Bill Overview
Title: H–2A Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Labor to set the adverse effect wage rate applicable to certain temporary foreign workers at an amount equal to 125% of the federal minimum wage minus the value of any other benefit provided to the foreign worker.
Sponsors: Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with or seeking H-2A visas, primarily agricultural workers
Estimated Size: 0
- The H-2A visa program is specifically for temporary agricultural workers.
- These workers are predominantly from countries outside the United States and often rely on jobs in the agricultural sector that require seasonal labor.
- The bill concerns the wages of H-2A visa holders, so the primary group impacted will be these agriculture workers working temporarily in the US.
- Indirectly, the agricultural companies hiring these workers are also affected as the wage costs would likely adjust according to the new stipulations of the bill.
Reasoning
- The H-2A Reform Act primarily affects agricultural employers and temporary agricultural workers who are on H-2A visas.
- US citizens are indirectly affected, especially those in the agriculture sector, potentially through changes in labor dynamics or costs.
- The policy has significant budget constraints, meaning that the impact on wages should be substantial enough to fit within these financial parameters.
- We need to consider varying impacts, as not all farmers depend heavily on H-2A workers, and not all regions are similarly reliant on agricultural labor.
Simulated Interviews
H-2A Worker (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy increases my wages, it would be very beneficial for my family back in Mexico.
- I'm worried it might make it harder for me to get a job if employers find it too expensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Farm Owner (Iowa)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Raising wages for H-2A workers could increase my operational costs significantly.
- I may have to pass these costs onto my buyers or reduce staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
H-2A Worker (North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reform would mean more money, but I worry about losing my job as employers could look for other options.
- It would help me support my family better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could greatly improve H-2A workers' wellbeing, but must be balanced with the economic realities of farm operations.
- It's crucial to monitor how farms respond to the wage increase.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cattle Rancher (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much impact on my ranch personally, as we don't use many H-2A workers.
- However, the broader industry might see shifts, affecting market prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Agricultural Economist (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can stabilize labor supply but must be effectively cost-managed.
- We should ensure there are not unintended consequences like reduced job placements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farm Manager (California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adjusting wages as per the policy might challenge our budget, but it's potentially beneficial for workforce stability.
- We need to plan for managing wage impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
H-2A Worker (New York)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy means more wages but could reduce available work.
- If it works as intended, it should improve my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Agricultural Labor Contractor (Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increase in wage rates could help in retaining workers but complicates the budgeting for many smaller farms.
- Support systems or subsidies might help manage this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
H-2A Worker (Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will make a big difference to my income but I hope it doesn't decrease job availability.
- Increased competition for jobs may be a challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $515000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $570000000)
Year 3: $530450000 (Low: $470000000, High: $590000000)
Year 5: $561626755 (Low: $490000000, High: $620000000)
Year 10: $632860038 (Low: $550000000, High: $690000000)
Year 100: $1132239066 (Low: $980000000, High: $1240000000)
Key Considerations
- The changes in wage rates could influence the decisions of employers regarding the number of H-2A workers they choose to hire.
- Regional variations in current minimum and H-2A wages could lead to uneven impacts across the country.
- Seasonal nature of agricultural work and varying state regulations must be considered when projecting the total comprehensive cost impact over time.