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.

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the Department's intent to improve wage protections for foreign nationals but argues that the current NPRM is based on outdated data.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

LeadingAge, an organization representing nonprofit aging services providers, opposes the proposed rule because it uses aggregate wage data that fails to distinguish between high-paying acute care hospitals and lower-paying long-term care facilities. They argue that the proposed wage floors will be unattainable for many long-term care providers due to fixed Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates, potentially pricing them out of the EB-3 visa pathway and reducing available care for older adults.

The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it violates U.S. immigration law by requiring employers to pay H-1B visa holders significantly higher wages than what is legally mandated. The organization contends that the Department of Labor is using flawed methodology to create an artificial wage gap and is attempting to price high-skilled foreign nationals out of the U.S. labor market.

Lynn Bruder, CEO of Nucleus Healthcare, opposes the proposed changes to prevailing wage calculations for H1B, H1B1, and PERM programs. She argues that the proposed increases would create significant financial burdens for hospitals, potentially leading to a continued reliance on expensive agency staffing and negatively impacting patient access to care.

Pathway for Immigrant Workers, a non-profit organization, opposes the proposed rule because it applies uniform wage percentiles derived from high-skilled H-1B data to the EB-3 category, which includes unskilled and semi-skilled workers. They argue that these artificially high wage requirements are disconnected from market realities and request that the Department instead adopt Experience Benchmarking for EB-3 cases.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that the Department of Labor's methodology for setting wage levels is arbitrary, capricious, and lacks a sound empirical basis. They specifically criticize the "specialty occupation discount" theory, the circular "Benchmark Value" analysis, and the failure to adequately consider reliance interests or more accurate alternatives like experience benchmarking.

Two employment-based immigration attorneys are submitting a joint comment in their personal capacity to oppose the proposed rule. They argue that the Department's methodology is flawed because the underlying OEWS data does not measure the skill or experience levels the rule claims to address, and they request the Department withdraw the rule.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that the Department's analysis of wage suppression is based on a flawed "apple-to-apple" comparison between less experienced foreign workers and more experienced U.S. workers. They further contend that the rule is not narrowly tailored, as the Department could simply exclude specific occupations with lower educational requirements rather than restructuring the entire prevailing wage framework.

Vic Goel, a business immigration attorney, opposes the proposed rule on the grounds that it exceeds the Department of Labor's statutory authority, violates the major questions doctrine, and is arbitrary and capricious. He argues that the proposed wage increases are based on flawed economic methodologies, fail to consider significant contrary evidence, and lack a reasoned justification for departing from long-standing policy.