Here is my modest proposal for how to handle the H1B issue.
In order to hire an H1B worker, you have to post a significant bond. The worker arrives and has a fixed number of years in the USA. Once the worker arrives, the worker has absolutely no legal obligation to the hiring company.
In other words rather than ask companies to swear up and down that they can't find American workers, while they have every incentive to lie, make the company prove with its actions that there are no Americans available. And rather than believe the company when it says that they are paying the market rate, let it prove it by paying the worker enough that the worker does not immediately jump ship to a competitor who will pay the prevailing market rate.
Of course nobody wants to see a system like that, because the current system is all about getting companies cheap labor while hypocritically pretending that this isn't what the system is about.
H1B transfers require the new employer to go through a significant amount of paperwork, and have all of the usual lags that anything to do with the government does. As a result the requirement to deal with this is a significant impediment for changing jobs. Particularly for very small employers that may not have people dedicated for this kind of paperwork.
What I'm describing is, "Oh, you're in the country on a valid visa? Come work for us tomorrow, at the same rate under the same rules that a US citizen faces!"
I've been through an H1-B transfer myself, the lawyers didn't seem to think it was a big deal. From application to acceptance I don't think it was even a week.
I think if your idea was implemented there would be little change in H1-B mobility. Fact is, a foreign worker just has fewer options in the host country for lots of reasons and paperwork is the least of it. The foreign worker probably has no professional reputation outside their own company. Their degree and experience may not be understood or respected. Worst thing is that you're not allowed to have any significant period of unemployment - and even in the cases where you can, family and friends unlikely to be able to help you through a rough situation.
As you may or may not be aware, I'm personally aware of you and value your opinion significantly more than an average HN commenter.
Therefore let me just say that one of the reasons that I would suggest the bond from the initial company is to cover the potential government obligation in the case of a significant period of unemployment. Does this not seem to be an important difference? If not, then it would seem that the H1-B status is not as different from a regular citizen as I thought, and employers of H1-B visa holders do not have as much control as I thought that they did.
In theory it could be abused -- as long as you could support yourself, and could pay off the host company in some way, you would be pseudo-immigrating to the US. That said, I kind of think that should be allowed anyway. I live in Canada, where we have free trade with the US, but not labor mobility, which to me seems nuts.
After losing the job, H1-B holder is supposed to find a new job or go home within the grace period of 90 days. There's no "significant period of unemployment". Where are you getting your facts from?
If you re-read that, the possibility of a significant period of employment is part of my suggestion, and is supposed to be a difference from the current status quo. Therefore I'm aware that this is not how things currently work.
I've been through 2 H1-B transfers, and my experience is similar to neilk's. Last time it took a record time of 2 weeks between offer acceptance and starting work for new employer.
I must be doing something wrong, do you have a quick help-to guide to make this significantly challenging, the way you're describing?
You're right though on the small employers, but that's why labor immigration lawyers exist, any type of legal activity (divorces, class actions) also involves complicated paperwork, and people who will happily take care of it for a fee.
Companies get cheap labor and foreign workers get great opportunities. Protectionism may appear to help local workers in the short term but it will damage the entire country in the long term.
In order to hire an H1B worker, you have to post a significant bond. The worker arrives and has a fixed number of years in the USA. Once the worker arrives, the worker has absolutely no legal obligation to the hiring company.
In other words rather than ask companies to swear up and down that they can't find American workers, while they have every incentive to lie, make the company prove with its actions that there are no Americans available. And rather than believe the company when it says that they are paying the market rate, let it prove it by paying the worker enough that the worker does not immediately jump ship to a competitor who will pay the prevailing market rate.
Of course nobody wants to see a system like that, because the current system is all about getting companies cheap labor while hypocritically pretending that this isn't what the system is about.