"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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.

Rules that apply equally to everybody, how absolutely horrid.