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

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.

SHRM, a professional organization for HR professionals and business executives, opposes the proposed rule because it would significantly increase wage floors without accounting for total rewards packages (like benefits and bonuses) or current labor market realities. They argue that the rule risks creating artificial wage inflation, hiring disruptions, and administrative burdens, and they advocate for a more flexible, multi-source wage methodology and a longer transition period.

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 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.

Compete America, a coalition of higher education industry associations, business and trade associations, and individual employers, opposes the proposed rule. They argue that the methodology relies on flawed data, fails to account for recent policy changes and modern compensation structures, and would negatively impact the recruitment of high-skilled foreign talent and early-career professionals.

The Business Roundtable opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it fails to account for recent H-1B program changes, creates significant business uncertainty by lacking a transition period, and restricts critical talent pipelines for early-career professionals. They request that the Department conduct further analysis on these impacts and consider "total compensation" models before proceeding with regulatory changes.

The University of Pennsylvania opposes the proposed rule because it fails to account for the unique wage structures and federal funding constraints of academic research, specifically regarding postdoctoral trainees. They argue that the proposed prevailing wage levels would exceed federal stipend benchmarks and could undermine U.S. research capacity and innovation.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it relies on obsolete data, creates internal inconsistencies in wage level definitions, and fails to account for the full scope of compliance and compensation costs. They contend that the rule will hinder manufacturing growth by restricting access to high-skilled immigrants and recommend that the ETA reconsider the proposal or, at minimum, implement a multi-year phase-in period.

ITServe Alliance, Inc., an organization representing small and medium enterprises in the technology sector, opposes the proposed rule because it significantly increases minimum salary requirements for H-1B and other visas. They argue these costs will be prohibitive for small businesses and startups, leading to economic stagnation, wage compression, and an acceleration of offshoring.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed rule, arguing that the significant increases in prevailing wage percentiles are disconnected from actual labor market realities and fail to account for worker experience and education. They contend that the proposal creates substantial operational burdens, ignores reliance interests, and could trigger a self-reinforcing cycle of wage escalation that distorts the economy.