Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you were an employer, would you hire a non-national?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

If you were an employer, would you hire a non-national?

If a jobseeker only had “Post-Graduation Work Permit Program” or “Optional Practical Training”,would you consider them?

Comments

  • Work from office? or remote?

  • @TrK said:
    Work from office? or remote?

    office

  • Yes, always.

  • um, why not? As long as the qualification is good, let's go, even bonus points for all the languages or good food he/she might bring to work.

    working in IT (Germany) and I'm a Polish citizen (been in Germany for long tho)

  • I work with a range of nationalities a:
    French
    Indian
    Hong kong
    Iran

    I don't see the issue as long as they have the skills for the job and aren't prohibited from working (visas etc)

  • emgemg Veteran

    My answer is "It depends."

    In general, as long as they are well-qualified or show potential and have the legal right to work at the company, then nationality should have nothing to do with the hiring decision. The same is true regarding race, gender, orientation, hair color, hat size, or other personal attributes.

    For the record, I have worked with and hired people from all over the world. At other times, I was the non-national, working outside the US. Some of those job roles involved hiring non-nationals even though I was a non-national.

    Other Considerations:

    • Some jobs have additional requirements, such as government or defense (defence) work. Can the candidate get the necessary permits or clearances?
    • Is the candidate's right to work permanent or temporary? If temporary, then is it likely to become permanent? What would be expected of the company in support of that? Are there legal considerations?

    Some things may come out in interviews, background checks, reference checks, etc. Depending on the nature of the business and the specifics of the individual, you may have concerns about industrial espionage or intellectual property theft, for example.

    Thanked by 2stefeman kkrajk
  • stefemanstefeman Member
    edited February 2023

    B2B sales or direct customer service? No, unless handsome or attractive or otherwise pleasant to talk with.

    Tech or Highly specific non-representitive professional, yes, definitely.

    Assuming that he passes background tests, its a norm here.

  • DediRockDediRock Member, Patron Provider

    Why wouldn't you?

  • Work ethic, knowledge, the sync is all that matters. If I were the employer/hr rep, I'd go the extra mile to explain, educate and make the employee understand local customs & office practices, cultures etc apart from the SOP's without making assumptions that they already know them. (It didn't go smooth for me 2 decades back in a foreign country. I didnt know I need to do/follow certain stuff until a few years later. Thinking back people would've thought of me as a jerk/dick for being while the truth is I honestly didn't know)

  • I think there are 2 distinct questions here, and both have different problems.

    If someone is a non-national in your country, the biggest problem will be securing them a visa until they've been resident long enough to gain residency. In most countries, getting this visa is expensive, and usually one of the conditions is paying them an above average wage for the region, as that's part of the evidence that a local worker can't do the job.

    If the person is outside your country, and you're employing them remotely, you might then have issues with regulations in their country. In the extreme case, you might have to set up a foreign entity just to pay them, which will be expensive. The easiest solution is to get them to incorporate in their own country and then operate as a B2B international contract, but that is a lot more work for them and will possibly put many people off. Contractors usually command a premium over employed staff too for this reason, but also because they're also not entitled to holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and other benefits, training, expenses, etc...

    Both cases will probably be more expensive than hiring locally, unless you're really short of skilled workers locally.

    Thanked by 1emg
  • @ralf said:
    I think there are 2 distinct questions here, and both have different problems.

    If someone is a non-national in your country, the biggest problem will be securing them a visa until they've been resident long enough to gain residency. In most countries, getting this visa is expensive, and usually one of the conditions is paying them an above average wage for the region, as that's part of the evidence that a local worker can't do the job.

    If the person is outside your country, and you're employing them remotely, you might then have issues with regulations in their country. In the extreme case, you might have to set up a foreign entity just to pay them, which will be expensive. The easiest solution is to get them to incorporate in their own country and then operate as a B2B international contract, but that is a lot more work for them and will possibly put many people off. Contractors usually command a premium over employed staff too for this reason, but also because they're also not entitled to holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and other benefits, training, expenses, etc...

    Both cases will probably be more expensive than hiring locally, unless you're really short of skilled workers locally.

    Yes, this is the answer I want
    In most cases, I think the only way to hire a non-national employee is if you can't recruit a national employee

  • MikePTMikePT Moderator, Patron Provider, Veteran
    edited February 2023

    I work for CloudLinux, it's a full remote team.

    We're hiring, for those that may be interested, do check our Careers page. We welcome every nationality. No discrimination at all. It's one of our Principles.

    Or CEO is also present here, @iseletsk

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @shuier said: If a jobseeker only had “Post-Graduation Work Permit Program” or “Optional Practical Training”,would you consider them?

    @emg said: the legal right to work at the company, then nationality should have nothing to do with the hiring decision.

    Correct. In the US, companies are not allowed to discriminate against non-citizens who are legally entitled to work in the US (i.e., they're permanent residents or their temporary work paperwork is in order). You can't say "we only hire citizens" unless you have truly extraordinary requirements like doing top secret for the Feds

    Of course, companies are under no obligation to sponsor people coming over (H1-Bs, etc.) if they don't want to because that is a very significant expense. But if you're legally entitled to work, you're on the same starting ground as someone born here.

    @emg said: The same is true regarding race, gender, orientation, hair color, hat size, or other personal attributes.

    Not quite.

    Hair color is not technically a protected category in the US, but I think it'd be impossoble to avoid a claim of racial discrimination. If you only hire blondes you are de facto discriminating against many ethnicities. A company that only hires people willing to shave their head bald daily might be fine (well, legally - they're insane of course).

    Hat size you might might be able to get away with...? I think it'd be harder to say that by specifying a large or small head you are committing racial discrimination. Of course, your company would be mocked on every social media site in the world for being ridiculous.

    Only a narrow range of protected categories is prohibited. You could say we won't hire people with tattoos, went to certain universities (*), own a dog, play soccer, choose Crest toothpaste, use CentOS at home (common sense to avoid such degenerates), or people who wore a blue shirt to the interview. But discriminating against people because they're veterans, pregnant, were born in Phnom Penh, or worship RackNerd as a refulgent living god is forbidden.

    (*) I've known a couple companies that will not consider people with degrees from certain universities because the schools are trash. This is certainly defensible, but if someone said "we don't hire from HBCUs" that's obviously a totally different situation.

    Thanked by 1shuier
  • @raindog308 said:

    @shuier said: If a jobseeker only had “Post-Graduation Work Permit Program” or “Optional Practical Training”,would you consider them?

    @emg said: the legal right to work at the company, then nationality should have nothing to do with the hiring decision.

    Correct. In the US, companies are not allowed to discriminate against non-citizens who are legally entitled to work in the US (i.e., they're permanent residents or their temporary work paperwork is in order). You can't say "we only hire citizens" unless you have truly extraordinary requirements like doing top secret for the Feds

    Of course, companies are under no obligation to sponsor people coming over (H1-Bs, etc.) if they don't want to because that is a very significant expense. But if you're legally entitled to work, you're on the same starting ground as someone born here.

    @emg said: The same is true regarding race, gender, orientation, hair color, hat size, or other personal attributes.

    Not quite.

    Hair color is not technically a protected category in the US, but I think it'd be impossoble to avoid a claim of racial discrimination. If you only hire blondes you are de facto discriminating against many ethnicities. A company that only hires people willing to shave their head bald daily might be fine (well, legally - they're insane of course).

    Hat size you might might be able to get away with...? I think it'd be harder to say that by specifying a large or small head you are committing racial discrimination. Of course, your company would be mocked on every social media site in the world for being ridiculous.

    Only a narrow range of protected categories is prohibited. You could say we won't hire people with tattoos, went to certain universities (*), own a dog, play soccer, choose Crest toothpaste, use CentOS at home (common sense to avoid such degenerates), or people who wore a blue shirt to the interview. But discriminating against people because they're veterans, pregnant, were born in Phnom Penh, or worship RackNerd as a refulgent living god is forbidden.

    (*) I've known a couple companies that will not consider people with degrees from certain universities because the schools are trash. This is certainly defensible, but if someone said "we don't hire from HBCUs" that's obviously a totally different situation.

    Yes, it is my understanding that H1B petitions in the US are a burden for employers unless you are exceptionally good.
    But in many cases, some company lawyers are not even sure how to go about filing an H1B

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran
    edited February 2023

    @shuier said: Yes, it is my understanding that H1B petitions in the US are a burden for employers unless you are exceptionally good.

    It's a burden even if you're the next Stephen Hawking.

    Also, you can't hire just anyone on an H1B. Junior and entry-level roles are generally not H1B-eligible because the gov't has a public policy interest in keeping Americans employed. If you're hiring someone whose job will be "Senior Developer" or "Principal Administrator" or the candidate is the only person in the world who speaks the binary language of moisture vaporators, you have a better chance.

  • emgemg Veteran
    edited February 2023

    @raindog308's comments are spot on.

    In my defense, I wasn't trying to distinguish between legal requirements and "do the right thing." The choice of "hat size" was arbitrary and intended as a silly example.

    Having read his comments, the first thing that popped into my head was:
    -> Could there someday be a "Church of Racknerd?"
    Ouch! Banish the thought.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @emg said: In my defense, I wasn't trying to distinguish between legal requirements and "do the right thing." The choice of "hat size" was arbitrary and intended as a silly example.

    Oh I know - just having fun.

    @emg said: -> Could there someday be a "Church of Racknerd?"

    Thanked by 1emg
Sign In or Register to comment.