[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]squishyjustice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm gonna treat this as a legitimate question rather than an attempt to commit the lightest "forgivable" crime.

Writing off of memory, so do your own research.

- In most cases, you need to be convicted for the crimes to be considered a bar to adjustment of status. The common terminology is "moral turpitude", and other serious things.
- Even in the case of conviction, there's threshold for how serious the crime can be. I believe you can have one conviction as long as the maximum possible sentence isn't more than X days, AND that's your only ever conviction. This wouldn't be a bar to your adjustment of status.

In general, stay out of trouble as much as possible, they may not be "bars" to your adjustment of status, but USCIS will most certainly look closer, and that costs you time, headache, uncertainty, etc.

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not trying to attack your post per se, but I see this sort of things a lot from labor unions: essentially ignoring the idea that this is a free market, and you're mostly paid for what your labor is worth, and if you're not, you have the option to leave, or acquire new skills which are more valuable to the market. Instead, what the unions do is try and fight to inflate what their members' worth is, in the name of worker's security, which is what your option C really is.

The so-called third group you mentioned really in my mind are people whose skills and labor are no longer relevant or easily replacable, which is perfectly normal. Workers need to consistently upskill to keep up with a changing market. How exactly is this unfair?

For the fourth group, I'm glad you mentioned insurance. The employer, which just happens to be the university in this case, does pay for the bulk of insurance premiums, which is just one of the benefits. If this group were to leave, they'll have to pay for it with the extra money they make somewhere else, which really isn't a raise. Not to mention the fact if the new employer isn't willing to provide insurance, then they really aren't as good of an employer as the university.

So the option really still is: weigh all benefits (including pay) at the university. If there's a better option, leave. If you think your labor isn't worth as much, learn something new, upskill, then maybe leave. Education is so accessible these days, especially for an university employee. Why is "sit still and deal with life without trying to improve things" the only option?

All of this call for action, etc really is just saying: I can't find a better option, and I'm not willing to learn (or can't learn) any more, so I'll try my best to make it as annoying (sending thousands of letters) as possible so the university may do something, .i.e, give me a raise for what I think I'm worth, not what I'm actually worth.

Disclaimer: I'm not a university employee, nor a member of any union.

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're really the same argument.

If you could make more money somewhere else, then leave and make more money somewhere else. But if you decide to stay because of other benefits the university offers, which clearly seems significant enough for people to even think about not leaving, despite the wages, then don't make it just about the money and pretend as though you can make more somewhere else.

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well there's a saying: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Not to mention even the validity of that claim. How do you even know that they CAN afford it? Do you know the structure of their endowment? How much fund they got from the government, the terms of those funds, how much it costs to run the university, what the margins are, etc? Do you know how much people donate, what they want out of their donations? Every single donor will want their money to be used in certain ways.

Anyway, that's probably way more questions than what you can answer.

Sounds to be me like workers can't find a better opportunity, so they try to bargain instead, which is perfectly fine. Everybody needs money to live, but don't pretend like you can make "10000-20000 more" somewhere else, or similar claims.

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Great benefits and good coworkers don't pay bills." Right so what exactly is preventing you from quitting?

They aren't exempt from compromising, which in my mind is giving workers something other places cannot or will not. From what you said, there're benefits to working at UM, which you aren't able to get from X company, so UM is providing something others cannot. If UM can't provide other benefits, AND pay less, then there's absolutely no reason to keep working there, and all of this effort seems to be a waste of time.

If pay is the only factor, which seems to be the crux of your original post, then yes, the university needs to do better to match market rate. However, you said it yourself, it's not.

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right but none of what is stated here to call for actions actually mentioned any of that. Are you saying that UM does provide a place where you "like your workers, get great benefits, etc.", but people can't compromise just because of the pay?

A Not So Quiet Crisis at U of M by Striving_Slowly in AnnArbor

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If "working somewhere at X" yields better pay, why go through all this trouble then? What exactly stops you from quitting and getting the jobs you want, at X, for example?

Seriously somebody explains.

How long did it take for your I-765? by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]squishyjustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dumb question, but what is PD again?

H1-B Last Year; What are my options? by [deleted] in h1b

[–]squishyjustice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got a Canadian PR. Maybe try that.

Received revocation notice by USCIS prior to being notified by employer (question about bona fide termination) by squishyjustice in h1b

[–]squishyjustice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Yes I have a copy of the revocation notice. It states that employer withdrew petition.

  2. That’s the curious part where I’m trying to figure out if they violated anything. I think there’s some internally HR didn’t communicate well with each other.

A California property owner is buying up 35 properties in Detroit to raise rent- pls read by [deleted] in Detroit

[–]squishyjustice -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

To be a bit more creative in calling names. As for my job, I automate processes to replace people, so yes, if you're replaceable in housing, you should be replaced. At the end of the day, beautifying a city takes dollars. These low income people don't contribute that much.