Cs

I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience that I may
have that will be used as a requirement for the position is experience that
I must have had before starting the job.
My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
certification exams, and after that he is going to change the requirements
to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this has
nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just thinks that
we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified. Now can
I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
position, and makes other people not qualified for it?

Hnchoksi

    >Subject: labor certification
    >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    >Date: 4/23/03 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience that I may
    >have that will be used as a requirement for the position is experience that
    >I must have had before starting the job.
    >My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
    >certification exams, and after that he is going to change the requirements
    >to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this has
    >nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just thinks that
    >we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified. Now can
    >I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
    >position, and makes other people not qualified for it?
If you did not have it before joining the company, you cannot use it.

Cs

that kinda sucks, cause the skills/knowledge I had before starting this
position, all I need is to take the exam, which I will do sometime in the
next couple of months, but its company sponsored.
What if I cahnge positions in the company, would that help, as in go from a
position that doesnt require .NET certification to one that does?




"Hnchoksi" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: labor certification
    > >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    > >Date: 4/23/03 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    > >Message-id:
    > >
    > >I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience that I
may
    > >have that will be used as a requirement for the position is experience
that
    > >I must have had before starting the job.
    > >My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
    > >certification exams, and after that he is going to change the
requirements
    > >to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this has
    > >nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just thinks
that
    > >we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified. Now
can
    > >I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
    > >position, and makes other people not qualified for it?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > If you did not have it before joining the company, you cannot use it.

Hnchoksi

    >Subject: Re: labor certification
    >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    >Date: 4/23/03 6:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >that kinda sucks, cause the skills/knowledge I had before starting this
    >position, all I need is to take the exam, which I will do sometime in the
    >next couple of months, but its company sponsored.
    >What if I cahnge positions in the company, would that help, as in go from a
    >position that doesnt require .NET certification to one that does?
    >"Hnchoksi" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> >Subject: labor certification
    >> >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    >> >Date: 4/23/03 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    >> >Message-id:
    >> >
    >> >I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience that I
    >may
    >> >have that will be used as a requirement for the position is experience
    >that
    >> >I must have had before starting the job.
    >> >My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
    >> >certification exams, and after that he is going to change the
    >requirements
    >> >to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this has
    >> >nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just thinks
    >that
    >> >we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified. Now
    >can
    >> >I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
    >> >position, and makes other people not qualified for it?
    >> >

Makesno difference what position you are in. As long as you gained that
knowledge while at that company you cannot use it.

However, the light at the end of the tunnel is this: If you can prove
through fee receipts, transcripts, etc that your TRAINING was received before
joining and it was simply a matter of time before you took the exam, it may
work in your favor. Keep in mind that you need to stress the emphasis on the
TRAINING, not the certification (for DOL/BCIS purposes). It is splitting
hairs, but if you/your lawyer are eloquent enough in your writing skills it
could work. If your company emphasizes CERTIFICATION, you may be out of luck.

Cs

Thanks for the advice. What about speaking languages, can those count in my
favor? basically my boss is thinking we will need to translate our website
soon, and he wants me to handdle the programming and the actual translation
as well, and of course any updates. Will it count if on the job posting (for
RIR) he asks for a person with the programming skills and fluent on another
language?


"Hnchoksi" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: Re: labor certification
    > >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    > >Date: 4/23/03 6:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    > >Message-id:
    > >
    > >that kinda sucks, cause the skills/knowledge I had before starting this
    > >position, all I need is to take the exam, which I will do sometime in the
    > >next couple of months, but its company sponsored.
    > >What if I cahnge positions in the company, would that help, as in go from
a
    > >position that doesnt require .NET certification to one that does?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >"Hnchoksi" wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> >Subject: labor certification
    > >> >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    > >> >Date: 4/23/03 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    > >> >Message-id:
    > >> >
    > >> >I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience that
I
    > >may
    > >> >have that will be used as a requirement for the position is experience
    > >that
    > >> >I must have had before starting the job.
    > >> >My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
    > >> >certification exams, and after that he is going to change the
    > >requirements
    > >> >to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this has
    > >> >nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just
thinks
    > >that
    > >> >we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified.
Now
    > >can
    > >> >I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
    > >> >position, and makes other people not qualified for it?
    > >> >
    > >>
    > Makesno difference what position you are in. As long as you gained that
    > knowledge while at that company you cannot use it.
    > However, the light at the end of the tunnel is this: If you can prove
    > through fee receipts, transcripts, etc that your TRAINING was received
before
    > joining and it was simply a matter of time before you took the exam, it
may
    > work in your favor. Keep in mind that you need to stress the emphasis on
the
    > TRAINING, not the certification (for DOL/BCIS purposes). It is splitting
    > hairs, but if you/your lawyer are eloquent enough in your writing skills
it
    > could work. If your company emphasizes CERTIFICATION, you may be out of
luck.

Hnchoksi

    >Subject: Re: labor certification
    >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    >Date: 4/23/03 10:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >Thanks for the advice. What about speaking languages, can those count in my
    >favor? basically my boss is thinking we will need to translate our website
    >soon, and he wants me to handdle the programming and the actual translation
    >as well, and of course any updates. Will it count if on the job posting (for
    >RIR) he asks for a person with the programming skills and fluent on another
    >language?
Depends on the language I guess...it would certainly narrow the field. I
imagine taht if you spoke Mongolian or Icelandic or some rare language, you
would be a shoo-in. If it is French or Spanish, you might have some
competition...If your employer can present a good business case for converting
the website, like presenting plans to target future readers who only know that
particular language, it could help.

The big key is to be involved enough in your own case and not leave it up to
the employer or lawyer. Every scrap you put on the job requirement helps out.
Of course, none of it has to be obviously phoney or DOL will tell you to remove
it from the requirements. Then again, even if it is genuine, they can tell you
to scratch it...it happened to me...

Sylvia Ottemoeller

"CS" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > Thanks for the advice. What about speaking languages, can those count in
my
    > favor? basically my boss is thinking we will need to translate our website
    > soon, and he wants me to handdle the programming and the actual
translation
    > as well, and of course any updates. Will it count if on the job posting
(for
    > RIR) he asks for a person with the programming skills and fluent on
another
    > language?

    > "Hnchoksi" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    > > >Subject: Re: labor certification
    > > >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    > > >Date: 4/23/03 6:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

    > > >that kinda sucks, cause the skills/knowledge I had before starting this
    > > >position, all I need is to take the exam, which I will do sometime in
the
    > > >next couple of months, but its company sponsored.
    > > >What if I cahnge positions in the company, would that help, as in go
from a
    > > >position that doesnt require .NET certification to one that does?

    > > >"Hnchoksi" wrote in message
    > > >news:[email protected]...

    > > >> >Subject: labor certification
    > > >> >From: "CS" casolorz@hot[rem]mail.com
    > > >> >Date: 4/23/03 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

    > > >> >I read somewhere that for the labor certification any experience
that I may
    > > >> >have that will be used as a requirement for the position is
experience that
    > > >> >I must have had before starting the job.
    > > >> >My question is, my boss is thinking of making us all take the .NET
    > > >> >certification exams, and after that he is going to change the
requirements
    > > >> >to work here so that only .NET certified people are accepted, this
has
    > > >> >nothing to do with me wanting to apply for a green card, he just
thinks that
    > > >> >we will get more contracts if all our developers are .NET certified.
Now can
    > > >> >I use the .NET certification as something that qualifies me for this
    > > >> >position, and makes other people not qualified for it?

    > > Makes no difference what position you are in. As long as you gained
that
    > > knowledge while at that company you cannot use it.
    > >
    > > However, the light at the end of the tunnel is this: If you can prove
    > > through fee receipts, transcripts, etc that your TRAINING was received
before
    > > joining and it was simply a matter of time before you took the exam, it
may
    > > work in your favor. Keep in mind that you need to stress the emphasis
on the
    > > TRAINING, not the certification (for DOL/BCIS purposes). It is
splitting
    > > hairs, but if you/your lawyer are eloquent enough in your writing skills
it
    > > could work. If your company emphasizes CERTIFICATION, you may be out of
    > luck.

The problem is that in that case the employer must offer the possibility of
using *only the training* to qualify for the job to *all* other applicants.
No one could be rejected because he or she does not have the certification.

There is a way that the employee can "use" a qualification that he or she
received after starting in the position, and that is for the employer to
show that there was a change in the requirements for the position that
occurred after the employee started in the position, and that change is
caused through *business necessity.* This is not an easy argument to make.

Another strategy is for the employee to offer you a different position as
the basis for your labor certification than the position in which you
started in the company. In that case, the employer would have to make the
case that the positions are not really the same position, that they are
sufficiently dissimilar.

As for the "tacking on" of a language requirements, this too will be a very
difficult case for the employer to make, that the language requirement is a
necessary requirement for the position. Why can't they hire a translator to
do the work? The Department of Labor often rejects language requirements as
a "restrictive requirement" (meaning an unacceptably restrictive
requirement), or sometimes as an "unusual combination of duties" to combine
in a single position.

Cs

    > There is a way that the employee can "use" a qualification that he or she
    > received after starting in the position, and that is for the employer to
    > show that there was a change in the requirements for the position that
    > occurred after the employee started in the position, and that change is
    > caused through *business necessity.* This is not an easy argument to
make.
    > Another strategy is for the employee to offer you a different position as
    > the basis for your labor certification than the position in which you
    > started in the company. In that case, the employer would have to make the
    > case that the positions are not really the same position, that they are
    > sufficiently dissimilar.
    > As for the "tacking on" of a language requirements, this too will be a
very
    > difficult case for the employer to make, that the language requirement is
a
    > necessary requirement for the position. Why can't they hire a translator
to
    > do the work? The Department of Labor often rejects language requirements
as
    > a "restrictive requirement" (meaning an unacceptably restrictive
    > requirement), or sometimes as an "unusual combination of duties" to
combine
    > in a single position.


Well in my case it would be kind of interesting. Basically my boss didnt
require anyone to be .NET certified, hell, noone here knew .NET almost at
all when I started, I probably had the most experience. Now he is thinking
that since no other company does .NET in town, that might set us apart, and
he wants to get everyone certified and change the way we represent
ourselves, so that now it shows that we are only a .NET developement
company. So does that count as a change in recruitment? he will be
requireing a certification from now on, but in my case I will get the
certification while working here.

Also on the language, I understand the argument against using it, it would
be just too easy to say we need someone tha speaks a certain language! which
is too bad, cause in some cases it might be a real need, but just hard to
prove.

Sylvia Ottemoeller

"CS" wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

    > > There is a way that the employee can "use" a qualification that he or
she
    > > received after starting in the position, and that is for the employer to
    > > show that there was a change in the requirements for the position that
    > > occurred after the employee started in the position, and that change is
    > > caused through *business necessity.* This is not an easy argument to
make.
    > >
    > > Another strategy is for the employee to offer you a different position
as
    > > the basis for your labor certification than the position in which you
    > > started in the company. In that case, the employer would have to make
the
    > > case that the positions are not really the same position, that they are
    > > sufficiently dissimilar.
    > >
    > > As for the "tacking on" of a language requirements, this too will be a
very
    > > difficult case for the employer to make, that the language requirement
is a
    > > necessary requirement for the position. Why can't they hire a
translator to
    > > do the work? The Department of Labor often rejects language
requirements as
    > > a "restrictive requirement" (meaning an unacceptably restrictive
    > > requirement), or sometimes as an "unusual combination of duties" to
combine
    > > in a single position.

    > Well in my case it would be kind of interesting. Basically my boss didnt
    > require anyone to be .NET certified, hell, noone here knew .NET almost at
    > all when I started, I probably had the most experience. Now he is thinking
    > that since no other company does .NET in town, that might set us apart,
and
    > he wants to get everyone certified and change the way we represent
    > ourselves, so that now it shows that we are only a .NET developement
    > company. So does that count as a change in recruitment? he will be
    > requireing a certification from now on, but in my case I will get the
    > certification while working here.

If your labor certification application is based on the job position which
you started in, and which you continue to hold, then it is a change in the
requirements for the position, of course. If the employer wants to be able
to reject applicants on the basis that they do not have the certification,
then the LC application must be delayed until after you get the
certification.

If your labor certification application is based on the offer of a new job
position, different from the one you now hold, a position which requires the
certification, then it is not a change in requirements for the position
offered. The LC application cannot then be filed until after you get the
certification. However, that scenario would involve showing that you
assumed a different position after getting the certification.

I suggest that you or your employer hire a competent immigration attorney
with lots of experience in labor certification, and review the various
strategies which might work in your case, and choose one based on the
attorney's recommendation. It would be foolish in the extreme to start
anything, including running even one ad, without previous consultation with
an attorney and informed decision-making.