months to 5 years

Main limitations scheduled
Limited Categories of workers included
Pre-employment requirements
ENTs/LMTs
Quotas
Technology Transfer

Structure of Horizontal Commitments
(110 Members, as of 2004)

Movements linked to Mode 3: ~60%
Contractual Service Suppliers (employees of juridical persons): ~13%>
Independent suppliers: ~6%>
Length of stay: 3-5 years for ICTs; shorter for CSS: 3 months - 1 year (very few with > 2 years
Possible reasons for the less liberal commitments in Mode 4
Political and Regulatory concerns profoundly affected levels of commitments under Mode Four for all Members
Enforcement concerns and the problem of temporary entry leading to permanent entry
Protection of labour markets associated with lower pay foreign services suppliers.

Negotiating Proposals
7 specific proposals
Developing economies- India, Colombia, Kenya
Developed economies - EC, US, Japan, Canada
Other sector-specific proposals relate to Mode 4, e.g., professional services
Some of the barriers identified
in the negotiating proposals
Structure and coverage of existing commitments
ENTs
Definitional problems
Administrative practices, access to information and transparency
Recognition of qualifications
Some of the solutions proposed...
More and better commitments
more categories, improved definitions, finer classification, “sector-specific” commitments
Removal of barriers
multilateral criteria for ENTs - to be more specific, transparent and non-discriminatory
Greater transparency and predictability
Model Schedule/“GATS visa”
Additional Commitments on transparency and regulation
Strengthened disciplines on MRAs
Mode 4 in Offers so far…*
Horizontal commitments: 17 of the 45 offers include changes to the horizontal section.
2 Members did not include Mode 4 commitments in their horizontal section
In addition, 122 existing sector-specific commitments 14 Members) improved, mostly in business services
Types of Improvement
Inclusion of new categories of natural persons/broadening coverage of definition
Expansion of sectoral coverage/additional sectors to which the service could be provided
Defining/extending the period of stay; providing for renewability of permits
Clarification of the application/reduction of the scope of ENTs/LMTs
Some improvements in the NT column
Some entries in the AC column
State of play of negotiations
Number and quality of offers is thus far unsatisfactory including on Mode 4
New initial offers to be submitted as soon as possible
Revised offers to be submitted by May 2005
CTS to conduct review of progress in negotiations before the 6th Ministerial
Sixth Ministerial Conference to be held in Hong Kong in December 2005.


The Mode 4 debate
Informal discussions concerning Mode 4 issues have been held within the Special Session of the Services Council in the “September cluster”
The work of other Services negotiating bodies (WPDR) is also touching upon issues of relevance to Mode 4

The Mode 4 debate
Some issues currently being discussed:

Categories of natural persons used in GATS schedules of commitments and their consistency with domestic measures
Complementarity of horizontal and sectoral commitments on Mode 4
The need to improve the transparency of Mode 4 commitments and domestic regulatory frameworks
Recognition of qualifications
Administrative procedures relating to visa and work permits
The Way Ahead
The GATS reality as a treaty among governments
Importance of pursuing liberalization of Services trade
Mode 4 – a trade concept part of a much broader picture
The need to bridge the conceptual gap between trade and migration
The need to take account of non-trade policy concerns.
Pursue negotiations on Mode 4 on multiple fronts under the GATS (commitments, additional commitments on transparency and regulatory issues, rules)


THANK YOU

The H1-B visas have hurt people that aren't in manufacturing. n/t Skwmom Mar 2016 #1
H1-B visas are a single issue: and mostly pushed by the GOP: lewebley3 Mar 2016 #23
As a tech worker angrychair Mar 2016 #46
HRC doesn't have any plans to dramatically expand H1-B: just more Sanders lewebley3 Mar 2016 #47
I guess she evolved on this point too. rynestonecowboy Mar 2016 #55
Smart people do evolved: because times change: GOP dont' evolve lewebley3 Mar 2016 #63
Hillary doesn't evolve, she says whatever she thinks will get her more voters mindwalker_i Mar 2016 #84
She takes the position that helps the country best: She has had same principles forever lewebley3 Mar 2016 #86
Bull, she has no principles mindwalker_i Mar 2016 #128
Bwahahaah! BeanMusical Mar 2016 #137
If Hillary's positions are that of a loyal dem then the party is sicker than I thought All in it together Mar 2016 #178
Evolution on an issue Bettie Mar 2016 #173
Another great Democrat "evolved" Loki Mar 2016 #111
OK, I'll bite.. phazed0 Mar 2016 #139
This is a nice read. Loki Mar 2016 #146
No need to be nasty, Hillary Supporter... phazed0 Mar 2016 #148
78 posts Loki Mar 2016 #151
Oh great.. no rebuttal and an attack... phazed0 Mar 2016 #154
Is it standard fair to marginalize people based on their post count on DU? SFnomad Mar 2016 #186
Comparing Hillary Clinton sulphurdunn Mar 2016 #185
You dont get it, whatever she does matters not in the least at that point Baobab Mar 2016 #134
I gave you a direct quote from Hillary Clinton angrychair Mar 2016 #58
This is the year 2016: Hillary has no plans no to expand Hb lewebley3 Mar 2016 #60
I gave you proof angrychair Mar 2016 #66
A link has been provided to a video contradicting your assertion. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #115
got a link to that? Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #133
1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services Baobab Mar 2016 #135
Got a link to justify your assertion? So far it does not look like it. Keep up the propaganda! n/t xocet Mar 2016 #136
I am sure that by 2017 she will evolve on that subject. n/t whopis01 Mar 2016 #174
In 2008, one of her biggest funders was the Indian outsourcer, Toto. Fuddnik Mar 2016 #59
L1 and similar visas are the problematic ones Baobab Mar 2016 #61
Horrors! What you are describing will drastically reduce the standard of living for JDPriestly Mar 2016 #116
"disciplines on domestic regulation' Baobab Mar 2016 #123
The trade agreements are aimed to destroy our democratic institutions and our JDPriestly Mar 2016 #132
You may be not be able to handle the truth zalinda Mar 2016 #62
Now that we have video, we must deal with "Who are you going to believe... libdem4life Mar 2016 #153
Why pay workers some percentage is US prevailing wages (H1B visas) when you can Baobab Mar 2016 #68
Link? justaddh2o Mar 2016 #74
Do you have a link to Hillary stating her stance on H1-B visas. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #114
GATS "Mode Four" Baobab Mar 2016 #127
Less than 2 years ago.. OhioChick Mar 2016 #160
That Was a Good and Interesting Article From Computerworld gordyfl Mar 2016 #119
The Clintons' history suggest otherwise. For your viewing pleasure Skwmom Mar 2016 #94
Wow way to deflect TheFarseer Mar 2016 #145
Outsourcing has too. When your phone rings and someone in the Philppines in on the other JDPriestly Mar 2016 #112
I always enjoy talking to "Bob" in India or the LibDemAlways Mar 2016 #143
H1B visas have been terrible for IT people. greymouse Mar 2016 #170
Her saying that $12/hr min. wage was good enough... RepubliCON-Watch Mar 2016 #2
The thing is she has set he goal for $12 but what will be end up settling for? LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #18
precisely Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #169
Kasick said $8.10 fun n serious Mar 2016 #26
$12 in Podunk USA, more elsewhere. Sanders wouldn't do any better. Hoyt Mar 2016 #27
We will have $15 minimum wage in Los Angeles in just a few years. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #118
And you'd have the same under Clinton due to cost of living adjustments to base of $12. Hoyt Mar 2016 #121
Possibly. But probably not. That's just a guess. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #129
I don't dispute that, but $15 has no chance passing with this Congress. Hoyt Mar 2016 #140
I'm not so sure Clinton will increase it at all. TheFarseer Mar 2016 #147
at least Sanders would try greymouse Mar 2016 #172
Hey it's pragmatic Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #168
maddening, isn't it? yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #3
People must care about her, she's ahead in... dubyadiprecession Mar 2016 #4
Lots of Republicans vote against their interests too Matt_in_STL Mar 2016 #6
Voting against one's own best interests is LibDemAlways Mar 2016 #97
Your favorite group is Sanders, huh? Interesting. nt LiberalElite Mar 2016 #13
Here, Here, Me too. If your starting a list add me. Not that I would have any reason A Simple Game Mar 2016 #91
Thanks to M$M blackout of Bernie and his message (which I bet you yourself do not know) Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #44
You might want to do a wee bit of chervilant Mar 2016 #155
True, and where you say 'some' clinton voters don't understand, elleng Mar 2016 #5
Converse: The nature of belief systems in mass publics OnyxCollie Mar 2016 #20
Her policy disregards the folks left behind in the "recovery" onecaliberal Mar 2016 #7
So true LSparkle Mar 2016 #56
Her state department helped block a minimum wage raise to $5 a day in Haiti. think Mar 2016 #8
Disaster capitalism. OnyxCollie Mar 2016 #24
Thank you for putting together all this additional information together. Appreciated! /nt think Mar 2016 #53
Here's some more stuff: OnyxCollie Mar 2016 #80
Thanks for this. I didn't know, or forgot. nt Duval Mar 2016 #35
Jesus, $5 a day! Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #162
When did Clinton say she wants people to compete for 50 cents an hour? LonePirate Mar 2016 #9
She pushed for NAFTA, and for China's entry into the WTO, and for the TPP Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #10
Corporations will move jobs with or without these deals. There is no competition involved. LonePirate Mar 2016 #14
Bullshit. Tariffs are a thing. Trade policy is man-made. Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #16
You're wrong to believe tariffs make up for reduced labor, supply chain and other production costs. LonePirate Mar 2016 #28
GATS Mode Four never caught on as they wanted it to, so now TiSA is in the pipeline Baobab Mar 2016 #71
When I grew up there were certain vegetables and fruits... Paka Mar 2016 #141
Its all about free trade vs fair trade. It has never been fair trade. there needs to be a new law litlbilly Mar 2016 #32
Agree. ananda Mar 2016 #69
Corporations will move jobs, but if we did not have the trade agreements, we would not JDPriestly Mar 2016 #124
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #183
Wow. Hyperbole... chervilant Mar 2016 #156
Ask the OP. He's the one who said US workers were going after 50 cents and hour wages. LonePirate Mar 2016 #157
Lie... chervilant Mar 2016 #158
Take it up with the OP. He's the one who posted that nonsense. LonePirate Mar 2016 #159
See this: Carrier Workers See Costs, Not Benefits, of Global Trade. elleng Mar 2016 #11
Thank you for posting Jenny_92808 Mar 2016 #12
She served on the Board of WalMart. How's that work out for the workers? The owners? jalan48 Mar 2016 #15
Crushing unions usually favors owners Nickel79 Mar 2016 #31
Neoliberal Hillary! mckara Mar 2016 #17
Hillary has worked as progressive all her life lewebley3 Mar 2016 #22
No, she hasn't. Here are just a few examples: Nickel79 Mar 2016 #37
You missed one.... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #113
Weird Springslips Mar 2016 #130
Sorry, no cigar.... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #131
Paychecks issued by Wall Street. dchill Mar 2016 #40
No, Hillary pay check has come mostly from the public ser: lewebley3 Mar 2016 #41
Enjoy your hysterical blindness. dchill Mar 2016 #42
You are a blind ideologue: and Ideologues should never be in power: lewebley3 Mar 2016 #79
I AM an ideologue... dchill Mar 2016 #81
Yes your are: Its your way or the highway on Hillary and Dem's lewebley3 Mar 2016 #82
Check your mirror. dchill Mar 2016 #83
That's correct. rynestonecowboy Mar 2016 #64
Oh Please!!!! INdemo Mar 2016 #57
That's a Good One mckara Mar 2016 #75
Amen brother. Phlem Mar 2016 #19
This post is just more Sanders propaganda: Hillary has worked for poor American's all her life lewebley3 Mar 2016 #21
Sure she has! Nickel79 Mar 2016 #30
The GOP outsource jobs: The Clinton's created 22m new jobs: 7.4m pulled lewebley3 Mar 2016 #39
False. Nickel79 Mar 2016 #49
No, that is not true: Manfuacturing jobs went up under the Clintons lewebley3 Mar 2016 #50
Blatantly false, and you've failed to prove a single claim in this thread. n/t Nickel79 Mar 2016 #52
You know, it's gets old listening to you people ... you are wrong. SFnomad Mar 2016 #161
And then they signed NAFTA into law... DemocracyDirect Mar 2016 #179
Again, "you people" make blanket statements with no evidence Nickel79 Mar 2016 #180
I don't care how you want to spin it SFnomad Mar 2016 #181
Clinton's policies and trade agreements were disastrous for this country Nickel79 Mar 2016 #188
The only spin is coming from you SFnomad Mar 2016 #190
Bill Clinton got lucky zalinda Mar 2016 #65
No luck involved: The Clinton budget of 1993 was passed without 1 GOP vote lewebley3 Mar 2016 #73
Wow, I want what you've been smoking! zalinda Mar 2016 #76
Wrong: the Strengthening of Reaganomics was under Bush: That is why Obama lewebley3 Mar 2016 #85
That must be some strong stuff you've been using. zalinda Mar 2016 #88
+1 Paka Mar 2016 #142
absolutely delusional noiretextatique Mar 2016 #176
You mean this kind of Crash the Economy? DhhD Mar 2016 #87
Thanks for the great post, Cheese. Nickel79 Mar 2016 #25
I agree. nt ladjf Mar 2016 #29
Jury results on OP Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #33
I agree with juror #1 ejbr Mar 2016 #43
So Hillary's fascists tried to silence another voice? Nickel79 Mar 2016 #51
You can't post anything on DU anymore that's LibDemAlways Mar 2016 #98
Not only that, but the Hillery hit squad..... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #120
So in short, they respect democracy as much as the queen... Nickel79 Mar 2016 #189
yes, it is a class war grasswire Mar 2016 #34
K&R. dchill Mar 2016 #36
Fucking A !!!!! SamKnause Mar 2016 #38
Clinton has said the TPP is "the gold standard." Tragl1 Mar 2016 #45
But we must be able to compete with the rest of the world 4dsc Mar 2016 #48
Because by and large, they aren't very bright. n/t Nickel79 Mar 2016 #54
As already stated...she says you aren't worth $15/ hour...only $12. SoapBox Mar 2016 #67
$15 per hour would be a reasonable raise for me and I could really use it! Skeeter Barnes Mar 2016 #77
Racing the American middle and working classes to the bottom. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #70
$250k per hour is fine for Hill and Bill. $600k per year is fine for Chelsea. $15 per hour Skeeter Barnes Mar 2016 #72
Some people will slam me, I know. But I think HRC is going to have a tough time going RKP5637 Mar 2016 #78
Bernie isn't doing too well against HRC... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #90
Yep, same thoughts here too! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2016 #99
She'd be on the defensive the entire campaign. LibDemAlways Mar 2016 #100
The DNC and DWS are in for a rude awaking in the 2016 GE. Millions of voters are PO'ed with the RKP5637 Mar 2016 #105
one additional thing... Locrian Mar 2016 #89
this was Gordon Gekko's point--that raiding is not sustainable because it doesn't produce MisterP Mar 2016 #149
This is Globalization vs Protectionism apnu Mar 2016 #92
Good observation.... and as a... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #117
Climate change puts the lie to that dreamnightwind Mar 2016 #182
Globalization is the only way to combat global climate change.... reACTIONary Mar 2016 #187
Vote Bernie2016 and remove your debt-slave collar. /nt SDjack Mar 2016 #93
Listening to Hillary, it's clear she thinks our wages are too high... whereisjustice Mar 2016 #95
Only time she mentions our rights is during primary campaigning. senz Mar 2016 #96
Frankly, this line of nonsense is getting sillier by the hour. If one were to spend an hour.,, NNadir Mar 2016 #101
It is a class war. Clinton has us shooting at each other. Everywhere she whereisjustice Mar 2016 #102
When I read this kind of crap from someone with less than 3000 posts... NNadir Mar 2016 #126
It is a class war. Clinton has us shooting at each other. Everywhere she DJ13 Mar 2016 #144
Don't pull that Eugene McCarthy crap on me... whereisjustice Mar 2016 #152
although I wish Obama had deleted Reagan's old min wage BS configuration PatrynXX Mar 2016 #103
Clearly those workers should pay $60,000 for degree in tech whereisjustice Mar 2016 #104
gonna have to tamp down on the Socialist Progressives Group cuz it's getting seen in Greatest List tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #106
It's my fault Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #107
okay then tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #109
Sorry I call foul. redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #108
K&R zentrum Mar 2016 #110
Of course she is. How could anybody who is paying attention not know this already? debunction.junction Mar 2016 #122
"She doesn't care about me, and I don't care about her." debunction.junction Mar 2016 #125
Kick and R BeanMusical Mar 2016 #138
The super wealthy, like the Clintons, Thespian2 Mar 2016 #150
So it was only the "privileged people" that got the jobs in the Clinton years? Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #163
I have an observation on those "50 cent an hour" jobs, & a question. CaptainTruth Mar 2016 #164
careful...the HRC will flag this sort of article or block postings in the future. Hulk Mar 2016 #165
Hear! Hear! ReRe Mar 2016 #166
Shark Jump!!!! Darb Mar 2016 #167
Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton, I'm on board all the way. L. Coyote Mar 2016 #171
True, but she is - by far - the best within the Republican field. Not as good as Ike or even as good Vote2016 Mar 2016 #175
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #184
+10000 heaven05 Mar 2016 #177
Deleting Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #191
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»This message was self-del...»Reply #68