Manufacturers are making the case in support of these workers.

According to numbers released just yesterday, there are currently 477,000 open jobs in the manufacturing sector—and manufacturers could struggle to fill millions in coming years, according to a 2018 Skills Gap Study by Deloitte and the NAM’s education and workforce partner, the Manufacturing Institute. While manufacturers are generally optimistic about the outlook for their industry, thanks in part to things like tax reform and regulatory reform, workforce concerns are a real source of uncertainty.

More than 71% of manufacturers cite their inability to attract skilled workers as a top challenge. They know that their continued ability to realize the benefits of a pro-business environment demands a workforce up to the task, which is why they are working hard to recruit more Americans into the industry and it’s why they are competing with countries around the world to attract and retain talent that can help move our American economy forward.  

Yet, despite the global competition for talent, the Department of Homeland Security is considering a change that would rapidly remove 91,000 individuals from the workforce, negatively impact the H-1B visa program and reduce companies’ ability to recruit top talent moving forward. Such changes would come in the form of rescinding work authorization for H-4 spouses of certain H-1B employees awaiting permanent residency. The same H-4 Rule is also being challenged in court. Accordingly, this week the NAM, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Industry Council, filed an amicus brief in support of H-4 work permits in that court case.

Currently, thanks to a 2015 rule promulgated by DHS, the H-4 spouses of certain H-1B employees can obtain work permits in order to pursue careers, support their families and contribute to their communities. This is important because these H-1B employees are already approved for permanent residency and are awaiting green cards. Even after being approved, the wait time in the green card backlog can stretch years due to outdated per-country caps in the law and having a spouse eligible to work helps keep workforce talent here in the United States. Our brief makes the case that the H-4 Rule is within DHS’ authority to provide work authorizations for categories of individuals legally present in the United States. It also provides the court with a clear picture of what’s at stake to our economy, these workers and their employers if the H-4 Rule is eliminated.

According to a recent economic analysis of the H-4 Rule, H-4 spouses are highly educated and skilled, with 99-percent of the population possessing a college degree and almost sixty percent with a master’s degree. Two-thirds of H-4 spouses work in the STEM field, which are jobs critical for modern manufacturing. The 91,000 H-4 spouses with work permits contribute approximately $5.5 billion to U.S. gross domestic product each year. H-4 spouses contribute $1.9 billion to federal coffers each year, and state and local governments would lose approximately $530 million in tax revenue per year if H-4 work permits were revoked.

Rescinding the H-4 Rule would also result in significant hardship for these families. That same analysis of the H-4 population found that nearly 90% of these families made a major life decision based on the work authorization permitted by the H-4 Rule, including decisions to have children, purchase a home or invest in additional education. Furthermore, rescinding the H-4 Rule would have ripple effects on those who employ H-4 spouses, individuals employed by H-4 spouses who have started their own businesses, as well as companies who rely on H-1B workers who may decide to relocate to a country that allows their spouse to work.

The NAM is working to protect H-4 work permits while also advocating for broad reform to our broken immigration system. Protecting work permits for H-4 spouses and eliminating per-country caps that are contributing to today’s green card backlog are two aspects of immigration reform needed to boost manufacturers’ global competitiveness. The NAM recognizes and addresses these needs and others in our comprehensive immigration proposal, “A Way Forward.” Read more about that plan here.

Manufacturers believe that equal opportunity is a key pillar of our great democracy—one that allows every individual to pursue the American Dream based on his or her own talents and qualifications. That’s why manufacturers and the business community have made great strides in providing non-discrimination protections for our LGBT employees. There is still further to go, however, and manufacturers believe now is the right time for Congress to act to help our country get there.

On Tuesday, I testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. In my testimony, I expressed manufacturers’ support for the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include explicit non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We believe a federal standard will help manufacturers better attract and retain a talented workforce, which is greatly needed as we face a major skills gap. Many states and hundreds of localities already explicitly protect residents from sexual orientation- and gender identity-based discrimination in the workplace—all with slightly different requirements and definitions. A uniform federal approach will help business by providing a clear basic level of non-discrimination protection across the states.

The Equality Act puts sexual orientation and gender identity on a level playing field with other sex-based non-discrimination protections. It also includes two important pragmatic features. First, it includes a basic applicability threshold of 15 or more employees to protect smaller firms from the red tape that applies to larger employers. Second, it includes a religious exemption allowing religious employers to maintain their religious values and teachings in making hiring decisions for specific positions that require it.

Manufacturers have been at the forefront in providing their employees with fair and meaningful protections against sexual orientation- and gender identity-based discrimination. Partly, this is because talented employees demand it. Partly, this is because employers understand the importance of creating an environment in which the very best people can succeed based on merit. And namely, this is because manufacturers believe that discrimination of any kind is antithetical to the values we work to uphold every day: free enterprise, competitiveness, individual liberty and equal opportunity. The Equality Act will protect those values and create a stronger, more welcoming workforce.

Laura Mahany is a plant manager at Air Liquide and one of the emerging leaders recognized by the 2019 STEP Ahead Awards. Below is in interview conducted for the NAM’s morning newsletter, Input.

Input: Tell me a little about your background. What got you interested in working for a manufacturer?

Mahany: I wanted to be an engineer because of my love for math and science. When I started doing internships in college, I realized I liked the more hands-on work of manufacturing—the direct interaction with the meat of a business. I liked how every day was different, fast paced, challenging.

Input: Which parts of your education were the most valuable to your current career?

Mahany: As a child I did academic competitions in math and science, which really pushed me to improve my skills. But back then, we didn’t have all these STEM clubs and other activities the way kids do now. In college, I was a part of a program for women in engineering that made the larger engineering program feel a little bit more approachable.  

Input: You’ve mentored underprivileged kids in math and science. What sort of things did you do to inspire them?

Mahany: Each time we would learn about something different, for example, we would build rollercoasters or make ice cream using liquid nitrogen. These were experiments—we would change something, then study how it affected the outcome. I think that really drove home the scientific concepts for the kids—they had to think through how things worked for themselves.

Input: You went through a pretty dramatic experience early on in your career. What was it like to be caught in Hurricane Harvey?

Mahany: The hurricane came on very fast, and there wasn’t a lot of preparation time. We only realized it would be an actual threat to our operations two days before the storm hit. I hadn’t lived through a hurricane before, so I didn’t know what to expect.

We evacuated during the hurricane itself, but once it passed, my team and I came back to something out of a zombie apocalypse. There was no one around, the street lights didn’t work, and there was debris everywhere. The local government hadn’t given the okay for people to return, but my particular plant is critical to the safety of the community because we produce nitrogen, which other industries need to prevent the release of dangerous chemicals. So we had to restore operations very quickly.

The phone lines were down. We didn’t have internet. Plus, the hurricane traveled up to Houston, where the company has a lot of resources and personnel, so no one could come down to help us. And on top of that, many of our employees were also dealing with damage to their own homes. We had to collaborate with other industries to get what we needed, like cooling water and electricity. Luckily, I had good relationships with people at other companies—it really made such cooperation possible.     

Input: When you talk to young women on college campuses about going into manufacturing, what do they tell you about their interests or concerns?

Mahany: A lot of them are interested in sustainability. They’re interested in being part of a grand solution. I’ve noticed companies looking to be more sustainable as well; the mindset of the industry seems to be shifting toward environmental consciousness.

Input: How do you talk to college students about whether manufacturing is the right choice for them?

Mahany: I usually talk about sitting at a desk all day. In manufacturing, you almost never do that. Many people, especially women, like more collaborative environments, and manufacturing always offers you opportunities to interact with operators, technicians or other people in the facility. That makes your work much more interesting and engaging.

Input: When you’ve been mentored by women further on in their careers, what have you found most valuable from those relationships?

Mahany: My female mentors have helped me maintain confidence in myself and my career—it really motivates me to see women in high-level roles accomplishing great things. But I’ve found my male mentors valuable as well—some of my best advocates have been men, and I believe that men should make a point of mentoring women.

Input: And lastly, what more could we do to inspire young people to go into manufacturing?

Mahany: I think we should be more transparent. We should increase awareness of what those careers look like and what they mean. When you talk to a child, they always know what a doctor does or a teacher does because they interact with those people. But it’s not very often that they get to interact with engineers or visit a manufacturing plant. Manufacturing is just a big word to them—we need to make it real.