Final regulations on Removing Inability to Communicate in English as an Education Category will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow. You can read them today. They will be effective on April 27. Social Security has also announced in the Federal Register that it is rescinding Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 86-3(5) which has to do with the consideration of inability to communicate in English.
What a proud moment for Social Security -- being enlisted in Donald Trump's war on immigrants.
Update: In an Orwellian touch, Andrew Saul is touting this as "updating" Social Security.
Update: In an Orwellian touch, Andrew Saul is touting this as "updating" Social Security.
22 comments:
You shouldn't be blaming Trump. its all started before he was elected.
ANPRM
On September 14, 2015, we published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) in the Federal Register entitled “Vocational Factors of Age, Education, and Work Experience in the Adult Disability Determination Process.”
@10:20
The issue ended with the prior administration on December 14, 2015 (80 FR 55050). The current administration reopened the issue on February 1, 2019 (84 FR 1006).
As a governmental whole,this change during this republican administration does seem to be a strong assault on immigrants specifically latinos. This republican administration has a strong smell of racism.
"Research now shows the inability to communicate in English is no longer a good measure of a person’s ... ability to engage in work."
This is completely false. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could tell you that it's much more difficult to find a job in the US if you don't speak English.
@2:45 - its also difficult to find a job if you have seizures but just having the seizures doesn't get you anywhere, you still have to show you can't do the job. Remember, SSA doesn't care if you can find a job, only if you maybe, possibly, with great pain can potentially do some type of work as it existed in the national economy prior to 1991 (date DOT was last updated).
On another note, if I went to live in another country, I'd expect to have to learn the language to get a job. Does that make me racist? And, if I went or stayed there illegally, I'd expect to be arrested and deported. Does that make me a racist?
With Latinas becoming the second highest minority now outnumbering African Americans more people speak the language so it is no longer as much a difficulty as it was in years past.
@3:20
You are mischaracterizing 2:45's point and the relevant question that inability to communicate in English, as part of the medical-vocational guidelines, was meant to answer. It is SSA's responsibility to prove alternative work exists in significant numbers in the national economy the individual is capable of performing despite their limitatons. Obviously in the national economy, most jobs do require a working knowledge of English, and lacking that ability limits the alternative work pool. The initial reason given for removing this factor was that Puerto Ricans are not disadvantaged in their local economy, which is primarily Spanish speaking; ignoring the fact that SSA is required to consider the national economy. Today, Saul suggests actually SSA has some secret data saying lacking knowledge of the English language does not actually impact the alternative work pool.
As to your questions whether your expectation that if you were to move to another country you would be expected to learn the language to get a job, that belies the obvious fact that knowing the language obviously impacts the work force, so I assume you disagree with Saul's actions in concluding in fact that knowing the local language does not impact someone's ability to work in the national economy. Yes?
It's the millennials I'm concerned about with poor communication.
@2:45 speaking Spanish and not speaking English does not significantly impair ability to work in Puerto Rico, which is part of the US despite the fact some seem to not believe that.
@3:20
Any one who types the sentence "Does that make me Racist?" anywhere on the internet is for sure a racist.
The writer Matt Tiabi called Donald trump the crystal methamphetamine of politics and I agree. A former really stupid American political movement with similar beliefs of the 1800's was known aptly as the Know Nothing Party. Immigrant demonization has been a convenient tool of political demagogues for some time now. This administration is also extremely schizophrenic as proven by poor little Micky Mulvaney the Presidents poor little lap dog begging for immigrants to help make the American economy grow again! How utterly ridiculous! Create an all time hateful environment and then realize you are poisoning the future of your own country and whine for more immigration while neo-fascists down the hall like Stephen Miller continue the hate show. Countries without immigration go into demographic death spirals. This SSA policy change is just a further reflection of this un American very stupid attitude. Why would anybody want to come here under Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and Donald trump?
Did I miss something, or did SSA change a grid rule without even bothering to solicit and publish credible labor market surveys on whether the effected population can and is performing SGA in any significant numbers in the economy? Should we begin mourning the demise of evidence based policymaking at SSA?
in California, not being able to speak Spanish makes it more difficult to get a job. All the new hires for SR and CR jobs are Spanish speaking. Almost all entry level jobs here are done by people that speak Spanish as their native language.
This move makes sense--if a person only speaks Spanish most likely the type of work they would be doing would be entry type work and Spanish is actually an advantage in that type of work.
This is all you really need to know about this rule change:
Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates, based on the best available data, that this final rule will result in a reduction of about 6,000 OASDI beneficiary awards per year and 3,800 SSI recipient awards per year, on average, for the period FY 2020-29, with a corresponding reduction of $4.5 billion in OASDI benefit payments and $0.8 billion in Federal SSI payments for the total period of FY 2020-29.
Cruelty is the point.
to: @3:20 No it doesn't. With members of Congress calling each other racist, it's just an ugly word which is now part of life.
If you cannot speak English, you need to learn if you want to get a job. You also have to be punctual,neat, well spoken, and bathed. Not speaking English is no excuse to collect Social Security, and what is going on is not a war on immigrants, it's a war on people who come here with no skills and expect the taxpayers to support them. We need skilled people, Doctors, Engineers, Software developer's.....Was it not JFK who said it is not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country.
7:11 where is that data published?
@2:57
The issue is, California (or Puerto Rico) is not the "national economy," which is the context in which SSA must consider whether alternative work exists in significant numbers given the claimant's circumstances. The 'inability to speak English' factor in the medical-vocational guidelines was a shortcut for SSA to avoid hiring vocational experts to speak to how that inability would impact the number of jobs which would tolerate that lack of ability.
I'm not sure what "SR and CR jobs" are, but entry type work in general requires a working knowledge of the language you are interacting with, both in regard to customers and co-workers.
@7:31
Not 3:20, but a word being thrown around more often doesn't change it's meaning. As to your concern that if you were to move to another country you would be expected to learn the language, and if that expectation makes you racist, no not particularly. Other countries are more monocultural than the US. As to whether you are concerned that your expectation to be arrested and deported if you reside in another country illegally, not particularly. There are illegal immigrants of all races pretty much in any country. If you believe we should deport all immigrants based on an inability to speak the most common language in the US, then it would depend on your motives. Assuming your motive is not racial purity, then no I would not call you a racist.
"We need skilled people, Doctors, Engineers, Software developer's....."
I agree this country need intelligent people to immigrate here but if the the current republican administration policies are not racist why not solicit skill set information from illegal immigrants before deportation. SSA may have a legitimate position with the removal of deficiencies in english as a limitation as it relates to a skilled immigrant that can be accommodated.
@2:57
The ability to speak Spanish may be a plus in some jobs, but that is not the point. The issue is inability to speak, read and write English.
@7:31
You seem to forget we are talking about people with disabilities. What about people whose disabilities prevent them from becoming literate in English?
I suppose someone should, for the record, post what SSA should have done before deciding whether to change this regulation if it were basing its decisions on evidence as opposed to other motivations.
Commission a study answering the following question from a creditable independent source:
What percentage of illiterate/non-English speaking people with severe (e.g. step two) medical impairments who are 45 years old or older and who are limited to a maximum of sedentary physical activity are sustaining employment at substantial gainful activity levels in our economy?
What jobs, if any, are these people doing? What are their requirements as generally performed (especially regarding speaking, reading and writing English)? How many such jobs exist?
You could probably get some interesting starting data by examining the employment records of people ultimately granted on the old grid rule. How many have actually been able to return to work at substantial gainful activity levels? What does their employment history before being found disabled indicate?
Then publish the study results and subject them to peer review and scrutiny. After a reasonable response, make the decision on whether and how to change the rule based on the study results and any responsive review.
Alas, judging from what SSA has published no such studies were done or even attempted. If the decision was based on what SSA has cited, then in my opinion SSA was derelict in its duty to base its regulatory change on actual demonstrated evidence and expertise. Will inflicting harm on people with disabilities through non-evidence based regulatory changes be the legacy and hallmark of the new leadership at SSA? I hope not, but this change and others recently proposed raise that specter.
"We need skilled people, Doctors, Engineers, Software developer's....."
Wonder why we need those and are not educating them here....
@7:31 We don't just need skilled people. We also need people to harvest crops, put roofs on buildings, clean offices and do other work that most English-speaking Americans find beneath them.
There are plenty of English-speaking claimants who are illiterate. If a person can't even complete a job application, how is he/she supposed to get a job, particularly when the person also has severe medical problems? Smh
Post a Comment