Pfizer's letter to Dodd and Courtney
Pfizer's letter to Dodd and Courtney
Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:32 AM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1950 -- 12/24/2008 >>>>>
Surprisingly Pfizer gave an answer to the questions contained in a letter of
concern by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-2).
TheDay newspaper posted the letter online. If you recall, the reporter Lee
Howard has written several articles about what is going on at Pfizer. We
should all thank Dodd and Courtney for sending the letter but...... and this
is a BIG BUT.......
Dodd's letter totally lets Pfizer off the hook by tying the H-1B questions to
Procedure 117. As I explained recently, Pfizer's Procedure 117 is nothing more
than a standard document to describe their policy on contractors ("Pfizer and
Procedure 117", No. 1936 -- 11/09/2008). Procedure
117 never explicitly or implicitly mentions H-1B.
Before you go further, please study the following web page.
http://www.jobdestruction.info/ShameH1B/VisaTypes.htm
The multitude of visas are very confusing so you must have a basic
understanding of what each one is all about in order to understand this
newsletter. You can spend 6 hours surfing the web, or 6 minutes reading this
page, take your pick.
Pfizer's response was totally factual -- and they must have been very happy to
be able to fill the letter with facts that are of no consequence. Pfizer
actually gave away far more information than they really had to. They admitted
that they submitted 78 petitions for H-1B visas in 2008, of which
47 were granted H-18 status that counted towards the cap, and 13 that were
exempt from the cap; which means their success rate was 77%. No information
was provided about how many H-1Bs they acquired in previous years, or how many
they will attempt to get in 2009. Pfizer also disclosed that they used
12 bodyshops in 2008, some of which imported their workers on B-1 visas.
Dodd dropped the ball big time on L-1 visas because he didn't even ask if
Pfizer employed them. That's an astonishing oversight considering that Pfizer
has locations all over the world, which means they could probably use L-1s for
the bulk of their scientists, engineers, programmers, and managers. Pfizer
admitted they use B-1 visas so there is no doubt that H-1B isn't the only
thing they use.
If 100% of the Pfizer's employees in Connecticut were foreign nationals their
response to Dodd and Courney would be 100% truthful!
Corporations use B-1 and L-1 visas almost interchangeably. Go to the archive
to read a classic example of B-1 and L-1 visas: "Enron Secrets Part 2, No.
1520 -- 07/16/2006."
Dodd's questions may appear to be dunderheaded but I think there is more to it
than meets the eye. Angry Pfizer employees or the replaced unemployed have
obviously been calling up Dodd and Courtney to make a big fuss. Both of these
politicians felt under pressure to appear to be doing something about the
problem so they cleverly crafted a letter that avoided most of the questions
that would have exposed Pfizer. Dodd has been involved in the issues of
immigration, offshoring, and nonimmigrant visas far too long for this letter
to be the result of ignorance or impetuousness. Not a single American job will
be saved unless Dodd and Courtney follow this up with something more
substantial.
I sincerely hope that I have judged these two politicians too harshly.
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4617/print
Letter to Pfizer
http://media.theday.com/gbl/media/dynamic/pdfnews/Pfizer%20response.pdf
Pfizer's reply
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4617/print
Dodd and Courtney Express Concern Over Reports that Pfizer Will Cut Jobs in
Connecticut October 3, 2008
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-2) sent the
following letter today to Jeffrey B. Kindler, CEO of Pfizer Inc, expressing
their concern over recent reports that suggest the company has been
training foreign contractors to replace local workers at their facilities
in New London and Groton.
The full text of the letter is below:
November 3, 2008
Mr. Jeffrey B. Kindler
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Pfizer Inc.
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Kindler,
We are writing today to express our concerns over media reports that Pfizer
has been training foreign contractors to replace local information
technology workers at the New London and Groton facilities as part of a
new, company-wide policy known as Procedure 117. In our view, any
reorganization that would result in the loss of jobs for local workers
would be troubling, and we would urge you in the strongest terms to
reconsider any such action.
We are also concerned that, thus far, Pfizer has not publicly released
information about any pending moves under Procedure 117. The only
information available has come piecemeal from the workers themselves, who
are understandably worried about the possibility of losing their jobs.
Given Pfizer s critical importance as one of the largest employers in
southeastern Connecticut, we hope you will be able to provide us with
information regarding these potential workforce changes at Pfizer. First,
we would like to know if these press reports are accurate. If these
initiatives are indeed under consideration, we would appreciate answers to
the following questions:
How many workers will be affected by these
changes? Will any compensation be offered to those contractors who are not
re-hired?
How will the salary and benefit packages of those
who are retained following this reorganization be affected?
Of the jobs currently performed by Pfizer
employees or local contractors in Groton and New London, how many will be
relocated overseas?
How many workers in Groton and New
London will be replaced by foreign contractors residing in the United
States on H1-B visas? If skilled workers are already available for these
jobs locally, why does Pfizer find it necessary to hire workers from
abroad?
Thank you in advance for your response to this request. Should you have any
questions or wish to discuss this request further, please feel free to
reach out to us at any time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://media.theday.com/gbl/media/dynamic/pdfnews/Pfizer%20response.pdf
November 6, 2OO8
Government Relations
Senator Christopher J. Dodd
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Representative Joseph Courtney
215 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Senator Dodd and Representative Courtney,
I am writing in response to your letter to Jeff Kindler dated November 3,
2008, wherein
you issued a series of questions regarding Pfizer's corporate procedure
related to non-
Pfizer personnel. The points below are intended to clarify the inaccuracies
in several
media reports, which gave rise to your questions, and hopefully alleviate
your concerns
regarding this procedure.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that Pfizer's corporate
procedure
(identified internally at Corporate Policy #117) regarding non-Pfizer
personnel was
established only to provide clear guidelines for the engagement and
appropriate
treatment and utilization of non-Pfizer personnel who perform various
services for the
company. ohis procedure, which became effective on November 3,2Q07, was
not a
change to Pfizer's current business practice. ln fact, the intention was
simply for non-
Pfizer personnel to leave Pfizer at the end of their assignments.
The procedure clearly states the internal approvals necessary to initiate
an engagement
and that the engagement be made through a preferred supplier using Pfizer's
internal
purchasing system. ln addition, it defines the role of a non-Pfizer
personnel and the
acceptable length of an engagement - either a predetermined period of time
necessary
to complete a project for which the non-employee worker is engaged or a
12-month
continuous period. ln fact, there will be instances wherein a local
non-employee worker
will be replaced by another after the completion of a 12-month continuous
period.
As you can see, this procedure governs only the tenure and manner in which
non-Pfizer
personnel are engaged, and does not seek to replace local non-Pfizer
personnel with
those from outside of the United States, nor does it determine the overall
number of non-
Pfizer personnel that Pfizer engages.
It is also important to note that by implementing this procedure and
clearly defining the
role of non-Pfizer personnel and the length of an engagement, we are
ensuring that only
eligible employees participate in Pfizer's defined benefit plans, while at
the same time
better safeguarding our workplaces and better ensuring the privacy of our
data by
curtailing badge entry to our sites and access to our network by non-Pfizer
personnel
whose engagements have ended.
ln the beginning of 2008, we communicated the implementation of this
procedure to our
colleagues, as well as professional service consultants, independent
contractors,
outsourced service providers and vendors who supply temporary services. Our
external
consulting firms, as well as our vendors and suppliers, were responsible
for further
communicating the procedure to their own employees.
There are approximately 8,000 non-Pfizer personnel at our Groton and New
London
sites, whose engagements are governed by the abovementioned procedure.
Their
compensation is driven by the terms and conditions of their engagements,
whether they
are for a pre-determined period of time or for a continuous 12-month
period. As a matter
of course, we typically do not offer additional compensation for those
non-Pfizer
personnel whose engagements have been completed, nor are we changing the
compensation packages for those workers whose projects are ongoing, unless
the terms
of their engagement change.
As we have previously announced, Pfizer has been pursuing multi-year cost
reduction
and productivity initiatives, which continue to span essentially all of our
divisions,
functions, markets and sites across the company. These initiatives include
manufacturing site exits, targeted workforce reductions and outsourcing of
certain
functions - to both U.S. and international companies - all of which have
been previously
announced. The implementation of this procedure again should not be
misconstrued as
a new initiative to relocate certain functions being performed in Groton
and New London
to outside of the U.S.
In Pfizer's lT division, we have historically utilized third-party lT
vendors for software
development and applications support, and for daily lT-related functions.
ohese vendors
comprise both U.S. companies and companies that are based outside of the
U.S. These
vendors do employ foreign nationals, some of whom have been granted B1
nonimmigrant
visas to work in the U.S. for a limited period of time. That said, the
third party
vendor would have petitioned for these visas, and Pfizer would have had no
involvement
in these petitions. Currently, there are 6 third-party contractors on site
in Groton and
New London, and as many as 12 over the course of the year, who have been
granted
B1 visas as employees of their sponsoring company.
Finally, in accordance with the guidelines set by the U.S. Citizenship and
lmmigration
Services (USCIS) and with the applicable law, Pfizer as a sponsoring
employer has
petitioned for H-18 visas for some of our foreign national employees. These
visas,
although temporary, are different from B1 visas in that they allow for a
longer duration -
3 years with one 3 year renewal. Typically, the majority of the employees
for which we
have petitioned H-18 status possess science-based specialized knowledge and
expertise. Pfizer submitted 78 petitions in 2008, of which 47 were granted
H-18 status.
As you're aware, U.S. law allowed for a total of 65,000 H-18 visas in 2008.
Pfizer also
had 13 additional employees who were granted H-1 B status that were not
subject to the
annual limit. Consequently, 60 Pfizer employees received H-18 status in
2008. These
employees were granted this status so that they could continue to perform
important
work for Pfizer in sites across the U.S. and not to replace their fellow
colleagues in
Groton and New London as has been alleged in the media.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions, and would like
to maintain an
open dialogue, so that I can address your concerns. I also remain committed
to
strengthening Pfizer's relationship with the community in southeastern
Connecticut and
look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Principi
Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
Back to archives