2,478
edits
Eilberg Amendment (1976): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
==Eric's Sloan Workshop Report== | ==Eric's 2003 Sloan Workshop Report== | ||
The report "[http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinIssuesofLegislation.pdf Issues of Legislation and Merit in Scientific Labor Markets]," authored by Eric Weinstein, critically examines the Eilberg Amendment's impact on academic labor markets. It argues that the amendment allowed universities to bypass standard labor certification requirements, treating foreign academic hires with exceptional leniency compared to other sectors. The report highlights the unintended consequences of these policies, such as disadvantaging qualified American researchers by allowing universities to prefer marginally more qualified foreign candidates. This critique differs from the typical justification for these policies, which emphasizes the need for exceptional talent in academia. | |||
===The "Special Handling" Process=== | |||
The "special handling" process under the 1976 Eilberg Amendment referred to an expedited and preferential procedure for obtaining labor certification for certain categories of foreign professionals, particularly college and university teachers. The ostensible purpose was to address the specific needs of U.S. educational institutions and to facilitate the hiring of qualified foreign faculty members in cases where no qualified U.S. worker was available. | |||
====Key Aspects of the Special Handling Process:==== | |||
* '''Criteria for Eligibility:''' | |||
To qualify for special handling, the position had to be in the teaching field at a college or university. The employer was required to demonstrate that the foreign national was more qualified for the position than any U.S. worker who applied. This was often done through a comparative evaluation of the qualifications of all applicants, focusing on education, experience, and other relevant factors. | |||
* '''Recruitment Requirements:''' | |||
The employer was still required to conduct a recruitment effort, but the standards were somewhat relaxed compared to the general labor certification process. The recruitment needed to demonstrate that the employer had advertised the position and considered all available U.S. applicants before offering it to the foreign national. | |||
* '''Processing and Approval:''' | |||
The "special handling" provisions allowed for a more streamlined review process, acknowledging the unique circumstances of academic hiring. The Department of Labor recognized that academic appointments often required specialized expertise and a higher level of qualifications, which might not be readily available among U.S. workers. | |||
* '''Impact on the Labor Market:''' | |||
While intended to facilitate the hiring of foreign talent, the process also faced criticism for potentially disadvantaging American researchers by allowing institutions to prioritize even marginally more qualified foreign candidates. This raised concerns about wage suppression, limited job opportunities for domestic talent, and a potential reduction in innovation if riskier, potentially more innovative researchers were overlooked in favor of safer candidates. | |||
===The Sheepherder Provision=== | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 41: | Line 63: | ||
"...you have circumvented the primary rationale for denial of labor certification: that an unlimited supply of American manpower exists whose employment prospects are being usurped by alien labor." | "...you have circumvented the primary rationale for denial of labor certification: that an unlimited supply of American manpower exists whose employment prospects are being usurped by alien labor." | ||
-John Osvald, AAU President, Letter to Joshua Eilberg, Nov. 1975. | -John Osvald, AAU President, Letter to Joshua Eilberg, Nov. 1975. | ||
</blockquote> | |||
===The Shortage Provision=== | |||
<blockquote> | |||
'''The Shortage Provision: "Schedule A"''' | '''The Shortage Provision: "Schedule A"''' | ||
| Line 67: | Line 93: | ||
* [[The Evolution of U.S. Science and Defense Research Policies]] | * [[The Evolution of U.S. Science and Defense Research Policies]] | ||
* [[Bayh-Dole Act (1980)]] | * [[Bayh-Dole Act (1980)]] | ||
* [[Embedded Growth Obligations]] | |||
* [[Mansfield Amendment (1969)]] | * [[Mansfield Amendment (1969)]] | ||
* [[IMMACT90]] | * [[IMMACT90]] | ||