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

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.

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the Department's intent to improve wage protections for foreign nationals but argues that the current NPRM is based on outdated data.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.

The authors, Connor O’Brien, Jeremy Neufeld, and Amy Nice, argue that the Department of Labor's primary proposal (Blind Benchmarking) fails to prevent wage arbitrage and incorrectly classifies many H-1B workers. They strongly advocate for the Department's alternative proposal, Experience Benchmarking, which they argue would accurately protect American workers by anchoring wages to the actual earnings of similarly qualified native-born workers.

The AFL-CIO supports the proposed rule because it takes "overdue steps" to bring H-1B wage levels closer to prevailing rates and protects workers from being used as tools to suppress wages. However, they also call for broader reforms, including stricter oversight of employer misclassification, the exclusion of staffing companies from the H-1B program, and enhanced protections for foreign workers.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) supports the Department of Labor's proposed rule to raise prevailing wage levels for foreign workers but argues the proposed increases are still insufficient. They urge the DOL to ensure all four wage levels meet or exceed the 50th percentile (prevailing wage), increase scrutiny over private wage surveys, and express concerns that the "Experience Benchmarking" alternative could be manipulated by employers to disadvantage U.S. workers.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) supports the Department of Labor's proposed rule to increase wage percentiles for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas, as it improves upon the status quo for protecting U.S. workers. However, they argue the proposal should go further by setting the Level I wage at the 50th percentile (median wage) and rejecting the "experience benchmarking" alternative, which they claim would lead to lower wages and potential age discrimination.

The Cato Institute opposes the proposed rule to increase prevailing wages for H-1B and other foreign workers, arguing that the rule lacks an empirical basis and will unnecessarily restrict the supply of skilled foreign labor. They contend that the current wage levels are already appropriate and that the proposed changes would harm business investment, job growth, and innovation.