Here is an excerpt from a news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued on February 21, 2019:
... Almost all workers were required to use fine manipulation (97.0 percent) and gross manipulation (99.4 percent). ...
Note that Social Security Ruling 96-9p says that "any significant manipulative limitation of an individual's ability
to handle and work with small objects with both hands will result in a
significant erosion of the unskilled sedentary occupational base." It seems to me that that it would now be more accurate to say that even the loss of manipulation results in a significant erosion of the entire occupational base, without regard to exertional level and without regard to the distinction between gross and fine manipulation.
I have checked with Social Security. This news release was based on a study done at the behest of the Social Security Administration and is part of the effort to produce a new occupational information system.
I have checked with Social Security. This news release was based on a study done at the behest of the Social Security Administration and is part of the effort to produce a new occupational information system.
Here are some other excerpts with less immediate importance:
- Approximately 31.5 percent of workers had preparation time requirements that included more than a short demonstration and up to 1 month of preparation and 19.0 percent were required to have between 2 years and 4 years of preparation time.
- High school was the most common minimum education level for workers in 2018, with 40.7 percent of jobs requiring at least a high school diploma.
- There was no minimum education level required for 31.5 percent of jobs, while a bachelor’s degree was required for 17.9 percent of workers.
- On-the-job training was required for 76.8 percent of all civilian workers in 2018. Prior work experience was required for 47.0 percent of workers and 33.0 percent of workers were required to have completed pre-employment training.
- A medium strength level was required for 35.5 percent of workers, while a sedentary strength level and a light strength level were required by 26.6 percent each. A heavy work strength level was present for 9.6 percent of workers and a very heavy work strength level accounted for the remaining 1.7 percent of workers.
- Traditional keyboarding was required for 63.3 percent of workers.
There is nothing in this summary showing the number or percentage of jobs at, let's say, the sedentary level where the specific vocational preparation time was 30 days or less, the definition of unskilled work. If you're at all familiar with these matters, you know that's a critical question. BLS has released some access to the underlying data. I can do some searches on it but I'm unable to do a combined search for both unskilled and sedentary jobs. I'm not saying you can't do such a search. I'm just saying I can't. I hope others with more familiarity and more skill than me can take a look at this database. I'm going to take a wild guess that Social Security already knows the answer to this question.
I believe that the DOT and GRID rules really miss on sedentary work.
ReplyDeleteThe need for fine manipulation in the current workplace is greater than reflected in the DOT or SSRs and GRID.
The skill level for many of those jobs is over-stated in both.
I know locally that the repair shop for a some seriously large and expensive machines had considered installing a computerized process for some diagnostics, tracking of repairs, etc., etc.. The people at the mothership HQ wanted a third of the workforce in the shop terminated because their job applications reflected they lacked the skills needed to operate these computers and computerized devices.
The onsite HR director did not believe the equipment required the skills the mothership said were needed and believed that since virtually all of the shop employees had smartphones and many also had computers at home they would have little issue with the interface.
He persuaded HQ to go ahead and install the equipment and instead of hiring a group of people to use the equipment, all workers in each division would be expected to know how to use the functions for their area.
In the end the installation went smoothly with no big issues.
The DOT expects higher skill requirements from the era of DOS and early Windows than is needed today for most office equipment.
The "Grid" approach [table of a batch of rules that are stand-ins for a count or "base" of potential occupations] is significantly flawed.
ReplyDeleteStep 5 should specify an actual number of jobs (vs occupations) that is a meaningful remaining base for the claimant to be disabled vs not-disabled, and the size of locality that's in consideration. Then, allow/provide tools sufficient to drill down for the claimant's specific RFC/mrfc (similar to e.g. occubrowse currently, but with current DOT data). Our current almost-entire-disregard for transfer at step 5 (TSA) would essentially be combined into this type of decision process.
The statement posted from BLS pertains to requiring /some/ manipulation (gross or fine). This is not the same as saying the vast majority of jobs involve constant or even frequent (from 1/3 to 2/3 of day) levels of that.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the GRID.
ReplyDeleteIt was created with the assumption certain vocational profiles an employer would not hire someone within 15 years of full retirement age, other profiles they would not hire someone within 10 years of full retirement age and others within 5 years of retirement age.
The obvious flaw is full retirement age moved backwards two years so now instead of breaks at 15, 10, and 5 they arrive at 17, 12, and 7 years of retirement age. In other words with the change the assumption moved from a person within X years of retirement to a person attaining Y years of age.
The GRID instead of recognizing that employers may not want to teach as much to someone close to retirement instead now assumes you simply aren't employable at certain ages for certain profiles.