Tweet

(((Greg Siskind)))

9 Oct, 10 tweets, 5 min read

@USDOL

Some very helpful Twitter followers have pointed out something very odd about the new DOL wage data. Would be very interested in @USDOL explaining. 1

@USDOL

@USDOL My app kept coming up with figures that were wildly different than the new DOL data. I know the tool is not precise, but it should be pretty close. In every case, my converter was showing the new wages to be much lower than what the flcdatacenter.com new wage levels show. 2

@USDOL

@USDOL What did I get wrong? Well, maybe the underlying data changed. The wages rose between July and October. Possible, but seemed odd given the low wage inflation we're seeing. 3

@USDOL

@USDOL I knew something was weird when I heard from a university immigration administrator this morning who was freaked out by the new wages for postdocs in their metro. We did our calculation on what we thought the wages should convert to and they were way lower. 4

@USDOL

@USDOL In fact, this university is the main employer for this particular type of occupation in the area. So they effectively set the wage. And their wages had not changed much. So how could the underlying wage range had changed so much? 5

@USDOL

@USDOL Then someone pointed out an easy way to see if the data set is the same and hasn't increased. I felt like an idiot for not noticing. The mean wage is shown below the 4 wage levels. I never pay attention because this is relevant for H-2B cases and I don't do that many of those. 6

@USDOL

@USDOL If the mean wages don't change a penny, then the wage data set should be the same. That being the case, there is a very easy way to tell there's a problem. Old Level 4 is at the 67th percentile. New Level 2 is at the 62nd percentile. 7

@USDOL

@USDOL If the underlying wage data is the same, new Level 2 should never be higher than old Level 4. But over and over, that's what I'm seeing. Here is a random example. Mean wage the same. Old level 4 is $90K. New level 2 is $100K. Why?

@USDOL

@USDOL What am I missing? I am perfectly happy to accept that I'm missing something. But this is the case for nearly every wage I checked. Over and over. 10 (sorry I forgot to keep numbering).

@USDOL

@USDOL I have my suspicion. In the rule, DOL said they believed H-1Bs being included in the data set means the wage is suppressed (with no evidence this is true). Are they applying a multiple to "fix this? Anyway, that's the end of the thread for now. We're checking. 11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @gsiskind

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

10 Oct

I learned today about a disturbing side effect of the new DOL H-1B wage rules. And it could have a dramatic effect on the American health care system I hadn't previously considered. 1

Because physician salaries are now so elevated under the new rule, DOL has shifted to a national default wage for all H-1B doctors and those seeking green cards - $208,000 per year. All specialties. All geographic areas. Doesn't matter if you're right out of med school or not. 2

This plays out in some crazy ways. Medical residents for example. In teaching hospitals across the country, residents are typically paid $50K to $70K per year. The new reg requires they be paid $208K. 3

Read 10 tweets

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

6 Oct

DOL is justifying publishing with no notice and comment and with immediate effective date is because there would be a massive rush to file to beat the new wages from coming into effect. Of course, the H-1B lottery is in March. So most employers couldn't game it. Just BS. 16

@NFAP

DOL believes it meets the APA’s notice and comment and effective date requirements because of the national economic emergency. But Trump said we're in a V-shaped recovery. And @NFAP data shows IT unemployment has been unaffected by COVID. 17

@nfap

@nfap The government just made these same arguments in NAM v DHS to stop the nonimmigrant bans and a judge laughed them out of court. 18

Read 5 tweets

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

6 Oct

First, this is a final rule being issued without any opportunity for the public to comment. It is also effective immediately. It also didn't go through review with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs which is normally required. This fails rulemaking 101. 2

[Well I already screwed up making this a proper thread. Oh well, not starting over]

It takes 157 pages of citing biased sources and jumping to very faulty logical conclusions to do something I'm going to summarize in a couple of tweets. 3

Current wage levels:

Level 1 - 17th percentile
Level 2 - 34th percentile
Level 3 - 50th percentile
Level 4 - 67th percentile

Level 1 is an entry level job. For example, a doctor just out of residency training or an accountant just out of a bachelors program. 4

Read 13 tweets

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

22 Sep

OK, the hearing is over on the DV cases. Here's what I can report. 1

The judge spent the first part of the hearing trying to get a handle on just how many diversity visas have been issued since his order on 9/5 when he told the government to issue visas expeditiously first to plaintiffs and then everyone else. 2

@ckuck

He had been operating under the impression that half of the visas have been issued to the plaintiffs based on the way the govt presented the information. @ckuck clarified to the judge that he’s not considering family members so real number is more like 1/4. 3

Read 10 tweets

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

22 Sep

The government has filed their report in the DV case. They are saying that 122 diversity visas have been issued to plaintiffs and 1009 in total. That’s only a fraction of the named plaintiffs and there about 45K are waiting on visas all together. Not a serious effort here.

There are 425 named plaintiffs. The government says all but five have been interviewed or scheduled for interviews (we believe most have not actually been interviewed). The govt says 128 people have been denied for reasons unrelated to the proclamations. That’s very suspicious.

Want to bet they are for lacking documents that they would have had plenty of time to provide or correct had these applications been adjudicated when they were supposed to have been?

Read 8 tweets

(((Greg Siskind)))

@gsiskind

22 Sep

The Department of Justice is proposing a regulation that will make it even harder to file for political asylum. Here’s my quick rundown of what the rule intends to do. 1

The rule applies to individuals who are in immigration proceedings in front of an immigration judge. The rule is getting a lot of criticism and I’ll retweet some of those in a bit. But here’s roughly what it does. 2

Adds a 15-day deadline from the date of the alien’s first hearing to file an application for asylum or withholding of removal if the person is in an asylum or withholding of removal process. Extensions for good cause are permitted. 3

Read 10 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!