Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States

Clement Chang, a Senior Associate at a law firm, opposes the proposed rule for prevailing wage determination, arguing that it is overly broad and will place an unnecessary economic burden on U.S. employers, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. He suggests that the Department of Labor should instead focus on enforcing existing laws and using AI data to target "bad actor" employers who undercut wages.

Molli Freeman-Lynde, an immigration attorney, opposes the proposed rule because the increased wage requirements would be financially catastrophic for small businesses. She argues that small businesses often hire noncitizen workers to fill vital roles and cannot afford to pay the well-above-market rates that larger tech companies can.

Michael P. Nowlan, an attorney, opposes the proposed rule because it fails to provide a specific dollar amount for how the H-1B program has reduced U.S. worker pay, making the proposed wage increases arbitrary and capricious. He argues that the rule will make hiring H-1B workers prohibitively expensive, leading to a decrease in international students at U.S. universities and an increase in offshoring.

Kelly A. Simons, a partner at an immigration law firm, opposes the Proposed Rule, arguing that it conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act and will cause severe economic harm to universities, hospitals, and small businesses. She contends that the rule's methodology is arbitrary and calls for its withdrawal or, at minimum, a significant revision including a phased transition.

The Economic Innovation Group (EIG) opposes the Department's primary proposal for "Blind Benchmarking" because it fails to account for worker credentials and could increase the use of H-1B visas by IT outsourcing firms. They instead advocate for "Experience Benchmarking," arguing it is more economically grounded, legally consistent with the INA, and less administratively burdensome.

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it will significantly increase labor costs for U.S. businesses, particularly startups and small companies. They contend that the rule creates workforce uncertainty, reduces access to critical global talent, and will ultimately harm U.S. competitiveness by pushing innovation and investment overseas.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) supports the proposed rule to increase prevailing wage levels for H-1B and other foreign workers to prevent wage suppression and the displacement of U.S. workers. They also advocate for additional reforms, including eliminating the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and monitoring other visa categories to prevent them from being used as H-1B substitutes.

The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), a labor union, supports the proposed increase in H-1B wage levels but argues that the rule should establish a wage floor at the median prevailing wage rather than the proposed levels. They also call for stricter enforcement against employer misclassification, restrictions on third-party outsourcing firms, and protections against exploitative recruitment practices.

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it imposes undue financial burdens on public universities and disrupts their ability to recruit critical faculty and researchers. They contend that the rule fails to account for the unique salary structures of higher education, ignores the fact that universities do not use foreign labor to undercut U.S. workers, and requests an exemption or a significantly delayed, phased-in implementation.

WERC, a trade association representing the global talent mobility industry, supports the Department's intent to improve wage protections for foreign nationals but argues that the current NPRM is based on outdated data. They recommend withdrawing the current NPRM to allow for updated analysis that reflects recent market shifts and immigration policy changes, while also requesting a longer implementation window and clearer definitions for proposed models.