Equal Pay
H-1B visa holders suffer by not receiving the prevailing wage.
October 31, 2007 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Some of the most profitable companies in today's economy are in the tech industry. You wouldn't know that, though, by looking at the salaries of the employees who have helped make these companies so successful–H-1B visa holders. The H-1B visa program permits employers to temporarily hire non-immigrants–many of whom are from China or India–to fill specialized jobs, mostly in the IT sector.
A survey the Center for Immigration Studies conducted in 2005 revealed that H-1B workers are overwhelmingly concentrated at the bottom of the U.S. pay scale and a significant number of these workers earn less than the prevailing wage employers claim. In fact many earn $13,000 less than Americans in the same position and geographic location.
There are many reasons for this pay disparity, the first being that employers often use the incorrect pay rate by relying on unreliable sources–like the employer's own surveys, salary-related Web sites and classified sections of trade publications–to determine the prevailing wage. Moreover, when using the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Employment Statistics to determine the prevailing wage, employers often underestimate the job level of the position they are trying to fill or choose the incorrect match for the job.
The DOL contributes to this problem by not scrutinizing the prevailing wage rate the employer lists in its application. The employer often assumes it has passed the prevailing wage test when the DOL approves the H-1B application. In too many instances this is not the case, and as a result, H-1B workers are not paid their worth.
Ironically, the DOL, which just approved the H-1B application, can then turn around and fine a company for failing to pay the prevailing wage. Once that Pandora's box opens, the corporation could be forced to pay back wage awards (which can range into the millions of dollars), civil penalties and interest. It also would face sanctions such as debarment from participating in the H-1B visa program as well as possible exposure to national origin and citizenship status discrimination claims.
To fix the problem, the Department of Labor and corporations must work collaboratively to ensure H-1B workers are adequately compensated. During the application stage, for instance, employers should consult the State Workforce Agency (SWA) that has jurisdiction over the geographic area of intended employment.
The SWA has a form that allows an employer to submit information about the job at issue, which the SWA will review before making an assessment and issuing a salary determination.
In addition, employers must have a process in place to ensure consistency in hiring and administering terms and conditions of employment for all employees. This process includes reviewing job descriptions, evaluating job classifications, monitoring compensation and ensuring equal pay for people with similar credentials performing the same work.
Furthermore, the DOL must take a more hands-on approach in assessing the employer's cited prevailing wage during the application process. This would require the DOL to cross-check the prevailing wage with the going rate in the job's geographic location. Such a procedure must be more efficient than rubber stamping the salary range and then waiting for H-1B or American workers to lodge a complaint (through ESA Form WH-4) about an employer's alleged violations of wages, benefits and working conditions.
When employers put procedures in place that eliminate pay inequity, they reduce the risks of penalties and litigation and ease the financial suffering of H-1B workers. And when corporations pay H-1B workers the prevailing wage, they create a more productive work force that can give them a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Laurie N. Robinson is an assistant general counsel for CBS Broadcasting Inc., director of CBS Training and Development and founder and CEO of Corporate Counsel Women of Color.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250