The title says it all and if you know exactly what that means, this piece tells you something that you already know. For those that don't know exactly what the title of this piece means, this is a primer.
DOT
The DOT contains a parenthetical statement of industry. The industry statement is an integral and inseparable part of the DOT description of any occupation. The Introduction, Parts of the Occupational Definition to the DOT says exactly that.
The body of the definition contains the lead statement that describes worker actions; objective or purposes of worker actions; machines, tools, equipment and work aids used; materials, products, subject matter dealt with or services rendered; and instructions/judgment involved. This is the other clue to where the occupation belongs.
Job Browser Pro
JBP uses the Department of Labor crosswalk to determine the SOC code for an occupation. This used to be always true; it is now true most of the time. See the prior post about Goode v. Commissioner.
JBP uses a combination of the industry designation and the narrative definition of the occupation to assign the industry according to the NAICS codes. NAICS codes are the foundation of County Business Patterns and are used by both the Occupational Employment Statistics and Employment Projections to distribute jobs within a SOC code.
NAICS Codes
NAICS codes in four flavors: two-digit industry sectors; three-digit industry subsectors; four-digit industry groups; and five and six-digit specific industries. Other than the six digit variety, the NAICS code is the same in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The key to understanding what is presented is easy -- ignore the zeroes, they are place holders, not digits for coding.
The Problem
On many occupations, JBP cites NAICS codes using three and four-digit to describe the SOC-NAICS code intersections. When JBP does that, it double counts the jobs and will not do so consistently between the other DOT codes involved. The problem is the OES. Labor does not always report four-digit codes for job numbers within the SOC or does not report all of the four-digit codes within the SOC. Where the DOT code exists in more than one industry group but OES does not report all the industry groups, JBP will report the three-digit subsector and then also report the four digit subsectors that OES does report. This is an invalid methodology. We will look at production assembler as an egregious example of this problem later this week. Production assembler has multiple industry subsector and industry group assignments that lead unreliable job numbers.
The second problem is not obvious. JBP reports an industry group for one occupation and the industry subsector for another occupation. This is again an invalid methodology and wrong. This is the problem with advertising distributor.
The third problem is apparent upon inspection of the JBP for the occupation cited by the VE. JBP assigns industries that are in conflict with either the DOT industry designation or the narrative lead statement of the work performed. Next week, we will look at small products assembler (I and II) as an example of this problem. As a tease, know that small product assemblers do not work in any food industry.
When JBP double counts jobs, the method is facially unreliable. When JBP assigns NAICS codes inconsistently between DOT codes in the same SOC-NAICS intersection, the method is facially unreliable. When JBP assigns DOT codes to industries inconsistent with either the DOT industry designation or the narrative, JBP has an apparent conflict with the DOT without a reliable explanation to permit resolution of the conflict. More about this in the posts to come.
______________________
Lawrence Rohlfing, When the Vocational Expert Cites Job Browser Pro for Job Numbers; Check the NAICS Codes, California Social Security Attorney (October 4, 2020), https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/10/when-vocational-expert-cites-job.html
No comments:
Post a Comment