An advocacy group for U.S. software programmers proposes an intriguing fix for a possible flood of H-1B visa applications.

The Programmers Guild is calling for guest worker visas to be given to companies pledging to pay the highest salary, with salary serving as a proxy for skill level.

“H-1B workers with the highest skills should be given priority,” the guild said in a statement last week. “In no case should a ‘Ph.D. genetic researcher’ lose out to a ‘$16/hour accountant.’ ”

Currently, the government uses a lottery system to decide which petitions will be approved for H-1Bs in the event of high demand for the visas, which allow skilled foreigners to work in the United States. There is an annual limit of 65,000 for most H-1B workers.

The first 20,000 H-1B workers who have a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the cap. April 1 is the first day employers may file petitions seeking H-1B workers for fiscal year 2009, which begins October 1.

For the last fiscal year, the H-1B cap was reached on April 2—the first day employers could submit petitions.

The guild’s proposal is part of a broader H-1B visa debate, in which some have called for raising the program’s annual cap.

Under the guild plan, the top salaries promised would get the H-1B visas subject to the cap of 65,000.

“Any business with a critical need for an H-1B candidate could be assured of approval by paying a higher wage,” guild president Kim Berry said in a statement. “Since the median H-1B salary is about $55,000, any H-1B paying more than about $65,000 would be approved.”

Making a high wage a factor for getting a visa potentially raises costs for employers. Small businesses in lower-wage markets in particular might be squeezed by such a change.

But the proposal could help make sure the sharpest workers come in under the H-1B program, which is used heavily by the technology industry. It also could help prevent the underpayment of H-1Bs, which undercuts the salaries of U.S. workers and makes it less likely that American workers will enter fields that now rely on foreigners.

A guild report from 2006 concluded the H-1B prevailing wage is substantially below the median wage of U.S. workers.

H-1B wage problems also surfaced in a 2006 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It found that 3,229 H-1B applications were certified by the U.S. Labor Department, “even though the wage rate on the application was lower than the prevailing wage for that occupation.”

The guild’s alternative to the H-1B lottery includes a second provision that raises tricky questions of national interest and global economics. The guild would give U.S. employers preference over foreign consulting firms. Critics, including the guild, have argued that use of the visas by foreign firms fuels the shift of work abroad.

At least when it comes to the salary piece, the guild’s alternative to the H-1B lottery is on the money, it seems to me. What do you think?

News that HR consulting firm Mercer forged a deal with an executive search firm in Vietnam is a sign of the times.

U.S.-based firms that pitch talent-related services see strong growth in Asia even as evidence keeps pointing toward a downturn in the U.S. economy.

Mercer, a unit of professional services firm Marsh & McClennan Cos., said Thursday, March 14, that it signed an agreement with TalentNet of Vietnam to market and provide Mercer’s proprietary research, HR management tools and survey data.

Guo Xin, deputy region head of Mercer for the Asia-Pacific region, said the agreement with TalentNet further underscores Mercer’s ongoing commitment to expanding in Vietnam.

“With Vietnam experiencing such phenomenal growth in the past years, so too has demand for Mercer’s offerings, particularly with data-driven products and services from our Information Product Solutions (IPS) division,” Guo Xin said in a statement.

I met with Guo Xin last year in Beijing  and heard him say similar things about China’s rapid growth and the accompanying demand for HR-related help.

Mercer is not alone in jumping on the Asia bandwagon. Right Management, the consulting firm that’s a subsidiary of staffing giant Manpower, last month announced new positions for two executives in Asia.

And executive search specialist Korn/Ferry International saw its executive recruitment fees  in the Asia-Pacific region jump 36 percent in the three months ended January 31, to $25.3 million.

That was a much faster clip than the 21 percent growth overall in the firm’s executive recruitment fees. What’s more, those Asia-Pacific placements had a higher profit margin—21.5 percent—than Korn/Ferry’s executive recruiting gigs in North America, Europe and South America.

But how long will Asia be golden? A big question right now is whether China, Vietnam and other Asian countries can avoid catching America’s economic cold. There’s some thinking the slowdown at hand will be fairly global in nature .

If that’s the case, all the diversification in the world may not do much to help U.S.-based talent advisors weather a rough patch.

If the global economy spirals downward as some think it could, workers are likely to take it on the chin. And if that happens, it’s a fair bet that support for globalization will erode.

A new report from the International Labour Office finds that economic turbulence—largely due to credit market turmoil and rising oil prices—could spur an increase in global unemployment by an estimated 5 million people in 2008.

The number of unemployed people worldwide in 2007 was an estimated 189.9 million, and the global unemployment rate was 6 percent, says the ILO, an agency of the United Nations.

Not only does the ILO’s annual Global Employment Trends report warn of a gloomy 2008, it has some bad news from 2007. Despite “sound” global economic growth of 5.2 percent and a net increase of 45 million new jobs last year, not all was sweetness and light for workers around the world, according to the study. It said the global unemployment rate was virtually unchanged, and the worldwide deficit in decent jobs—especially for the poor—is “massive.”

An estimated 487 million workers, or 16.4 percent of all workers, still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the $1 per person, per day poverty line. Meanwhile, 1.3 billion workers—43.5 percent—still live below the $2 per day threshold, the ILO says.

“While global growth is annually producing millions of new jobs, unemployment remains unacceptably high and may go to levels not seen before this year,” ILO director-general Juan Somavia said in a statement.

For business leaders, the prospect of millions more workers unemployed around the world this year should do more than tug at the heartstrings. Those workers double as consumers who may lose purchasing power, and as citizens who may turn against the global trade system.

That interconnected system is generating prosperity and profits in many places. But it also can amount to a tight-wire act for workers—one in which the safety net leaves much to be desired.

Unemployment benefits have been falling in the group of mostly developed countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. A report last month from the research organization found that across most OECD countries, the level of benefits that unemployed people typically receive was 59 percent of average after-tax earnings in 2001. That figure fell to 55 percent in 2005. The report found that the “index of generosity” in the U.S., Greece, Turkey and Italy is below 30 percent.

Already, support for global trade is waning in some quarters. Americans and Western Europeans are less supportive of international trade and multinational companies than they were five years ago, according to a study last year by the Pew Research Center.

Political leaders in the U.S. are working on an economic stimulus package that may temporarily extend unemployment benefits. Will these leaders and others around the world do enough to head off or ease the potential trouble ahead?

A new study from professional services firm KPMG reveals that companies would love to trim their expatriate employee programs. But can they afford to in today’s global economy?

KPMG’s 2007 Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey found that of 348 human resources executives polled, 49 percent believe international assignment programs “take too much time and effort to administer,” up slightly from 48 percent last year. Forty percent of respondents thought their international assignment programs were “more generous than they need to be,” compared with 38 percent in 2006.

During a reporting trip to China a year ago, I heard discussions along these lines. Expat compensation packages—which traditionally have included “hardship pay” and typically cost at least twice that of an executive in America—have come under scrutiny as cities like Beijing and Shanghai become more cosmopolitan.

On the other hand, the services of expats in China are in high demand as companies from around the world expand operations in the booming country. A study by consulting firm Hewitt Associates released in December found that 55 percent of surveyed organizations plan to increase the number of expatriates they employ in China in 2008.

KPMG suggests globe-trotting generally is on the rise. “As more companies transition to a global approach and conduct more business in regions all over the world, international assignment programs need to change to fulfill the business needs required to move their workforce globally,” Ben Garfunkel, national partner in charge of KPMG’s international executive services practice, said in a statement.

Sure, making expat programs more efficient is a fine idea. But companies would do well to avoid cutting too close to the bone—and getting beat when it comes to global talent battles.

Are American or European executives more enlightened when it comes to business and workforce management priorities?

A new study from AMR Research doesn’t tackle that question head-on, but it sheds some interesting light on the issue. At first blush, the findings back the notion that U.S. firms are more focused on short-term success compared with their European counterparts.

In particular, the research suggests American managers put a higher priority on profitability and revenue growth, while European business leaders stress increasing market share and getting innovative products to market.

AMR’s study focuses on spending on “human capital management” software. It surveyed a total of 304 business executives from the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Among other questions, it asked about the top two business priorities associated with human capital management for the next year.

Fifty percent of U.S. respondents named “increased profitability” as their company’s first or second priority, making that the top overall choice. “Revenue growth” came in second, with 43 percent of U.S. managers listing it as their first or second priority.

In the U.K., though, “increased market share” was the top choice, slightly edging out revenue growth. In Germany, increased market share and increased profitability tied for the top spot. Getting innovative products to market was the first or second priority for 28 percent of U.K. respondents and 19 percent of German respondents but just 11 percent of U.S. managers.

To be sure, there are limits to drawing conclusions about U.S. and European business priorities from the AMR study. For one thing, it polled information technology executives, who rarely call the shots at companies. What’s more, the study examines just two European countries.

It’s also possible that the relatively low score for innovation in the United States reflects U.S. prowess in the realm: Perhaps American companies are good enough at pumping out new market-pleasers that they can focus on other goals. Conversely, perhaps European executives are so focused on market share and innovation because they’re trying to catch up with Americans in these fields.

What’s more, the European and American respondents to the study could be part of global organizations based in a different part of the world from where they work.

Still, the research raises some intriguing questions. Is the American focus on earnings efficiency wise in the long run? Could European business leaders be preparing their workforces more effectively for future success?