Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 Immediate Action Needed It is time to put our mouth where our money is. ACTION Time! The House of Representatives passed HR 3736 yesterday, which would increase the number of temporary, non-immigrant visas available to foreign workers from 65,000 to 115,000 annually. We all need to advocate its position against this bill. The Senate now must pass this bill before it can be signed into law by President Clinton. The vote could come at any time, so immediate action is needed. Contact both senators from your state to urge a A NO vote on S1723. Also, contact the White House at 202/456-6493 to express frustration with this bill. Source: APTA press release. R. Kovacek, MSA, PT KovacekManagementServices, Inc. The FOCUS Group, Inc. 20225 Danbury Lane Harper Woods, MI 48225 Fax Email Pkovacek@... <http://www.theFOCUSgroup.net> Join PT Manager-- The Electronic Rehab Leadership Community To subscribe, send an empty message to ptmanager-subscribe@... TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 In a message dated 10/2/98 11:23:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pkovacek@... writes: << Immediate Action Needed It is time to put our mouth where our money is. & nbsp; ACTIONTime! The House of Representatives passed HR 3736 yesterday, which would increase the number of temporary, non-immigrant visas available to foreign workers from 65,000 to 115,000 annually. We all need to advocate its position against this bill. The Senate now must pass this bill before it can be signed into law by President Clinton. The vote could come at any time, so immediate action is needed. Contact both senators from your state to urge a A NO vote on S1723. Also, contact the White House at 202/456-6493 to express frustration with thisbill. Source: APTA press release. >> Exactly, why do you want a NO vote on this bill? Endor ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1998 Report Share Posted October 3, 1998 Why are you against this bill? Endor PT ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1998 Report Share Posted October 3, 1998 In a message dated 10/3/98 1:33:52 PM Central Daylight Time, EndorPT@... writes: << Why are you against this bill? Endor PT >> While I can't speak for K. (I believe he was the author of the first message), I believe that all therapist's are against it because of the current reimbursement changes. Economics 101 tells us that when the supply of anything outweighs the demand for the good or service, then the price of the good or service declines. Right now the changes in therapy reimbursement have lead to some pretty heavy cutbacks in terms of therapy employees. This has created an increase in the number of available therapists. Thus driving the wages for therapists downward. This piece of legislation will only increase the number of potential therapists in the marketplace (i.e., making an even greater number of therapists looking for work in a marketplace with fewer jobs). So if you are a therapist, you would want to limit the number of potential people coming into the marketplace. If this is not a correct analysis, someone please correct me. ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1998 Report Share Posted October 3, 1998 In a message dated 10/3/1998 10:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JHall49629@... writes: << << Why are you against this bill? Endor PT >> While I can't speak for K. (I believe he was the author of the first message), I believe that all therapist's are against it because of the current reimbursement changes. Economics 101 tells us that when the supply of anything outweighs the demand for the good or service, then the price of the good or service declines. Right now the changes in therapy reimbursement have lead to some pretty heavy cutbacks in terms of therapy employees. This has created an increase in the number of available therapists. Thus driving the wages for therapists downward. This piece of legislation will only increase the number of potential therapists in the marketplace (i.e., making an even greater number of therapists looking for work in a marketplace with fewer jobs). So if you are a therapist, you would want to limit the number of potential people coming into the marketplace. If this is not a correct analysis, someone please correct me. >> The original posting was from APTA - I only reposted it. can not speak for APTA - I can only speak for myself. Personally, I AM concerned about the recent - sometimes dramatic - shift in supply vs demand. I personally have seen some of the impact of the Vector report and it is not pretty. I do not feel that this is only good for the physical therapist - I think that it is also good for our patients in the long run. I am currently seeing salaries and other components of PT employment packages sliding down ward. I think that this will eventually cause a dimunition of the quality of students that we attract and therefore a less competent PT in the future. The other issue is that PT simply is not a special need profession as it once was - regarding inadequate supply. The bill that is being discussed is intended to relieve shortage situations in certain professions. PT should no longer be included in this list. I hope this clarifies my personal opinion. Any other thought from the list? Kovacek ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1998 Report Share Posted October 3, 1998 Regarding the bill as well, While I have no issue with foreign PT's practicing in the United States per say, I do not believe they should use a loop hole in the immigration laws to allow them to settle in the United States. That is what this bill allows, By allowing people to come into a situation where there previously was a shortage, but no more, foreign PTs are taking the place of Americans. As I said, I welcome all foreigners and believe they should go through standard immigration practice, not using an outdated H1B visa to settle in this country. It is not reflective of the PT environment at this time with the increase in educational institutions/student population/decrease in staffing ratios. ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 1998 Report Share Posted October 4, 1998 I have personal experience from the supply and demand aspect of this profession. I was living in SoFla. Was laid off from a rehab company and had to move to the NE to gain full time employment with benefits. I had worked 3 per diem jobs just to make ends meet. There were and are no PT jobs in So Fla. The jobs I did apply and interview for, did not want someone with more than 5 years of experience. ( I have been a PT for 21 yrs.) There are a lot of PT and PTA schools in the So Fla area and lots of new grads to be had. It did not matter that I would accept any salary offered. In fact I did not even answer the salary request on any of the job applications. And contrary to the post from another therapist about, all the job offers she is still receiving and only the best will survive- I AM a good therapist, I am ethical, and I am conscientious-my patients always come first! The big companies do not want to pay for experience or knowledge, or even benefits so wake up. ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 1998 Report Share Posted October 5, 1998 -Reply You stated " The other issue is that PT simply is not a special need profession as it once was - regarding inadequate supply. The bill that is being discussed is intended to relieve shortage situations in certain professions. PT should no longer be included in this list. " This I recall is the major reason why APTA and the Federation of State Boards of Licensure are supporting this elimination of favored status for H1B visas. The normal immigration process should be adequate. Also being lobbied for by APTA & FSBPT is a credentialing process which would assure equal competancies for internationally educated therapists entering the US, including language proficiency. This would hopefully lift the current passage rate on the licensure exam , which is significantly lower for IEPTs than US educated. W. , PT, MS Treasurer, American Physical Therapy Association dperry@... ______________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.