"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
area.

So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
isn't the case" even so).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
on a career basis.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...

In this case, it does.

Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody.

Therein lies the problem.

If a company, for profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to
pay the going rate for a specific position in a specific area, they can't
sponsor a Greencard for that position.

Duh. That's exactly what I've been saying. Glad you finally caught up.

Well, there is the catch right the "within their budget". If they were
really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her the
going rate in the area.

Bull****. I'm really, really interested in owning a Cessna CJ3. But there
is no way that will ever happen. My motivation doesn't magically allow
things to happen. Likewise, the company can want to keep her 'til the cows
come home, if they can't pay the scale the INS wants them to pay, they can't
keep her as a permanent resident employee.

In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.

Bull**** again. The company was simply unable to do what the INS insisted
they do.

Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a work
visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to change
jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with this issue.

And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job as
an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for the
job.

Yes, I know. Again, that has nothing to do with this issue.

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.

"Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
any more discussion, just junk the thread.

Pete