What has not garnered as much attention as the Starbucks and other prominent unionization efforts is the effort to strip from employers one of their most effective tools in countering union efforts to organize: mandatory employee meetings where employers can address and rebut the kinds of sweeping promises common to a union sales pitch.
In the midst of an organizing campaign, and particularly so in the days leading up to a union election, employers have long used meetings with employees as an opportunity to communicate their views on unionization and share their position on the upcoming vote. And for good reason — such meetings are one of the most effective tools to respond to promises unions make to employees and educate workers on the fact that unions have the legal right to make all sorts of promises about things they know they cannot guarantee, while employers are constrained by law from making almost any promises to employees.
These meetings are also very important mechanisms to share information that most unions prefer to avoid discussing — like mandatory dues, how long first contract negotiations can take, the potential for union decertification, and a union’s ability to call employees out on strike and punish them if employees will not toe the picket line. Much like with meetings to discuss other topics such as safety concerns or policy changes, employers often make attendance at such meetings mandatory and compensate employees for their time at such meetings because their attendance is a job expectation.
Given the effectiveness of such meetings, if you’re a cynic like me, then perhaps it does not surprise you that political forces favoring unions want to prevent employers from conducting them. In April 2022, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo announcing that she intended to push the NLRB to make legal rulings finding that employer mandatory meetings covering union-related and labor relations matters violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Such rulings would be an explicit reversal of NLRB decisions dating back to 1948 taking the position that employers do not violate the NLRA by requiring employees to attend meetings where the employer shares its messages regarding unionization. However, notwithstanding the General Counsel’s request, the NLRB has yet to reverse these decisions, and last week’s presidential election results certainly suggest the policy pendulum at the NLRB is likely to soon swing in the other direction.
But the current political winds at the federal level will not stop all momentum to prevent employers from using employee meetings to combat against the lofty promises unions make and communicate information they want to make sure is available to employees. Several “blue” states — California, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, and Washington — have all passed laws in the last year making employer captive audience meetings illegal, joining Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon, which already had similar laws on the books. Alaska voters appear to have also adopted such a law in their state. If last week’s election results suggest anything, it may be that, in anticipation of a federal about-face in the organized labor arena, more states will try to take matters into their own hands and consider additional bans on these types of meetings.
The legality of such state laws is not without question. While Oregon’s law — the first of its kind and passed in 2010 — survived a legal preemption challenge, the argument remains that the NLRA preempts such laws as an impermissible intrusion on federal labor policy and employer rights preserved by federal law. With the reshaping of the federal courts in recent years, we can reasonably expect someone will attempt another NLRA preemption challenge, hoping to land before a federal judge or court more likely to be sympathetic to the argument. There is also a compelling argument that such state laws infringe employer First Amendment rights, particularly given that they target a particular speaker and a particular message, while not banning mandatory meetings to discuss things like safety or company updates. Such state action is therefore not content- or viewpoint-neutral, as required by most types of First Amendment analysis. To that end, the Illinois Policy Institute is making this First Amendment argument in a lawsuit it recently filed asking a federal court in Chicago to block the Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act from going into effect on January 1, 2025. How the Chicago federal court rules in that case may have wide-ranging implications for the other states’ statutes and the future of efforts to ban captive audience meetings.
As labor relations policy is sure to continue evolving in the coming years, employers should stay aware for now of the developing captive audience landscape, particularly if they face union activity in a state with a current ban on employer meetings of the type described in this article. Employers in such states can still hold meetings to discuss their message regarding unionization and make attendance at them voluntary — and should absolutely do so if faced with a union campaign.
Employers are running out of time to comply with the FTC’s purported regulatory ban on non-competition agreements. The ban – announced on April 23, 2024 – is scheduled to take effect on September 4. 2024.
By that date, the regulation requires that employers notify all employees subject to noncompetes that the agreements will no longer be enforced. The only exceptions are existing agreements with “senior executives” who made at least $151,164 in the preceding year; these agreements are grandfathered. See our earlier alerts from April 23, May 14, and July 8 for further discussion on developments relating to the ban.
So Far, No Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Ban
As previously reported, a federal court in Dallas issued a preliminary injunction against the regulation on July 3, 2024. The injunction, however, only affects the parties to the lawsuit and the district in which the lawsuit was brought. When she issued that preliminary injunction, Judge Ada Brown committed to rendering a final decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction by August 30,2024.
However, she specifically declined to give her preliminary injunction nationwide effect. In its motion in support of a permanent injunction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other parties are arguing that the court is required to vacate the rule, with nationwide effect, because it was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. We cannot predict whether she will do so.
Meanwhile, since the July ruling in Texas, two other federal courts have issued rulings on requests to enjoin the ban, one in Philadelphia in favor of the FTC by denying an injunction, and the other in central Florida in favor of the employer by granting one. As with the Texas case, the Florida injunction is not nationwide. Moreover, that judge has not yet issued an opinion, so we do not yet know his rationale for the injunction.
Now What?
Where does this leave employers? In the absence of a ruling invalidating the FTC ban nationwide, there is nothing to prevent the FTC from enforcing its ban beginning September 4 anywhere outside of Dallas and mid-Florida. As far as we know, only the Northern District of Texas is able to order such a ban when it issues its final decision on or before August 30.
Even though, based on her initial ruling, it is quite likely Judge Brown will enjoin the regulation permanently, it is unclear whether she will take the additional step of giving her injunction nationwide effect.
To comply with the regulation, employers should prepare to act by September 4. We recommend creating a list of all current and former “workers” (defined as any service providers regardless of classification) subject to noncompete agreements and a written communication that meets the regulation’s notice requirements.
Unless a new order appears enjoining enforcement of the ban nationwide before September 4, employers will need to send out that communication in order to be in compliance. The requirements for sending the notice include identifying the “person who entered into the noncompete clause with the worker by name” (we don’t know if this means the individual or the entity) and hand delivering or mailing the notice to the worker’s last known mailing address, or to the last known email address or mobile phone number (by text). The full text of the rule, including a model communication from the FTC, can be found at pages 3850-06 of the May 7, 2024, Federal Register.
In July 2024, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule” or “Rule”) aimed at regulating and mitigating heat-related hazards in the workplace. If enacted, the long-anticipated Rule will have far-reaching impacts on businesses with employees who work in warm climates or who are otherwise exposed to heat-related hazards.
According to OSHA, out of all hazardous weather conditions, heat is the leading cause of death in the U.S. The Proposed Rule seeks to protect employees from hazards associated with high heat in the workplace and would apply to both indoor and outdoor work settings. Among other requirements, the Proposed Rule would mandate that employers evaluate heat-related workplace hazards and implement a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP) to address heat hazards through methods which include rest breaks, shade requirements, the provision of drinking water, acclimatization procedures, heat monitoring, and other tactics to protect workers. The proposed HIIPP requirement takes cues from state-level occupational safety and health agencies — like Cal/OSHA (California) and Oregon OSHA — which have already implemented heat safety and HIIPP requirements.
One provision of the Proposed Rule that has garnered significant attention is the paid rest break provision. As currently drafted, the Proposed Rule would require employers to provide one paid15-minute rest break every two hours on days where the heat index reaches 90° F or higher. The paid rest break provision implicates questions about the concurrent application of the Fair Labor Standards Act. For example, does this 15-minute break period count toward an employee’s “hours worked” for the purposes of calculating overtime?
Moreover, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo— in which the court overturned the longstanding principle of deference to agency interpretations previously set out under the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case — significant questions remain about whether far-reaching mandates (like the paid rest break provision) are within OSHA’s authority. Given this new administrative landscape, if the Proposed Rule is enacted, we can expect challenges stemming from Loper Bright.
The Proposed Rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. However, when such publication occurs, the Rule will be open to commentary from the public before becoming final. When OSHA announced the Proposed Rule, it simultaneously “encourage[d] the public to participate by submitting comments when the proposed standard is officially published in the Federal Register[,]” in order to “develop a final rule that adequately protects workers, is feasible for employers, and is based on the best available evidence.”
The passage of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) in 2022 resulted in the most significant changes to the EB-5 investor immigrant visa program since its establishment in 1990. Among the most notable changes implemented through the RIA was the creation of new “set aside” visa categories for EB-5 investors. These set-aside categories allocate a certain amount of the 10,000 EB-5 immigrant visas available each year to investments in certain areas or projects, which include:
20% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a rural area;
10% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a ‘targeted employment area’ (TEA), which meets the requirements that apply to areas of high unemployment (unemployment rate of at least 150% of the U.S. national average); and
2% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects.[1]
Additionally, the RIA allows for the concurrent filing of the investor immigrant visa petition on Form I-526E and adjustment of status (AOS) filing on Form I-485 for those present in the U.S.[2] While certain types of EB-5 investments filed prior to the passage of the RIA remain subject to visa bulletin backlogs, which particularly impact petitioners and dependent family members born in countries with the highest demand for immigrant visas (e.g., mainland China and India), the Visa Bulletin has not yet announced a visa backlog for any of the set aside categories established by the RIA.
With the establishment of the set-aside categories, the availability of EB-5 immigrant visas is now subject to multiple factors, in addition to country of birth, under the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin, which dictates an applicant’s ability to apply for an immigrant visa or concurrent AOS (if in the U.S.) based on per-country limitations released monthly by the Department of State (DOS).[3] As the visa bulletin is based on visas approved visa petitions and the petitioners’ countries of birth (as opposed to petitions filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and currently in process), investors understandably are faced with a level of uncertainty when strategizing the timing of their investments and associated petition filings. This is due to the uncertain nature of the continued availability of immigrant visas, which can retrogress with little notice based on the DOS’ contemporaneous issuance of immigrant visas under the EB-5 program. This post will outline data and strategies available to investors to clarify questions related to potential changes to the visa bulletin that may impact EB-5 immigrant visa availability in the coming months. As the progression of the Visa Bulletin is subject to internal data shared between USCIS and the DOS, as well as the DOS’ internal visa issuance metrics, some level of obscurity and uncertainty should be accounted for when planning for immigrant visa petition filing, but the below is meant to help address and account for these inherent uncertainties.
Background on the Visa Bulletin
In connection with the U.S. government’s policy imperative to encourage a diverse pool of immigrants to the U.S., family- and employment-based immigrant visas are subject to a specific allocation of available visas every federal fiscal year. A total of approximately 140,000 immigrant visas are available every fiscal year for employment-based immigrant visas, including the EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, and EB-5 immigrant visa categories. Of the total of 140,000 immigrant visas available annually, approximately 10,000 are allocated to the EB-5 investor visa program, which are also subject to the below per-country visa quotas.
To that end, no one country (based on the applicant’s country of birth) can be allocated more than approximately 7.1% of all available immigrant visas.[4] Importantly, the DOS recently revised its interpretation of the statutory language on the 7.1% per country limit to clarify that it applies in any preference only if a country’s use of visas exceeds 7.1% of all employment-based preferences together.[5] For example, the 7.1% per country limit for Vietnam will only start in the EB-5 category if Vietnam were to reach the 7.1% limit for the overall 140,000 employment-based visas available. In the past, investors born in Vietnam and Taiwan also have been high users of EB-5 visas; however, with this new interpretation by DOS, they will likely never be subject to a per-country limitation for EB-5 again given that these countries generally have never reached 7.1% of the overall 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas.
The above only tells part of the story on immigrant visa allocation. This is because in addition to the total of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas allocated yearly to all countries, unused visa numbers from prior fiscal years (i.e. immigrant visas that are available to those born in under-subscribed countries, but not utilized) roll over for use by applicants of over-subscribed countries according to priority date and availability within the immigrant visa preference category.[6] Moreover, unused family-based immigrant visas may also be utilized to address excess demand in employment-based categories.[7] While the specific number of unused immigrant visas varies considerably year to year, there tends be some available unused family-based visa numbers from under-subscribed categories each federal fiscal year based on the most recent data made available by USCIS and DOS.[8] Additionally, unused EB-5 numbers from the unreserved ‘general pool’ of EB-5 immigrant visas available yearly (based on worldwide applicant demand), are reallocated to over-subscribed EB-5 categories, including the above-referenced EB-5 set-aside categories created post-RIA implementation.[9]
EB-5 Investor Immigrant Program Data
With the dynamic nature of the immigrant visa allocation process in mind, there is no simple, readily available formula that can help predict the numbers of EB-5 immigrant visas that may be available in a given fiscal year, nor one that can precisely predict how soon retrogression may impact the EB-5 program, particularly in connection with I-526E petitions filed by investors born in traditionally high-demand countries, like China and India. This process is made difficult because USCIS and the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) have not released important statistics to the public that would allow investors to accurately predict how long of a backlog may form in the various set-aside categories. However, we do have some data.
To solve for the lack of government-released data, stakeholders have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that provide more nuanced data on the government’s current processing volumes. Notably, recent data disclosures made available through FOIA requests found a significant increase in demand for the rural set-aside category, but demand remains “below the needed level to absorb the near-term annual visa supply.” The data released also showed that demand for high unemployment TEA set-aside continued to increase through the end of 2023, which may result in a backlog for that specific set-aside category.[10] As expected, demand remains particularly high for immigrant applicants born in mainland China; the below chart published in connection with the data disclosed pursuant to FOIA provides further insight on the processing volumes:
TOTAL NUMBER OF I-526/I-526E FILED FROM APRIL 1, 2022,TO NOVEMBER 2023, BY TEA CATEGORY AND COUNTRY OF CHARGEABILITY (LATEST STATS AS PER AIIA FOIA DATA)[11]
China
India
Taiwan
Rest of World
Total
Total %
Rural
767
174
18
134
1,093
32%
High unemployment
976
375
209
625
2,185
63%
Infrastructure
0%
Multiple TEA categories
7
3
5
16
0.5%
Not TEA
26
21
6
97
150
4%
Total
1,776
573
233
861
3,444
100%
Total %
52%
17%
7%
25%
100%
While the data above is subject to change and specifically reflects government filings through November 2023, and spanning multiple federal fiscal years (2022-23), it shows that about two times as many high unemployment set-aside I-526E Petitions were filed as compared to rural area set-aside I-526E Petitions. However, in June 2024, USCIS also released their January to March 2024 form data, which revealed that an additional 1,810 I-526E Petitions had been filed with USCIS over that three-month period, leaving 3,672 I-526E Petitions pending as of March 31, 2024.[12]
Importantly, the quarterly USCIS data shows a huge number of new I-526E Petitions were filed during Q2 2024. Half of all I-526E Petitions pending as of the date of this blog were filed just in Q2 of 2024. USCIS has not released any statistics to show the breakdown of I-526E Petitions filed in the high unemployment or rural area set aside categories. Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders and projects seems to show a strong uptick in the demand for rural area projects, and it is possible that many of these new I-526E Petitions were for rural area set-aside visa numbers. More data from USCIS will be required on this point to give investors a more accurate picture on visa wait times in both rural area and high unemployment set-aside projects.
Moreover, the USCIS Q2 2024 data shows that the agency only completed review of 356 I-526E Petitions this fiscal year. The statistics do not break down completions by approvals or denials. Given the small number of case completions during this fiscal year, no visa retrogression has been announced in the Visa Bulletin because an insufficient number of I-526E Petitions have been approved to necessitate announcement of retrogression for any country.
In fact, at a recent conference, the DOS indicated that there is a record amount of EB-5 visas available for this year and predicted again for next year. Specifically, DOS is predicting that there are more than 14,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 8,000 set-aside visas available in FY 2024, and that there will be more than 11,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 6,800 set-aside visas available in FY 2025. Together, that is more than 14,800 set-aside visas over this fiscal year and next, split between rural and high unemployment according to their percentages. This would mean approximately 9,800 rural visas and 4,900 high unemployment EB-5 visas are available over this fiscal year and next, with additional high numbers remaining available in the unreserved EB-5 category. Even assuming that each petitioner also brought two dependent applicants with them to the U.S., the sheer number of EB-5 visas available in these categories over this year and next would provide many immigrant visa numbers for applicants and their dependents in both set-aside categories, and drastic retrogression wait times are not yet predicted.
Additionally, note that the data provided reflects raw numbers of petition filings and does not take into account potential roll overs of additional unused immigrant visas, as noted above. In addition, applicants born in under-subscribed countries, like Vietnam and Taiwan, with robust demand for EB-5 immigrant visas that may qualify for the set-aside category, still have the option to choose to process under the general pool of unreserved EB-5 visa numbers, thereby freeing up additional availability under the reserved high-unemployment and rural TEA set-aside categories for individuals born in mainland China. This selection is typically made at the time that the National Visa Center (NVC) processes the immigrant visa application for applicants based outside of the U.S.
Key Takeaways
There are a record number of EB-5 visas available to applicants in both the high unemployment and rural area set-aside categories in FY 2024 and FY 2025. While stakeholders need more data from USCIS on the breakdowns of pending I-526E Petitions between the high unemployment and rural set-aside categories, there is a record number of visas available and extensive backlogs are not expected to occur like those experienced by pre-RIA I-526 Petitions.
File the I-526E Petition and associated AOS applications concurrently if possible. Although visa numbers remain available in the set-aside categories even for traditionally high-demand countries, the dynamics associated with the DOS Visa bulletin may result in retrogression with little notice. Filing concurrently where eligible can provide multiple benefits in the event of retrogression, including:a. Locking in dependent child’s age under chart A or chart B of the DOS Visa Bulletin, which under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) allows for a tolling of age progression while the petition is in process and based on the unavailability of a visa number; and
b. Obtaining short-term U.S. immigration benefits that allow for work (employment authorization document (EAD)) and travel (advance parole (AP)) while the USICS processes the AOS filing.
Individuals born in under-subscribed countries with qualifying investments in rural or high-unemployment TEAs should consider opting for processing under the general unreserved pool where possible. This would allow for use of additional reserved immigrant visas in the set-aside categories by those born in countries with higher demand for EB-5 immigrant visas, such as China and, potentially, India.
Monitor visa bulletin progression and available government data. It will remain important to continue monitoring Visa Bulletin releases and planning for potential retrogression. As noted above, while the set-aside categories created under the RIA remain broadly available for immigrant visas and concurrent AOS processing, conditions may change with little notice as the government processes its backlog of filed EB-5 petitions or if USCIS speeds up its processing of I-526E Petitions.
[8] See, e.g., “Employment-Based Adjustment of Status FAQs,” USCIS, May 20, 2024 (“DOS determined that the FY 2023 employment-based annual limit was 197,091, due to unused family-based visa numbers from FY 2022 being added to the employment-based limit for FY 2023. In addition, 6,396 EB-5 visas carried over from FY 2022 to FY 2023 in the reserved subcategories.”)
The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime pay of at least 1.5 times an employee’s standard pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, “white collar” and “highly compensated” employees are exempt from this overtime pay requirement if they meet a three-part test:
Salary Basis Test – an employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed.
Salary Level Test – the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount. (Spoiler Alert: The new rules change the salary level.)
Duties Test – the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties.
THE WHITE COLLAR EXEMPTION
The white-collar exemption applies to employees who perform primarily executive, administrative, and professional tasks. Workers who perform these tasks are considered to have more autonomous, managerial, or specialized roles justifying exemption from overtime. Therefore, if an employee’s duties are executive, administrative, and professional, and they satisfy the salary basis and salary level tests in the FLSA, they are not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.
HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES
A highly compensated employee (HCE) is someone who earns a high annual compensation (according to salary thresholds in the FLSA) and whose role includes one or more executive, administrative, or professional duties. The FLSA exempts “highly compensated employees” from the overtime pay requirement.
Key Changes to the FLSA Overtime Rules
The new rule increases the salary thresholds in the salary level test for highly compensated and white collar employees. As a result of the changes, less employees will be considered exempt and employers will be liable for significantly more overtime pay. Notably, the types of duties eligible for exemption are not impacted.
The new salary thresholds are introduced in two phases with the first increase becoming effective on July 1, 2024, and the second occurring on January 1, 2025. Importantly, the new rule also includes a mechanism for automatically updating these salary thresholds every three years based on current wage data. This means employers will need to stay vigilant for future increases.
THE NEW SALARY THRESHOLDS
In general, the minimum annual salary to qualify for the white collar exemption is increasing from $35,568 to $58,656 and the total annual compensation requirement for the highly compensated employee exemption is increased from $107,432 to $151,164. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the higher salary thresholds and their effective dates:
Why This Rule Matters: Essential Steps for Employers
This rule will have a significant impact on Pennsylvania employers, potentially reclassifying millions of currently exempt employees as non-exempt and eligible for overtime pay. Employers who fail to comply risk costly back pay, penalties, and lawsuits.
There are practical steps that employers can consider to ensure compliance with the new FLSA rule:
Review Current Employee Salaries, Hours, and Duties: Audit current salaries, hours, and job duties. This review will help identify which employees’ status may be affected by the new salary thresholds for exempt status under the FLSA.
Reclassify Employees as Non-Exempt as Necessary: Based on the review, determine which employees will need to be reclassified from exempt to non-exempt, or awarded a salary increase, to comply with the new rules. This reclassification will make them eligible for overtime pay, altering how their work hours are managed and compensated. It is advisable to consider an employee’s perception of this reclassification when taking this step.
Time Recording Policies and Processes: For employees who are reclassified as non-exempt, implement or update timekeeping procedures to accurately track hours worked. This may also require training employees on time-keeping systems. Effective and accurate time recording is essential for managing overtime and ensuring compliance.
Update Overtime Policies: Revise company overtime policies to reflect changes in employee classifications. Include clear procedures for overtime approval to manage overtime work more effectively and ensure it aligns with budget constraints and business needs.
Bonuses, Incentive Pay, Commissions: Evaluate how non-salary forms of compensation will factor into the new salary thresholds for exempt status. The FLSA determines how this compensation should be treated in determining total annual compensation, which could influence exemption status.
Remember Contractual Obligations: The FLSA is a federal law which applies to all U.S. employers. However, any additional salary commitments in an employment contract still legally bind the employer. These should not be ignored.
Despite the quickly approaching compliance date, we also anticipate legal challenges to this rule, which could delay or change the rules. For now, though, employers should proceed on that basis that the updated regulations will take effect on July 1, 2024. Preparing for this deadline ensures that employers will not be caught off guard and can avoid any potential legal and financial repercussions.
While union numbers on the whole generally declined in 2023, some of the biggest American unions were able to augment their numbers in spite of the downward trend.
According to a recent report from Bloomberg, “Many of the nation’s largest unions including the Teamsters and West Coast dock workers saw membership gains last year, signaling potential for new organizing even as the labor movement struggles to tighten its grip on the workforce, according to new federal data.
“The numbers paint a more optimistic portrait of unions’ ability to recruit new members, particularly in the service and manufacturing sectors, even in the face of declining density nationwide. Two dozen groups added members in 2023, a year marked by high-profile strikes and labor stoppage threats across industries. The additions overcome losses from seven other peer unions, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of disclosures filed with the US Department of Labor last week.”
For context, union membership rates across private and public sector workers overall dropped to 10 percent in 2023, down from 10.1 percent in 2022. For comparison, when this data first became available in 1983, that number was at 20.1 percent – or double where unions are now. In the private sector, only 6 percent of those workers now belong to unions as of 2023.
Nevertheless, this report showing gains by some of the nation’s largest labor organizations, combined with historic union organizing numbers and the seemingly growing number of union election successes, may move those union membership percentages upward by the close of 2024. In addition, recent changes by the National Labor Relations Board to the union election process may further help unions bolster their ranks. We’ll see how this all shakes out by year’s end. Stay tuned.
The registration period for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 H-1B cap petitions opened at noon ET March 6, 2024, and will continue to run through noon ET March 22, 2024. Employers seeking to file an H-1B cap-subject petition must electronically register during this period using a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) online account. The registration process includes basic information about the prospective petitioner and each beneficiary along with a $10 registration fee for each beneficiary. The registration process for FY 2025 is governed by the final rule published Feb. 2, 2024, which took effect March 4, 2024.
The final rule includes a new beneficiary-centric selection process to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection. Under the new process, registrations will be selected by unique beneficiary rather than by registration. As part of the registration process this year, each beneficiary must provide a valid passport that matches the registration details. See our February 2024 blog post for additional information on the new passport expiration requirements.
As with prior years, it is expected that USCIS will receive enough registrations during the registration period to meet the 65,000 H-1B cap, with an additional 20,000 visas available for those who possess a U.S. master’s degree or higher from an accredited U.S. institution. If the cap is reached, USCIS will conduct a random lottery of the registrations it receives following the close of the registration period. Petitioners will receive an electronic notification if their registration has been selected and can move forward with filing the H-1B petition for only those beneficiaries named on the selection notice.
H-1B cap-subject petitions for those registrations that are selected in the initial drawing can be filed between April 1, 2024, and June 30, 2024. USCIS clarifies in the final rule that requesting an H-1B cap employment start date after Oct. 1 of the relevant fiscal year is permissible. Petitioners that have received H-1B selections will be able to use their USCIS organizational account to electronically file any H-1B petitions that were selected in the process, or they can file a traditional paper filing of the H-1B petition that is sent to USCIS by mail or courier.
The Journal’s recent piece about managing employees with misperceptions about their employment self-worth reminds us once again why honest and timely performance feedback makes good business sense. I have written before about the benefit of candid performance reviews, even at the risk of hurt feelings. I have also defended performance evaluations as an important tool to mitigate potential liability for employment claims. The Journal’s piece states that nearly four in 10 employees who received the lowest grades from their managers last year rated themselves as highly valued by the organization based on almost two million assessments. If true, that represents an astounding disconnect between performance-related perception and reality.
Theory is one thing. Managers who are adept at giving feedback is another. While businesses are rightly focused on running the organization’s business, training managers how to deliver quality feedback is often assigned a low priority. Adding to that deficiency is the often unmet need for managers with the right EQ to deliver feedback. But despite those challenges, which exist even for employees who relish feedback, there are some important guidelines for managing employees with an inflated sense of employment worth. Here are a few suggestions for delivering feedback for performance-deniers, who clearly require a more exacting approach.
First, performance discussions (especially about the areas in which the employee is falling short) must be done regularly and ongoing, and especially promptly after an error or mistake is committed. Performance deniers will use a one-time annual review (even if negative) to point out the obvious: if they are falling so short, the manager would not have waited so long to deliver that message (and which, in their view, adds to the review’s inherent unreliability).
Second, managers should not shy away from a denier’s tendency to fight the feedback (they disagree with it, it is wrong, it is fake). Rather, managers should use the denier’s dispute to double down on feedback: the employee’s inability to accept criticism, consider it, and even hear it, are all key parts of an employee’s commitment to the organization to grow and do better. Growth requires introspection. The refusal to engage in that process is itself a performance deficiency.
Third, managers should not permit performance conversations to become a discussion about victimization, unfair treatment or perceived persecution (all of which may end up becoming a legal claim). Performance deniers are adept at deflecting: one key deflection is to blame others and make the discussion about things entirely outside performance parameters. Managers need to be empowered to insist on returning the feedback conversation back to the key and only focus: what is the employee doing well and how can (and must) the employee improve?
Finally, organizations need to assess the impact performance deniers have on employee morale. While not all employees will share the same perception, most people are aware when others aren’t pulling their weight – especially when they are tasked to pick up the pieces. Those on the downhill slope of these assignments – often the best performers because of the natural inclination to step up – may not stick around. The slippery slope here is clear and cluelessness at work is not a great look for the business or the employee.
H-1B denial rates in fiscal year 2023 increased slightly from FY 2022, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.
Despite the increase, H-1B denial rates for FY 2023 still remain substantially lower than during the Trump administration when they peaked in FY 2018.
The NFAP analysis stated that “H-1B temporary status remains often the only practical way for an international student or other high-skilled foreign national to work long term in the United States” and said the 85,000 H-1B cap “remains the leading immigration problem for most tech companies.” The report can be read here.
This post continues our consideration of comments submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).
Under current law, if a plan provides any mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification of benefits, benefits for that condition or use disorder must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical (M/S) benefits are provided. Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. The proposed regulations modify this standard by providing that a plan does not provide benefits for MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided unless the plan provides meaningful benefits for treatment for the condition or disorder in each such classification “as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for medical/surgical conditions in the classification.”
The term “meaningful benefits” is nowhere defined. The regulators nevertheless “recognize that the proposal to require meaningful benefits [ ] is related to scope of services.” “Scope of services” for this purpose generally refers to the types of treatments and treatment settings that are covered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer. The preamble to the proposed regulation invites comments on how the meaningful benefits requirement “would interact with the approach related to scope of services adopted under the 2013 final regulations.” The preamble of the 2013 final regulations addressed an issue characterized as ‘‘scope of services’’ or ‘‘continuum of care’’ but otherwise failed to provide any substance. Two examples from the proposed regulations do, however, give us a sense of what the regulators have in mind.
A plan that generally covers treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a mental health condition, and covers outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations for ASD but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy, when provided on an out-of-network basis. (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for ASD in children.) The plan generally covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for M/S conditions and procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The plan in this example violates the applicable parity standards.
In another example, a plan generally covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders, a mental health condition, but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders. The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling for eating disorders results in the plan failing to provide meaningful benefits for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification, as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for M/S conditions in the classification. Therefore, the plan violates the proposed rules.
Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, and in addition to, the newly prescribed nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) testing standards. These latter standards include a “no more restrictive” requirement, a “design and application” requirement and an “outcomes data and network composition” requirement. A handful of comments nevertheless urge the regulators to add scope of services to its non-exhaustive list of NQTLs. As a result, a plan’s scope of services would be subject to comprehensive NQTL testing. Or, put another way, they would be fed back into the NQTL testing loop. Using the first of the examples above, this would require that ABA therapy to be first compared to the treatment limitations imposed on some M/S benefits in each classification. But what benefits, exactly? The problem is that a plan’s scope of services – what types of treatments a plan will pay for and in what settings – is a high-level plan design feature and not an NQTL.
While reasonable minds can and do differ on much of the substance of the proposed regulations, we doubt that anyone would claim that they streamline or simplify compliance. Compliance with these rules is already complicated and expensive; if the final rule looks anything like the proposed regulations, compliance will only get more complicated and more expensive. The proposed meaningful benefits requirement is intended to prevent plans, as a matter of plan design, from satisfying the parity rules by offering nominal or insubstantial MH/SUD benefits when compared to similar M/S benefits in each classification. Treating a plan’s scope of services as itself a separate NQTL does not advance this goal.
