Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Occupations Identified as "An Example"

Vocational experts have been trained to use the phrase "as an example" when identifying jobs within an occupation.  That "as an example" allows significant slough in the evidence that dutiful representation must clarify.  ALJ discretion is the bane of the claimant's representative.

The first task is to define "as an example."  That phrase could mean 20,000 jobs as a lens inserter including other similar sedentary unskilled occupations aggregating to 20,000 jobs.  Alternatively, the phrase could mean 20,000 jobs as a lens inserter and there are a lot more jobs that are similar to lens inserter.  The two alternatives make a difference.  If the testimony contends that there are 20,000 lens inserter jobs, that is an easy rebuttal.  If the testimony contends that there are 20,000 sedentary unskilled production worker jobs, that is a more cumbersome rebuttal.

1. 20,000 Lens Inserter Jobs

That specific testimony, which does occur, is statistically unsustainable.  Job Browser Pro provides an estimate of 208 jobs.  That's wrong.  JBP provides the estimate placing lens inserter in the jewelry and silverware manufacturing industry.  The DOT places lens inserter in the optical goods industry.  The optical goods industry corresponds to the ophthalmic goods manufacturing industry, part of the medical equipment and supplies manufacturing industry group (four digits).  The similar occupation of final assembler has a JBP estimate of 32 jobs.  That is based on the assumption that 65 DOT codes made up 2,077 jobs at the SOC-NAICS intersection. 2,077 / 65 = 31.95.  Round it off to 32.  Equal distribution rules the day.

But if the occupation exists in the ophthalmic goods manufacturing industry, we need to examine County Business Patterns.   Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing industry group represents 281,335 jobs in the nation.   The OES Query System estimates:

Occupation (SOC code)Employment
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers(519061)
Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians(519083)
Helpers--Production Workers(519198)
Production Workers, All Other(519199)
Packers and Packagers, Hand(537064)
The production workers, all other number of jobs is slightly in excess of the intersection reported by JBP.

Ophthalmic goods manufacturing industry represents 24,988 jobs in the nation.  That is 8.9% of the medical equipment and supplies manufacturing industry group total employment.  Assuming similar staffing in the  ophthalmic goods manufacturing industry, we would get:

Occupation (SOC code)Employment
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers(519061)
Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians(519083)
Helpers--Production Workers(519198)
Production Workers, All Other(519199)
Packers and Packagers, Hand(537064)
There are 20 DOT codes assigned to the optical goods industry.  How many jobs are there as a lens inserter or final assembler?  Less than 10 each.

2. 20,000 Sedentary Unskilled Production Worker All Other Jobs, e.g. Lens Inserter

To respond to this testimony takes knowing some basic facts -- asking the vocational expert to state them or profess ignorance.

a. How many DOT codes exist within production workers, all other?  (1,590 by the O*NET, 1,589 by US Publishing, 1,526 by JBP).

b. How many sedentary unskilled DOT codes exist within production workers, all other? (52 by all three sources).

c. Do all 52 DOT codes have the characteristics that meet the hypothetical question posed?  (2 SVP 1, 50 SVP 2; 19 R1, 33 R2; 19 constant handling, 33 frequent handling).

d. How many jobs exist for this DOT example?  (See analysis for Scenario 1).

e. If the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics published data that suggested that there are significantly fewer jobs at the unskilled sedentary variety within production workers, all other, would you defer to the BLS data?

The fluid use the DOT/SCO, O*NET, OOH, and ORS (all available on OccuCollect.com) along with CBP and JBP allows us to find out exactly what the vocational expert means and then to prove the lack of reliability.

Happy New Year!



Lawrence Rohlfing, Occupations Identified as "An Example," California Social Security Attorney (December 31, 2019),

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

OccuCollect Lift & Carry Report

The OccuCollect Lift & Carry Report sets out the DOT with its strength rating; the OOH statement of education, experience, training, and number of jobs; the O*NET statement of full-time versus part-time; and the ORS statements of SVP, and all the lifting/carrying statements.

Using the advertising-material distributor (DOT 230.687-010) as an example, we have a light occupation.  The work typically requires a high school diploma or equivalent, no related work experience, short-term training, and 354,600 jobs as of 2018 in the category of helpers -- production workers (SOC 51-9198).  The O*NET describes helpers as working part-time in 6% of jobs.

The ORS states that helpers engage in unskilled SVP 2 work in 68.3% of jobs.  Helpers engage in medium work in 49.2% of jobs.  At this point, the data gets interesting.  Helpers lift/carry greater than 20 pounds and less than 50 pounds seldom in 66.3% of jobs.  That is clearly a lift/carry requirement that exceeds light exertion.  The ORS states that helpers lift/carry 25 pounds at the 25th percentile and 15 pounds at the 10th percentile.  At least 75% of this category have work requirements that exceed the demands light exertion.

The only available inference to draw is that the 25.8% of jobs engage in heavy or very heavy work (75% minus 49.2%).  This is consistent with the maximum lift/carry 50 pounds at the 50th and 75th percentiles and 60 pounds at the 90th percentile.  The number of light and/or sedentary jobs that are classified as helpers is less than 25%.

The maximum number of light and sedentary jobs is 88,650.  The unskilled jobs cannot exceed 60,548 applying the O*NET part-time reduction.  That is the starting point for any further reduction for limitations on standing/walking, posturing, environmental conditions, or interaction with others.  Helpers contains 31 SVP 1 occupations and 126 SVP 2 light occupation.  That observation provides significant variability in the numbers for any particular occupation.



Lawrence Rohlfing, OccuCollect Lift & Carry Report, California Social Security Attorney (December 18, 2019),

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Supreme Court Review -- Was There a Case or Controversy?

I tell people that I really don't practice law, I just do administrative law.  The Social Security practice is non-adversarial; hearings last 30 minutes; and even federal court review is labeled "transcript litigation."  We do not take depositions, propound interrogatories, or examine witnesses in open court.  And yet, the practice of administrative law has been intellectually and professionally rewarding.  Today, we look at two Social Security cases decided in the last term with a constitutional question: was there a case or controversy?

The first case is Culbertson v. Berryhill.  This case ended the view of a minority of circuits that attorney fees for federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) were both capped by the 25% statutory maximum but that ceiling included any and all fees awarded by the agency to attorneys that represented the claimant before the agency.  Culbertson maintained that there was no such unified cap.  Before the district court and the court of appeals, the Commissioner asserted that there was, convincing both courts that Culbertson was wrong.  Culbertson sought certiorari.

The Commissioner argued in the Eleventh Circuit that the district court had decided the issue correctly.  But when the case got to the certiorari stage, the Commissioner changed her mind -- or the Solicitor General changed the government's mind:
Because no party defends the judgment, we appointed Amy Weil to brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. 584 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 304, 2042, 202 L.Ed.2d 14 (2018). Amicus Weil has ably discharged her assigned responsibilities.
 If the parties agree, where is the case or controversy?  Isn't the public policy to encourage parties to resolve their disputes and not to ask the court to issue advisory opinions resolving a split in the circuits?  The answer is typically yes but fees under §406(b) are different.  As the Eleventh Circuit said 20 years ago, Congress designated the courts with the responsibility of interfering with the financial particulars of the attorney-client relationship, in parens patriae.  From the Wiki:
Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" (lit., "parent of the fatherland"). In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection.
The controversy in Culbertson was between the court and Culbertson, not the agency and Culbertson.  The capitulation in response to the petition for certiorari that Culbertson had correctly interpreted the fee statute did not relieve the court of discharging its parens patriae obligation.

The second case is Smith v. Berryhill.  This case ended the problem of the Appeals Council losing the request for review, dismissing the request for review as untimely, and then barring an evidentiary inquiry in court whether the claimant had timely filed a request for review.

Undeterred by the Commissioner's view of the review process, Smith filed in federal court.  The Commissioner moved to dismiss.  The district court agreed with the Commissioner and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.  Smith appealed.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed.  But when the case got to the certiorari stage, the Commissioner changed her mind -- or the Solicitor General changed the government's mind:
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 586 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 451, 202 L.Ed.2d 345 (2018).[6] Because the Government agrees with Smith that the Appeals Council's dismissal meets § 405(g)'s terms, we appointed Deepak Gupta as amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. 586 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 451, 202 L.Ed.2d 345 (2018). He has ably discharged his duties.
The footnote surveyed the conflict in the circuits: seven courts no jurisdiction and two jurisdiction existed to hear the claim.  Smith cites to Mathews for the settled proposition that jurisdiction based on exhaustion of administrative remedies is waivable.  The controversy is resolved as to the motion to dismiss.  The Commissioner should not have filed the motion to dismiss.  Despite the admission that the agency erred, the Supreme Court issues an opinion to resolve a conflict among the circuits to publicly affirm that Commissioner changed her mind.  There was no case or controversy.  The Appeals Council issues a new order finding that Smith did not file a request for review in a timely manner and inviting review by the district court.  The case starts over rather than using/wasting the Supreme Court's time to fix that which the executive branch acknowledged it should not have done.

Perhaps erasing seven obnoxious sets of circuit precedent depriving claimants of review is laudable.  But that ignores the cost to scarce resources and the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy.  The better solution would have been for the Supreme Court to issue an order vacating the decision of Sixth Circuit with directions to remand to the district court to hear the exhaustion question on the merits.

Two cases involving the Commissioner's capitulation on the issue before the Supreme Court.  Not a good track record for agency attorneys: that they have litigated issues contrary to the correct interpretation of the statute.  In one, the Supreme Court need to proceed because of role of the courts in protecting claimants from their own attorneys; in the other, the Supreme Court to issue an advisory opinion without telling us why it infringed on the plain meaning of case or controversy.



Lawrence Rohlfing, Supreme Court Review -- Was There a Case or Controversy?, California Social Security Attorney (December 17, 2019),

Saturday, December 14, 2019

OccuCollect's Specialized Reports

The frequency of contact with others recurs in residual functional capacity assessments.  OccuCollect added a Contact With Others (CWO) Report as a custom report for subscribers.  The report is generated by entering a DOT code or entering a SOC/O*NET codes and then selecting a DOT code from the list.  The numbers generated reflect occupations with the characteristics as a percentage of the occupational group.  The job numbers reported reflect the Occupational Outlook Handbook, which is based on the Employment Projections published bi-annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  What's in the report?

The DOT description contains the full narrative and the trailer information.  It also includes the data-people-things codes as defined in Appendix B of the DOT along with the rating of significant (S) or not significant (N) stated in the complete DOT data set.  In this CWO Report, our focus is typically on the fifth digit of the DOT code, people.  The fourth digit will frequently come into play.  Data addresses people in compiling (3) and comparing (6).  The sixth digit is important for contact with others in terms of driving-operating (3).

The OOH states the basic summary for the occupational group:  entry-level education, work experience needed, on-the-job training, and number of jobs.  The CWO report contains the hyperlinks to the OOH page, the Employment Projections list of education and training by occupational group, the employment projections listing industry employment for that occupation, and the entire industry-occupation matrix, by occupation.

The O*NET OnLine data in the CWO Report includes:
  1. Contact with Others
  2. Coordinate or Lead Others
  3. Deal with External Customers
  4. Face-to-Face Discussions
  5. Work with a Group or Team
  6. Duration of a Typical Work Week
We always need to discard part-time work.  In the absence of a full-time description, further evidence would be necessary to establish that part-time work amounts to substantial gainful activity.

The O*NET Resource Center data sets out the education, training, and experience for the occupational group.  The two data points included are:
  1. On-the-Job Training 
  2. Related Work Experience
The Occupational Requirements Survey reports the education, training, and experience reported by BLS.  We are typically interested in the unskilled employment numbers.  This data gives a third point of reference for establishing Specific Vocational Preparation:  the OOH, the O*NET Resource Center, and the ORS.  The standard OOH report (a free report, no subscription required, just sign in) reports the education level of incumbents.

The OccuCollect Calculator puts the percentage of the group in the five categories from the O*NET for contact and interaction with other people, the O*NET statement about full-time versus part-time work, and also the number of jobs for the SVP levels reported by the ORS.  Here is a sample of the conclusions:
  • Helpers - Production Workers have occasional or no contact with other in 61,700 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers do not coordinate or lead other in 74,821 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers do not work with a group or team in 27,304 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers do not deal with external customers in 202,122 jobs. 
  • Helpers - Production Workers rarely have face-to-face discussions in 36,382 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers have on-the-job training up to one month is 156,804 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers require related work experience up to one month in 145,138 jobs.
  • Helpers - Production Workers work full-time in 211,377 jobs.  
  • Helpers - Production Workers have SVP 2 classification in 242,192 jobs.  
Occasional contact with others will never prove disability by itself.  When coupled with other limitations, we can whittle down the size of the vocational base.  No teamwork or superficial contact with others as implicating one or more of the categories and a limitation to light or sedentary work will leave few jobs available in this category.

The CWO Report joins the easy to use custom reports already in the OccuCollect library;  the Unskilled Exertion Job Number Report; the Sitting, Standing, and Walking Report; the Reaching, Handling, and Fingering Report; and the Lifting & Carrying Report.  Using one or more of these reports reduces the search and calculation time for a post-hearing submission dramatically.  Users can still print to PDF the full reports from each database in the more complex cases.



Lawrence Rohlfing, OccuCollect's Specialized Reports, California Social Security Attorney (December 14, 2019),

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Oral Argument in Keifer v. Saul -- Extension of Full Waiver Rules to Non-Attorney Representatives

I argued Keifer v. Saul to the Ninth Circuit on December 2, 2019.  The issue is simple, the vocational expert identified the number of production jobs, twice, and claimed that the entire OES group applied, twice, to both sedentary 1-2 step occupations.  The VE did the same with a filling machine operator occupation and an inspector occupation.  The non-attorney representative did not present the conflict to the ALJ.  The case was a prior remand from the District Court.  The case bypassed the Appeals Council.

Keifer asked the USDC to take notice of the Occupational Employment Statistics showing the exact number of jobs identified by the VE in all four occupations and the Occupational Outlook Handbook to show that the occupations required moderate-term on-the-job training -- semi-skilled or skilled as typically performed.  The USDC found waiver applied to the non-attorney representative, extending Meanel v. Apfel and Shaibi v. Berryhill.

Judge Callahan suggested that the court treat pro pers from administrative proceedings in the same way that they do in federal court proceedings -- no slack.  Judge Bade wondered how the differential treatment crept into the law.  Visiting Judge Lucero did not appear too concerned about the origin of the concept.

My prediction is simple.  The court will extend issue waiver before the ALJ to non-attorney representatives.  The duty to present evidence to the ALJ will extend from "at least where represented by counsel" to "where represented by any professional representatives."  The issue of pro per claimants is is not before the court.

Te court will drive the fulcrum between McLeod v. Astrue, permitting the claimant to submit VA evidence to the court, and Chaudhry v. Astrue, because here we have a representative that is registered and qualified for direct payment -- a professional representative.

There is a discussion about the ramifications of waiver -- legal or professional malpractice.  Where the case is clearly on the cusp, failure to develop the conflicting evidence will likely fall below the standard of reasonable care.  Sedentary 1-2 step work does not exist, at least not  in significant numbers based on a reliable method for extrapolating local experience to the national economy.  Ask the vocational expert:

1. What is your source
2. What is your methodology
3. Replicate the source and methodology
4. Submit that evidence to the ALJ
5. Force the ALJ to resolve the conflict in the evidence
6. Seek review by the Appeals Council
7. Seek review by the District Court

Expect a decision early next year in Keifer.  This is another step where the courts demand that if we believe the VE testimony is insubstantial, we must prove it ... to the ALJ.


Lawrence Rohlfing, Oral Argument in Keifer v. Saul -- Extension of Full Waiver Rules to Non-Attorney Representatives, California Social Security Attorney (December 4, 2019),

Saturday, November 23, 2019

Vocational Experts at Every Hearing -- Almost

If we are in competition and you know my weaknesses, you will exploit my weaknesses.  It doesn't matter if the competition is athletic, game, or litigation.  The game theory applies.  A Stanford article describes game theory:
Game theory is the study of the ways in which interacting choices of economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the agents.
 What does this have to do with Social Security hearings?  The answer to that question rests in a different question:  is the agency ambivalent to the outcome of disability claims or is the agency subtly intent on maintaining allowance rates at certain levels to placate the public and policy makers?  Whether this perception applies in the macro or the micro (case-by-case), it is palpable.

Our fellow travelers tell me that their Achilles Heel is the cross-examination of vocational experts.  With that self-deprecating confession in the context of game theory, we can now examine the rate at which ALJs call vocational experts at disability hearings;

Expert                                   Year       Rate

Vocational Expert            1990       36%
Vocational Expert            1991       38%
Vocational Expert            1992       44%
Vocational Expert            1993       44%
Vocational Expert            1994       42%
Vocational Expert            1995       43%
Vocational Expert            1996       42%
Vocational Expert            1997       45%
Vocational Expert            1998       45%
Vocational Expert            1999       47%
Vocational Expert            2000       50%
Vocational Expert            2001       51%
Vocational Expert            2002       55%
Vocational Expert            2003       57%
Vocational Expert            2004       59%
Vocational Expert            2005       59%
Vocational Expert            2006       68%
Vocational Expert            2007       70%
Vocational Expert            2008       72%
Vocational Expert            2009       73%
Vocational Expert            2010       76%
Vocational Expert            2011       83%
Vocational Expert            2012       87%
Vocational Expert            2013       89%
Vocational Expert            2014       92%

Cross-examination of vocational experts has grown in importance.  We had the VE in half the cases in 2000 and now we have a VE in almost every case.  This observation heightens the importance of the VE at the hearing, transferring more of the decision outcome to the expert and the need to present conflicting evidence to the ALJ.  

That conflicting evidence must focus on the inability of the vocational expert to extrapolate the local experience to the national economy through a reliable method.  But when the nation data conflicts with the stated extrapolation, the published national data should always win.  The DOT/SCO is out-of-date.  The charts observes:
The use of vocational experts by ALJs has increased greatly since 1980, and they are now used in over three-fourths of all ALJ hearings, even though they rely on an outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles to support their testimony.
We must submit rebuttal evidence in disability hearings to the ALJ.  Must must establish the lack of reliable method for extrapolating local experience to the national economy.  Or we will lose benefits for people that do not have the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity ... the social contract framed by the Social Security Act falls into breach. 



Lawrence Rohlfing, Vocational Experts at Every Hearing -- Almost, California Social Security Attorney (November 23, 2019),

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Furniture-Rental Consultant Does Not Belong in or Alone in NAICS 523000 or NAICS 532100

This is part 4 of the series on furniture-rental consultant.  In part 1, we addressed Job Browser Pro and its listing of the occupational group SOC 41-2021 and industry designations of NAICS 532000 and 5320A1.  In part 2, we looked at those occupation-industry designations through the Occupational Employment Statistics and the Employment Projections.  In part 3, we examined the number of counter and rental clerks in NAICS 532289 and 532420, industries that the Census Bureau classifies as renting furniture.

In this final installment, we want to put to rest the idea that NAICS 532000 as both duplicating NAICS 5320A1 and including NAICS 532100 is improper because JBP already allocates the latter designation to other DOT codes.  We already know from the NAICS structure that NAICS 532100 plus 5320A1 equals 532000.  The question is whether we should count NAICS 5321000 at all.  Here is that portion of the NAICS structure:

532 Rental and Leasing Services
5321 Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing
53211 Passenger Car Rental and Leasing
532111 Passenger Car Rental
532112 Passenger Car Leasing
53212 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing

It is patent that furniture-rental consultant does not work in the automotive equipment rental and leasing industry group or the sectors that fall into that group.  Furniture-rental consultant does not belong in NAICS 523000 or NAICS 532100. 

Nor is listing furniture-rental consultant necessary to cover the industry with some form of counter and rental clerks.  Job Browser Pro has an "advanced searches" on the home screen, below the job title search bar, three rows down, it is green.  "Choose a code system to search," select "OES/SOC 2010/O*NET."  The major SOC groups are listed, select 41.  Now double-click on 41-2021, counter and rental clerks.  Clicking on industry sort allows us to see the third and fourth entries for automobile rental clerk and trailer-rental clerk, both in the automotive service industry.  Double-click on automobile rental clerk and then proceed to employment numbers and the DOT estimate.

There it is.  NAICS 532100 listing 32,950 jobs as a counter clerk, three DOT codes, and 10,983 attributed to automobile rental clerk.  The three occupations within the occupation-industry intersection are trailer-rental clerk, automobile rental clerk, and tool-and-equipment-rental clerk.   Furniture-rental consultant does not belong alone in NAICS 523000 or NAICS 532100, if it belongs in either designation at all.  Job Browser Pro has counted all the counter and rental clerk jobs twice in using NAICS 532000 and failed to reduce the number of jobs for the other DOT codes that exist in NAICS 532100 and 5320A1.

Using JBP's own methodology and taking care to avoid counting jobs for one occupation that the system has already counted, it is clear that furniture-rental consultant does not belong in much less alone in NAICS 523000 or NAICS 532100,



Lawrence Rohlfing, Furniture-Rental Consultant Does Not Belong in or Alone in NAICS 523000 or NAICS 532100, California Social Security Attorney (December 13, 2019),

Friday, November 8, 2019

Furniture Rental Consultant and County Business Patterns

We finish this study of furniture-rental consultant by going into County Business Patterns.  The Commissioner will take administrative notice of CBP.  Furniture-rental consultant works in the retail trade industry per the DOT but more to the point, the job rents furniture and accessories to customers.  The SCO describes the occupation as requiring occasional reaching, handling, and fingering.

The Occupational Employment Statistics lists rental and leasing services as an employer of counter and rental clerks (SOC 41-2021).  Counter and rental clerks have 44,540 jobs in the three industry groups.  The OES industry page for NAICS 5320A1 makes clear what we discussed before, the three industry groups are part of NAICS 532000, the industry sub-sector.

And that is the problem, the OES does not "drill down" to the specific industries that deal with furniture.  NAICS 5320A1 is as specific as the OES gets.  The Employment Projections also drill down from NAICS 532000 to NAICS 532100 (the automobile rental group) and 5320A1 (the other three groups).  The NAICS structure is a whole lot more specific:

532 Rental and Leasing Services
5321 Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing
53211 Passenger Car Rental and Leasing
532111 Passenger Car Rental
532112 Passenger Car Leasing
53212 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
5322 Consumer Goods Rental
53221 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
532210 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
53228 Other Consumer Goods Rental
532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental
532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental
532283 Home Health Equipment Rental
532284 Recreational Goods Rental
532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental
5323 General Rental Centers
53231 General Rental Centers
532310 General Rental Centers
5324 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53241 Construction, Transportation, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
532411 Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing
532412 Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53242 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53249 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing

532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing

We explore the NAICS manual and find the rental industry that addresses furniture:

532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in renting consumer goods and products (except consumer electronics and appliances; formal wear and costumes; prerecorded video tapes and discs for home electronic equipment; home health furniture and equipment; and recreational goods). Included in this industry are furniture rental centers and party rental supply centers.
532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in renting or leasing office machinery and equipment, such as computers, office furniture, duplicating machines (i.e., copiers), or facsimile machines.
532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in renting or leasing nonconsumer-type machinery and equipment (except heavy construction, transportation, mining, and forestry machinery and equipment without operators; and office machinery and equipment). Establishments in this industry rent or lease products, such as manufacturing equipment; metalworking, telecommunications, motion picture, theatrical machinery and equipment, or service industry machinery; institutional (i.e., public building) furniture, such as furniture for schools, theaters, or buildings; or agricultural equipment without operators
County Business Patters report for these three (highlighted) industries:

Geographic area name
2012 NAICS code
Meaning of
2012 NAICS
Paid employees
for pay period
including March
12 (number)
United States
Rental and leasing services
United States
Consumer goods rental
United States
All other consumer goods rental
United States
Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing
United States
Office machinery and equipment rental and leasing
United States
Other commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing

The Employment Projections report 13% of industry employment work as counter and rental clerks.  The Occupational Employment Statistics report 13.2% of industry employment work as counter and rental clerks.  The total employment in the three industries is 161,008.  Employment as a counter and rental clerk, not just furniture-rental consultant, is 20,963 jobs.  When we reduce that number for counter and rental clerks that engage in sedentary, medium, or heavy exertion as well as those that engage in semi-skilled or skilled work, the potential number of jobs drops precipitously. 

This method of analyzing the number furniture-rental consultant jobs buttresses the conclusion reached that JBP erred in assigning jobs within NAICS 532000 and its report of jobs within NAICS 5320A1 is reasonable with the reduction for other occupations.  This study lends credibility to our use of NAICS 5320A1 as applied to the EP and OES job estimate is reasonable with the reduction for other occupations. 



Lawrence Rohlfing, Furniture Rental Consultant and County Business Patterns, California Social Security Attorney (November 8, 2019),

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Furniture-Rental Consultant Through the OES and EP

We looked at furniture-rental consultant focusing on a flaw in Job Browser Pro 1.7 list of industries earlier today.  The good news is that we have two ways to check JBP every time a vocational expert cites it as a resource.  As between JBP and either the Occupational Employment Statistics or the Employment Projections, the governmental data should prevail.

First a recap - furniture-rental consultant belongs to counter and rental clerks.  Counter and rental clerks represents 426,700 jobs per the 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics. Counter and rental clerks represents 436,100 jobs per the 2018 Occupational Outlook Handbook.  The almost 10,000 job difference is statistically insignificant for our purposes.

OES Data Breakdown

The OES permits us to determine the number of jobs, or other data, at the intersection of an occupational group(s) and the industry(ies).  The Create Customized Tables permits us one plural, either more than one occupation in an industry or more than one industry for an occupation.  We can do not have to use the customized table for this occupation because the relevant industries are listed on the OES page for counter and rental clerks.

IndustryEmployment (1)Percent of industry employmentHourly mean wageAnnual mean wage (2)
Real Estate112,4706.95$15.08$31,360
Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing59,25027.68$14.52$30,190
Rental and Leasing Services (5322, 5323, and 5324 only)44,54013.02$14.35$29,850
Automobile Dealers35,9402.78$20.60$42,840
Drycleaning and Laundry Services35,93012.18$11.86$24,660
Automobile equipment rental and leasing is NAICS 532100.  Rental and leasing services covers NAICS 532200, 532300, and 532400.  Resorting to the Create Customized Tables permits us to verify that insight:

Occupation: Counter and Rental Clerks(SOC code 412021)
Period: May 2018
Occupation (SOC code)
Rental and Leasing Services(532000)
Rental and Leasing Services (5322, 5323, and 5324 only)(5320A1)
Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing(532100)
(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.

SOC code: Standard Occupational Classification code -- see http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm

Data extracted on November 06, 2019
This data confirms that NAICS 532000 is the combination of NAICS 532100 and 5320A1.  NAICS 5320A1 is comprised of NAICS 532200, 532300, and 532400.  

Assuming JBP's eight counter and rental clerk occupations in NAICS 5320A1 industry groups and using JBP's equal distribution methodology  at that intersection, the result if 5,568 jobs.  

EP Data Breakdown

The EP Tables provide a list of industries within each occupational group.  The table for counter and rental clerks provides those industries.  Extracting the total employment line and the rental and leasing services lines, we find:

41-2021 Counter and rental clerks
Employment by industry, occupation, and percent distribution, 2018 and projected 2028.

Employment in thousands.
Industries with fewer than 50 jobs, confidential data, or poor-quality data are not displayed.

Industry Title
Industry Code
Industry Type
2018 Employment
2018 Percent of Industry

Line Item
Line Item
Assuming JBP's eight counter and rental clerk occupations in NAICS 5320A1 industry groups and using JBP's equal distribution methodology  at that intersection, the result if 5,712.  

We can drill down further to explore the scope of the occupational base.  What is clear is that the number of furniture-rental consultants is not significant outside of the Sixth Circuit.