Letter on the Markup of the Protect and Grow American Jobs Act, H.R. 170
November 14, 2017
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Protect and Grow American Jobs Act (H.R. 170)
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:
On behalf of the 23 national unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I write to inform you that, absent improvements described below, DPE cannot support the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 170 that we understand Representative Issa will introduce at the House Judiciary Committee’s November 8, 2017, markup of H.R. 170, the Protect and Grow American Jobs Act.
We appreciate Rep. Issa’s recognition that the H-1B visa program is in need of reform that must include increased, funded enforcement of the program’s rules; greater protections against displacement; and higher wages for people working on H-1B visas. However, H.R. 170’s provisions would only apply to H-1B dependent employers. Most H-1B employers will still not be required to first look for an available, qualified U.S. worker or to promise that they will not fire existing U.S. workers in place of H-1B workers. Most employers will also continue to be able to pay H-1B workers at levels well below that of equivalent U.S. workers. Meanwhile, H.R. 170 does nothing to change the power dynamics within the program that make H-1B workers vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, and retaliation.
H.R. 170’s limited scope also means that the bill will not accomplish its objective to stop outsourcing through the H-1B visa program. While H.R. 170 would establish new requirements for H-1B dependent employers that place H-1B workers at a third party worksite, these requirements do not extend to non H-1B dependent employers placing H-1B workers at third party worksites. We expect corporations will contract with non H-1B dependent employers that are engaged in the outsourcing and offshoring of work since plenty of such companies exist. Accenture, for instance, is not an H-1B dependent employer, but it hired over 6,800 H-1B workers in Fiscal Year 2016. When Health Care Service Company in Illinois laid off approximately 540 IT professionals in 2016, it replaced them with contracted H-1B workers employed by Accenture and Cognizant Technology Solutions. The same is true for New York Life Insurance Company, who in 2014 laid off approximately 300 accounting and IT employees, replacing them with contracted H-1B workers employed by Accenture and Tata Consultancy Services.
H.R. 170 also would weaken the H-1B dependent employer definition by lifting the threshold from at least 15 percent of employees working on H-1B visas to 20 percent of full-time equivalent employees for employers with at least 51 employees. As a result, fewer, not more employers will be subject to the bill’s provisions that are intended to protect workers.
To account for the amendment’s weaknesses, DPE urges the committee to make the following improvements to H.R. 170’s substitute language:
· Extend H.R. 170’s provisions to any third party placement of H-1B workers: If Congress is serious about stopping employers from using the H-1B visa to outsource work and displace American workers, then it should stop this practice in all instances, not just in situations involving H-1B dependent employers.
· Strengthen the H-1B dependent employer definition: Employers who rely on the H-1B visa program to hire ten percent of their workforce must be considered H-1B dependent. Improving the H-1B dependent employer definition will strengthen H.R. 170 by increasing the number of people that it would protect.
· Count L-1 workers in the determination of H-1B dependent status: A government audit found that the top users of the L-1 visa are many of the very same companies H.R. 170 purports to target with tougher enforcement. Including L-1 workers in the tally that determines an employer’s H-1B dependent status will help ensure existing H-1B dependent companies cannot outrun the bill’s requirements by simply turning to the L-1 program.
Even with these improvements added to it, H.R. 170 does not provide the type of whole scale reform that is needed to fix the H-1B visa program and the other high-skilled guest worker visa programs. DPE supports making the following four reforms to all high-skilled guest worker programs (H-1B, L-1, B-1 in lieu of H-1B, and OPT), which would ensure that high-skilled guest workers are used to complement, rather than displace U.S. workers. If there is a shortage of qualified U.S. workers and employers are already paying market wages as many claim, then employers should not fear these reforms. DPE recommends:
1) An increase in the prevailing wage standard for guest workers so that employers do not have an incentive to hire nonimmigrants to cut labor costs;
2) Requiring all employers to advertise and offer jobs to available, qualified U.S. workers and to attest that they will not replace existing U.S. workers with nonimmigrants;
3) Allowing nonimmigrants to self-petition for green cards; and
4) Robust enforcement of guest worker visa programs that includes regular audits of the top petitioners to ensure compliance with the above provisions and an effective mechanism for nonimmigrants and U.S. workers to report violations without fear of retaliation.
Finally, the lack of data on these guest worker visa programs allows employers to evade scrutiny. Congress should ensure that the public is provided with all available data, including how many nonimmigrants are in the country; occupation, employer, and work location information; and how much they are actually being paid.
If you have any questions, please contact DPE Legislative and Outreach Director, Michael Wasser at (202) 638-0320 x.119.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida, President
Letter Supporting the DREAM Act of 2017, S. 1615
October 10, 2017
Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein,
On behalf of the 23 national unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I strongly urge you to support the DREAM Act of 2017 (S. 1615) without amendment. Absent Congressional action, nearly 800,000 young people will lose their ability to live and work in the only land they know as home if the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is terminated. The bipartisan DREAM Act would ensure these contributing members of our communities, workplaces, and military can stay out of the shadows, continue to work, and have a pathway to citizenship.
U.S. citizens and DACA beneficiaries alike benefit from the DACA program, and we will all be better off with Congress providing a permanent resolution of the Dreamers’ immigration status through passage of the DREAM Act. DACA beneficiaries are on par with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in terms of their individual bargaining power as employees. They can walk away from a bad job and exercise their workplace rights without fear that unscrupulous employers may use their immigration status to threaten or retaliate against them.
All professionals do better because DACA beneficiaries can push for higher pay, join together in union to improve their workplaces, and blow the whistle on workplace crimes without fear that employers will use their immigration status as a retaliatory weapon. Additionally, all professionals will be worse off if DACA beneficiaries lose their ability to live and work out of the shadows in the United States.
The stories of Jose Galvan, Karen Reyes, Selene Meza, and Esther Lee demonstrate the positive impact DACA beneficiaries have had on our economy, our workplaces, and our communities.
Jose Galvan, aspiring Stage Directors and Choreographers Society member
Jose Galvan is a theater professional, aspiring member of the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society (SDC), and a DACA beneficiary. He came to the United States from Mexico as a two year old with his mother and brother. They decided to come to the United States to reunite with Jose’s father, who had been living, working, and paying taxes in California.
Jose was the first in his family to graduate high school, and earned a full, merit-based scholarship to attend the University of San Diego (USD). At USD, Jose discovered his passion for theater.
“I fell in love, because I learned as an artist I had a voice,” said Jose of his introduction to theater. “I could use art to start a dialogue, make people feel something, question something, make a difference.”
Jose went on to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in theatre arts and performance studies with an emphasis in directing. While a senior at the University of San Diego, Jose became the first artistic and literary intern for the Old Globe in San Diego, a theater modeled after Shakespeare’s Old Globe in London. Following graduation, Jose was offered a job in the Arts Engagement Department at the Old Globe.
Jose now has a career in theater. Most recently, he directed a show for children of military families that aimed to help them deal with the unique challenges they face with loved ones in the armed forces. The show toured military bases, armories, and armed services’ YMCAs. Jose is now working towards graduate school and getting his master's degree in directing.
Jose spent essentially his whole life in the United States—it is all he knows. The impending loss of DACA means that Jose could lose his ability to work legally, his access to health insurance, his opportunity to pursue a MFA, and his home. The end of DACA also means the United States could lose someone who has already made important contributions to the country and is on a path to making many more.
Karen Reyes, American Federation of Teachers member
Karen Reyes is a DACAmented teacher and a member of Education Austin, part of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Karen came to the United States from Mexico at the age of two. She grew up the United States and always thought of herself as a typical American kid—since that’s who she was. However, once she realized she was undocumented, she began to hold back, frozen by fear.
“I held back from friendships, I held back from activities, I held back from applying to the universities that I really wanted to attend, because would they want me even with my status,” said Karen.
Fortunately, Karen was able to attend college and pursue her dream of working in education. She earned a private scholarship to attend the Deaf Education and Hearing Science program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
In 2012, Karen was able to become a DACA beneficiary and teach children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Karen is helping these students and their families communicate and achieve their own dreams.
“DACA made me find my voice and made me be able to live without fear. DACA made me visible, it has empowered me and made it possible for me to come out of the shadows and fight for myself and for the other 800,000-plus Dreamers,” said Karen. “We must defend DACA because, after living here for 26 years, I am here to stay.”
Selene Meza, Office and Professional Employees International Union member
Selene Meza is a DACA beneficiary serving on the front lines of the opioid epidemic as a chemical dependency professional in Bellingham, Washington. Selene arrived in the United States with her family when she was 13. As a young teenage she knew she did not have documents, but at that time she did not know what that meant.
In high school, Selene realized that she was at a disadvantage because she was undocumented. She could not work summer jobs like her friends, and she didn’t think she could go to college. Fortunately, Selene was able to attend community college and then transfer to a four year school to earn her bachelor’s in psychology. Selene was the first in her family to graduate from college.
While finishing college, Selene initially qualified for DACA. The work authorization Selene received through DACA meant that she could put her degree to use. Selene went to work at a community behavioral health clinic, where she still works today as an addiction treatment counselor. Selene helps people fighting addictions to heroin and works with patients’ families. She is a member of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 8.
As a DACA beneficiary, Selene has been able to contribute to her household, which includes her husband and two young children. The end of DACA without a legislative solution will not only pull an important resource away from the fight against the disease of addiction, but it will also make it difficult for Selene to provide for her family.
Esther Lee, Writers Guild of America, East member
Esther Lee is a ThinkProgress reporter, member of Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE), and has been a beneficiary of the DACA program since 2012. When Esther was two years old, she escaped domestic violence with her mother by coming to the United States from Taiwan. Esther spent her childhood in California.
After she graduated from high school, Esther was able to attend New York University. She paid for her education with money earned working, along with financial assistance from family.
Esther earned her DACA approval in 2012. Her work authorization from DACA meant that she could pursue her journalism career.
“Coming out of the shadows meant that I was able to get a job that didn’t leave me at the whim of my employers,” Esther notes.
For Esther, the stability provided by DACA has proved instrumental in getting her where she is today as a reporter with ThinkProgress.
With DACA’s end on the horizon, the DREAM Act is needed now more than ever. I strongly urge you to support the DREAM Act of 2017 without amendment to allow young professionals like Jose, Karen, Selene, and Esther to continue to contribute to the American economy.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
AEMI Letter on NAFTA Modernization
September 6, 2017
Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Dear Ambassador Lighthizer,
The Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE) is a coalition of national unions representing more than four million professional and technical workers. Included in DPE are 12 national unions that represent people who work in the arts, entertainment, and media industries. Our unions’ members are actors, craftspeople, choreographers, dancers, directors, musicians, stunt performers, instrumentalists, writers, singers, stage managers, and many other creative professionals.
We write to you with the understanding that the modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may include discussions about NAFTA’s copyright and intellectual property provisions. As our unions’ members depend on the sale of legitimate content to earn fair wages and benefits, we urge you to prioritize the protection and enforcement of copyright provisions in any such discussions.
In today’s internet era, creative content can be transmitted across borders at speeds and in quantities few could imagine when NAFTA was originally negotiated. Strong copyright protections appropriate for today’s digital age are needed to help ensure fair compensation for the professionals who imagine, develop, design, and give life to creative works that are responsible for over $1 trillion in annual economic activity and regularly generate a positive trade balance for the United States.
Any weakening of copyright protections for creative professionals in NAFTA modernization could upend the economic security of middle-class Americans who work in copyright-reliant industries. Stolen or otherwise illegitimate content undermines the value of creative professionals’ work and threatens their hard-won pay and benefits.
We therefore ask that you prioritize the protection and enforcement of copyright provisions in the modernization of NAFTA for our unions’ members, part of the 5.5 million people working in core copyright industries.
Sincerely,
Kate Shindle
President, Actors’ Equity Association
Ray Hair
International President, American Federation of Musicians
James Odom
President, American Guild of Musical Artists
Judy Little
Acting President, American Guild of Variety Artists
Paul E. Almeida
President, Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Thomas Schlamme
President, Directors Guild of America
Carlo Fiorletta
President, Guild of Italian American Artists
Matthew D. Loeb
International President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts
Lonnie R. Stephenson
International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Richard Lanigan
President, Office and Professional Employees International Union
Gabrielle Carteris
President, SAG-AFTRA
Pam MacKinnon
President, Stage Directors and Choreographers Society
Michael Winship
President, Writers Guild of America, East
Letter Opposing Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 986), Employee Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2775), Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 2776)
June 28, 2017
The Honorable Virginia Foxx, Chair
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, Ranking Member
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
2176 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chair Foxx and Ranking Member Scott,
On behalf of the 23 national unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I strongly urge you to oppose three anti-union bills that are coming before the Committee on Education and the Workforce this week. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 986), the Employee Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2775), and the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 2776) undermine the rights of professionals to come together in union and negotiate with employers over the terms and conditions of their employment. Over 6 million doctors, engineers, nurses, performers, professors, scientists, and other professionals have made the decision that collective bargaining is in their interest. The three bills described herein seek to legislate in areas where problems do not exist and attempt to weaken the ability of highly skilled professionals to make an objective determination that will address professional concerns and serve the best interests of their employers.
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 986)
DPE supports the principle of sovereignty for tribal governments, but the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act misconstrues this principle for the purpose of allowing low-road tribal employers the ability to use it as an excuse for denying employees their rights to engage in collective bargaining. The bill does so by stripping away the rights and protections provided by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) from a substantial number of people employed by tribal-owned-and-operated enterprises located on Indian land. To be clear, affected employees work for tribal employers that operate as ordinary businesses engaged in non-cultural commerce. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would also take away the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ability to balance carefully, on a case-by-case basis, tribal sovereignty with employees’ rights to engage in collective bargaining in instances where the two interests may conflict. The NLRB has a track record of exercising care and discretion in balancing these interests.
Employee Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2775)
The Employee Privacy Protection Act would create an even more one-sided union election process that favors employers by inhibiting the ability of union supporters to talk with employees prior to the actual union representation election. Currently, employers must provide employee contact information, including available telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, within two business days. The Employee Privacy Protection Act would allow employers to provide only one type of employee contact information and withhold it from the union until seven days after the NLRB rules on the appropriate bargaining unit. The bill therefore does not actually protect the privacy of employees, but rather adds another advantage for employers in union representation elections by limiting the contact information employers must provide unions and delaying when that contact information must be shared.
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 2776)
The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act would impose additional regulations that will unduly complicate and delay the union election process, thereby making it harder for employees to exercise their rights under the NLRA. The NLRB’s April 2015 election rules streamlined the union election process by requiring in most cases a hearing on an election petition within eight days. This bill would require the NLRB to wait at least two weeks before holding a pre-election hearing. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act would also mandate that no election could be held sooner than 35 days after the filing of an election petition.
The bill also overturns the standards established for determining appropriate bargaining units in the NLRB’s 2011 Specialty Healthcare decision. The proposed standard contained in the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act would encourage litigation and incentivize employer delay of union elections. By inviting delay, this bill undermines the rights of employees and creates needless inefficiencies that cost taxpayer money.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce should be making it easier for professionals to come together to negotiate terms and conditions of employment that fit their unique circumstances. The three bills under consideration by the committee this week do just the opposite, and for that reason DPE asks you to oppose them at Thursday’s markup.
With thanks for your time and consideration –
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
AEMI Letter with Employers Urging Full Funding for the NEA, NEH, and CBP
May 16, 2017
Dear Members of Congress,
We the undersigned organizations, representing employers and working professionals from across the arts and entertainment industry, write to express our united support for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). We urge Congress, at a minimum, to maintain current funding levels for all three institutions in FY 2018.
As members of the entertainment industry, we see firsthand how the American economy benefits from arts and cultural programming. The arts and entertainment industry contributes over $700 billion to the nation’s annual economic output, equivalent to 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and employs over four million people across all 50 states. Most people who work in our industry earn a living in family-supporting, middle class careers.
The NEA, NEH, and CPB play vital roles in ensuring that our industry remains an economic engine for the country, while guaranteeing that all Americans have access to the arts and creative, educational content. The NEA, NEH, and CPB support many of the jobs in our industry through direct funding and leveraged grants. In addition, the NEA, NEH, and CPB fund programs and performances that serve as crucial career development opportunities for people who want to work in our industry – particularly Americans who do not live near major cultural centers like Los Angeles and New York City. Our industry simply cannot guarantee that private funding alone will allow these important endeavors to continue.
The economic value of access to cultural and educational content is not limited to our industry. As the economic research firm The Conference Board reports, U.S. employers rank creativity in the top three personality traits important to career success. The NEA, NEH, and CPB help guarantee that Americans in every congressional district, particularly children, have the opportunity to explore and develop their creative instincts. Nurturing the next generation of creators and innovators is vital to ensuring the United States maintains a competent, competitive workforce.
Given the broad economic and societal benefits of the NEA, NEH, and CPB, it is all the more remarkable that the three agencies account for less than 0.02 percent of the federal budget. The NEA, NEH, and CPB are investments in taxpayers’ lives, and we urge Congress to fully fund the three agencies in FY 2018.
Sincerely,
Actors’ Equity Association
American Federation of Musicians
American Guild of Musical Artists
American Guild of Variety Artists
Atlanta Ballet
Ballet West
Broadway League
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Directors Guild of America
Guild of Italian American Artists
Houston Ballet
Houston Grand Opera
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
League of Resident Theatres
Metropolitan Opera
Motion Picture Association of America
New York City Ballet
New York City Opera
Off-Broadway League
Office and Professional Employees International Union
Recording Industry Association of America
SAG-AFTRA
San Francisco Opera
Stage Directors and Choreographers Society
Thirteen/WNET
Tulsa Ballet
WLIW
Writers Guild of America, East
AEMI Letter Urging Congress to Maintain Funding for the NEA, NEH, and CPB in FY 2018
March 31, 2017
Re: FY 2018 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Dear Members of Congress,
The Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE) is a coalition of national unions representing over 4 million professional and technical workers. Included in DPE are our 12 national unions that represent people who work in the arts, entertainment, and media industry. Our unions’ members are actors, broadcast journalists, craftspeople, creators, choreographers, directors, musicians, performers, instrumentalists, writers, singers, stage managers, stagehands, and many other professions.
While there is much in President Trump’s budget blueprint that concerns us, we write to address the proposed elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and privatization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
We urge Congress, at a minimum, to maintain current funding levels for all three institutions. Ending federal support for the NEA, NEH, or CPB would be a radical, unprecedented action that would harm everyday people, particularly individuals who live far from metropolitan cultural centers.
Through grants, seed money, and technical support, the NEA, NEH, and CPB ensure that Americans of all means, geographies, and abilities have access to artistic and educational content. NEA, NEH, and CPB-funded programs help veterans heal from the invisible scars of war, inspire the next generation of creators and innovators, and deliver content that unites people across small towns and big cities.
In nurturing an appreciation for cultural expression, the NEA, NEH, and CPB not only benefit society, but also bolster the economy. The nonprofit arts community supports over four million jobs in the arts and related industries, including jobs for many of our members. Public broadcasting stations put people to work in family-supporting jobs producing programming that can often be the only source of free, locally managed cultural content, especially in rural areas.
Private money cannot fully replace lost funding from the NEA, NEH, and CPB. Without continued funding for the NEA, NEH, and CPB, we expect the loss of good, middle-class jobs, with the most acute economic pain being felt far from the soundstages of Hollywood and bright lights of Broadway. The job losses will be in smaller, more rural communities that rely on NEA grants to support regional theater productions and CPB funding for the upkeep of satellite transmission equipment.
As organizational leaders, we understand that budgeting requires tough choices. However, we reject the notion that federal arts funding is a financial burden for working Americans. Rather, continued funding for the NEA, NEH, and CPB is an investment that helps our members earn a living and enrich the lives of everyday Americans.
For the reasons stated here, we ask that you support continued funding for the NEA, NEH, and CPB in the Fiscal Year 2018 federal budget.
Sincerely,
Kate Shindle
President, Actors’ Equity Association
Ray Hair
International President, American Federation of Musicians
James Odom
President, American Guild of Musical Artists
Judy Little
Acting President, American Guild of Variety Artists
Paul E. Almeida
President, Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Paris Barclay
President, Directors Guild of America
Carlo Fiorletta
President, Guild of Italian American Artists
Matthew D. Loeb
International President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts
Lonnie R. Stephenson
International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Richard Lanigan
President, Office and Professional Employees International Union
Gabrielle Carteris
President, SAG-AFTRA
Pam MacKinnon
President, Stage Directors and Choreographers Society
Michael Winship
President, Writers Guild of America, East
Letter Supporting the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2017, H.R. 1303
March 20, 2017
Dear Representative,
On behalf of the 23 national unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I urge you to support H.R. 1303, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2017. Recently introduced by Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), Dave Brat (R-VA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), this legislation offers commonsense reforms to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs that would ensure American workers get the first shot at available jobs and are protected from being laid off and replaced by cheaper, more exploitable guest workers. H.R. 1303 would also better protect guest workers from workplace abuse, while prioritizing visas for employers who pay above-average wages.
H.R. 1303 Establishes Critical, Baseline Protections for U.S. Workers
The current H-1B visa program lacks the basic requirements that Americans expect of a temporary employment visa program. Most employers wanting to hire H-1B guest workers are not required to first look for qualified Americans to fill available jobs. These companies are also free to fire U.S. workers and replace them with H-1B guest workers. (“H-1B Dependent Employers” – those companies where H-1B guest workers make up 15 percent or more of the payroll – must attest that they engaged in recruitment and did not displace American workers within 90 days of hiring H-1B guest workers. However, current law exempts H-1B dependent employers from these requirements if they pay an annual wage of $60,000 or hire an H-1B guest worker with a master’s or higher degree.)
The ability to bypass available U.S. workers made it possible for employers like Abbott Labs, Cargill, EverSource Energy, Harley Davidson, New York Life Insurance Company, Southern California Edison, the University of California, San Francisco, Walt Disney World, and many others to layoff their U.S. workers and replace them with cheaper, more exploitable H-1B guest workers. Often the H-1B guest workers hired to replace the U.S. workers are employed by outsourcing firms, but analysis of IRS payroll data indicates that American workers also get displaced when companies directly hire H-1B workers.
H.R. 1303 would require all employers to attest that they have first tried to recruit American workers for these available positions. The bill would also prohibit employers from replacing American workers with H-1B guest workers. At this point in the 115th Congress, H.R. 1303 is the only H-1B reform legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that includes these important protections for U.S. workers.
H.R. 1303 Puts a Stop to Outsourcing, Encourages Employers to Raise Wages
Current law also allows H-1B employers to pay guest workers below-average wages, enabling corporations to hire guest workers as cheaper substitutes for U.S. workers, rather than as equally or better-paid complements to them. A GAO analysis found that the majority of H-1B guest workers are hired into “entry level” positions that require only a “basic understanding of duties and perform routine tasks requiring limited judgement” and paid at the lowest allowable wage level, well below the average local occupational wage. The GAO also found that as many as 83 percent of approved FY 2010 Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) were for positions paying below the average local occupational wage. Additionally, the current method of allocating H-1B visas by random lottery incentivizes H-1B employers to pay below-average wages.
Outsourcing and offshoring companies have seized on the H-1B program to prop up their low-road business models, which rely on incumbent employees training their replacements via a “knowledge transfer” process. The outsourcing companies know that the law permits them to displace existing U.S. workers with H-1B workers paid below-average wages and limited in their ability to change jobs. In 2014, the top 10 H-1B employers were companies that specialize in shipping U.S. jobs overseas, mostly in the IT industry. Nearly one-third of the 85,000 cap-dependent H-1B visas in 2014 went to outsourcing companies. From 2005-2014, outsourcing companies hired over 170,000 H-1B workers – flooding the visa application process with far more petitions than that in order to obtain as many visas as possible. Rarely do these top users of the current H-1B visa program sponsor H-1B guest workers for lawful permanent residence in the United States, undermining the claim that the current program is used to keep the world’s “best and brightest” in the country.
H.R. 1303 would encourage H-1B employers to raise wages by requiring that H-1B guest workers be paid the highest of the locally-determined prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of employment, the median wage for all workers in the occupational classification in the area of employment, or the median wage for skill level 2 in the occupational classification found in the most recent Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey. The legislation would also prioritize higher-paying employers in the visa allocation process, making it harder for outsourcing companies to game the system. Additionally, H.R. 1303 would generally prohibit the outsourcing or leasing of H-1B workers to other employers.
H.R. 1303 Strengthens DOL Oversight and Enforcement of Workplace Protections
Currently the U.S. Department of Labor has limited ability to ensure that H-1B employers follow through on the attestations made during the petition process, including assurances about wages and non-displacement of existing employees. In the limited circumstances when DOL can initiate an investigation of H-1B employers, the agency must largely rely on the tips and testimony of H-1B guest workers. However, because employers control the H-1B visa, H-1B guest workers can lose their legal status to live and work in the United States if they are terminated by their employer. Thus H-1B workers are unlikely to speak up about poor working conditions or cooperate with authorities after a complaint is filed.
H.R. 1303 would ensure DOL has the funding and ability to protect the rights of U.S workers and H-1B guest workers, while also ensuring a level playing field for employers who play by the rules. The bill would authorize DOL to charge a reasonable fee for processing and adjudicating H-1B Labor Condition Applications. The money raised by the fees can be used only for costs associated with administering, overseeing, investigating, and enforcing the H-1B visa program. In addition, H.R. 1303 authorizes DOL to conduct random audits, enhancing the integrity of the attestation-based LCA system. The legislation would also increase fines for violations of H-1B program conditions, creating further incentive for employers to respect the workplace rights of Americans and H-1B guest workers.
H.R. 1303 Creates Much-Needed Worker Safeguards for L-1 Visa Program
The L-1 visa program allows multinational corporations to transfer certain employees to work in the United States. Similar to the more well-known H-1B visa, employers regularly use the L-1 visa to move good, American jobs to lower wage countries, and to replace U.S. workers with cheaper non U.S. citizens in the United States. For instance, the L-1 visa made it possible for Electronics for Imaging (EFI) to bring guest workers to Fremont, California, in order to work them 120 hours per week installing computers for $1.21 an hour.
H.R. 1303 would establish a minimum wage standard for the L-1 visa program, which currently lacks any wage standard. The bill would also prohibit employers from replacing American workers with L-1 workers, and improve anti-retaliation protections for L-1 guest workers. H.R. 1303 would also ensure that people seeking an L-1 visa to open a new U.S. office of an overseas company actually do so, and reform the current overly broad definition of “specialized knowledge” so that it reflects Congress’s original intent for a visa category reserved only for truly key employees.
In sum, DPE does not want to see the H-1B or L-1 programs eliminated, but they must be reformed to ensure that the program works for U.S. workers, highly skilled foreign workers, and employers. We believe H.R. 1303 offers the necessary policy fixes for achieving real reform.
If you have any questions, please contact DPE Legislative and Outreach Director, Michael Wasser at (202) 638-0320 x.119.
With thanks for your time and consideration –
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
Letter Opposing the Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency (PAGE) Act,
January 11, 2017
Re: The Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency (PAGE) Act
Dear Representative,
I understand that Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) is seeking co-sponsors for his so-called Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency (PAGE) Act. The PAGE Act would allow for the type of patronage and politically-motivated employment practices that undermine the professional integrity of federal employees, thereby doing exactly opposite of what the bill title promises. On behalf of the 22 national and international unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I ask that you not cosponsor the PAGE Act and instead oppose the bill and any provisions from the bill that may be used as amendments to other legislation.
The PAGE Act’s provisions would make federal employees beholden to politicians and their agency bosses, not the American people. The bill would eliminate civil service protections for new federal employees, throwing out a decades-old safeguard that ensures federal employees carry out their work in the public’s best interest. The bill would also enable agency bosses to impose immediate economic harm on federal employees through suspensions without pay, a coercive tool that can be used by rogue supervisors who want to stop subordinates from blowing the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal bureaucracy. The PAGE Act would also curtail employees’ appeal rights, encouraging coercive, self-serving management, while at the same time making it harder for falsely accused employees to clear their name.
DPE is also concerned that the PAGE Act would eliminate the use of official time for representational duties. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 permits management and labor to bargain official time arrangements to the mutual benefit of both sides. In federal agencies where management and labor have exercised this right, union representatives use official time to meet statutory representational requirements; advocate on behalf of colleagues for improved workplace conditions; protect the due process rights of individuals from capricious and arbitrary discipline; and make sure federal employees can communicate unfiltered concerns, information, and observations to Congressional committees in an effort to aid the committees’ oversight of Executive Branch activities. Union representatives do not use official time for union business or political activities, because current law already prohibits such actions. In addition, unions representing federal employees are legally bound to represent non- dues paying bargaining unit members at no additional cost to these employees.
The federal government employs nearly 1.9 million professionals – from accountants to nurses, engineers to scientists – all who are entrusted with carrying out their work for the benefit of Americans. If these women and men are going to succeed in doing so, it is vital that Congress ensures federal employees are allowed to work in an environment free of undue political influence. The PAGE Act would dismantle the very protections that guard against such partisan meddling. I respectfully ask that you oppose the bill.
With thanks for your time and consideration –
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
Letter to UC President Janet Napolitano on UCSF IT Outsourcing
January 10, 2017
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
President, University of California
Office of the President
University of California
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Dear Ms. Napolitano,
News reports suggest that the University of California intends to outsource substantial IT work to HCL Technologies (“HCL”) through a $50 million contract that is being implemented at the University of California’s San Francisco (“UCSF”) campus and applicable to the entire university system.[1] On behalf of the 22 national and international unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I strongly urge you to rescind the university’s apparent decision to layoff 79 employees at UCSF and replace them with HCL employees in India.
The university’s arrangement with HCL violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law governing the H-1B visa program. As I believe you are aware from your time as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Congress intended the H-1B visa program to allow employers to hire guest workers when there are not enough American workers to fill available jobs.[2] The H-1B program was never meant as a way for employers to replace U.S. workers with cheaper workers in the United States or abroad[3] – which is exactly what the University of California appears to be doing in this instance.
I am also disturbed by the fact that the University of California believes laying-off hardworking Californians in favor of cheaper, more exploitable guest workers is consistent with its public mission. The women and men who will lose their jobs in February not only answered the call to pursue STEM careers, they chose a life of public service. In exchange for decades of dedication to the university, they are set to receive termination notices and a future filled with economic uncertainty.
DPE does not oppose the existence of the H-1B visa program, but we are compelled to speak up when employers use it to displace U.S. workers for the sake of cost savings, like what is happening at UCSF. Fortunately, it appears there is still time for you to right this wrong by stopping the impending layoffs of 79 IT professionals. We urge you to do so.
With thanks for your time and consideration –
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
[1] Patrick Thibodeau, “University of California hires India-based IT outsourcer, lays off tech workers,” ComputerWorld, September 7, 2016.
[2] Louis Hanson. “After pink slips, UCSF workers train their foreign replacements,” The Mercury News, November 3, 2016.
[3] Ellen Wasem, “H-1B Visas: Legislative History, Trends over Time, and Pathways to Permanent Residence,” Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2006.
Letter Opposing Protect and Grow American Jobs Act, H.R. 170
January 5, 2017
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Re: Protect and Grow American Jobs Act (H.R. 170)
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:
On behalf of the 22 national and international unions in the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I strongly urge you to oppose the Protect and Grow American Jobs Act (H.R. 170.) This bill, which raises the annual wage rate companies can pay to be exempt from the “H-1B dependent” status, does not provide the reforms to the H-1B visa program that are needed to protect U.S. workers and temporary guest workers.
H.R. 170 Will Not Stop the Displacement of U.S. Workers
Misuse of the H-1B program occurs particularly in computer and engineering occupations where the majority of skilled guest workers are employed. Tech jobs already often pay near or more than $100,000 per year before including traditional benefits like health care and retirement. The case of Southern California Edison proves instructive. In 2015, Southern California Edison laid off 400 employees in its IT department, replacing them with H-1B beneficiaries employed by outsourcing firms.[1] According to a compensation survey commissioned by Southern California Edison, the laid off workers earned an average base pay of $110,466 per year.[2] Southern California Edison workers, and many like them across the country, would still likely have lost their jobs without any recourse if H.R. 170 was law.
Even in areas of the country where computer and engineering base salaries are less than $100,000 per year, the inherently coercive nature of the H-1B program means that employers have an economic incentive to replace U.S. workers with H-1B beneficiaries. An H-1B beneficiary cannot easily change jobs. And since employers control their visas and, therefore, their ability to live and work in the United States, H-1B beneficiaries are unlikely to speak up about poor working conditions or cooperate with authorities after a complaint has been filed.[3] Thus, employers can work H-1B beneficiaries for longer hours and in worse conditions than a U.S. worker, realizing even greater cost savings along the way.
Real Reforms Needed to Fix the H-1B Visa Program
The H-1B visa program, along with our other high-skilled guest worker visa programs are clearly broken and must be reformed. The current system is easily manipulated by “H-1B dependent” and non-H-1B dependent employers alike, harming workers across industries and national boundaries. Unfortunately, H.R. 170 will not stop this manipulation.
DPE supports making the following five reforms to all skilled guest worker programs (H-1B, L-1, B-1 in lieu of H-1B, and OPT), which would ensure that skilled guest workers are used to complement, rather than displace U.S. workers. If there is a shortage of qualified U.S. workers and employers are already paying market wages as many claim, then employers should not fear these reforms. DPE recommends:
1) An increase in the prevailing wage standard for guest workers to the 75th percentile of the prevailing U.S. wage, so that employers do not have an incentive to hire temporary guest workers. Higher wages would also create an incentive for employers to invest in training U.S. workers;
2) Evidence of a labor shortage before employers are authorized to seek guest workers;
3) Requiring all employers to advertise and offer jobs to U.S. workers who are equally or better qualified than the temporary guest worker sought;
4) Allowing guest workers to self-petition for green cards after two years of employment; and
5) Regular audits of top skilled guest worker visa users to ensure compliance with the above provisions.
Finally, the lack of data on these guest worker programs allows employers to evade scrutiny. The public should be provided with all available data, including how many guest workers are in the country, occupation and employer information, and how much they are actually being paid.
With thanks for your time and consideration –
Sincerely,
Paul E. Almeida
President
[1] Patrick Thibodeau. “Southern California Edison IT workers ‘beyond furious’ over H-1B replacements.” ComputerWorld, February 4, 2015.
[2] Ron Hira. “New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program.” Economic Policy Institute, February 19, 2015.
[3] United States Government Accountability Office. H-1B Visa Program: Reforms are Needed to Minimize the Risks and Costs of Current Program, GAO-11-26. January 2011.