What's Wrong with the OEQ -- Attacking Its Foundation and Methodology

Ah, the Occupational Employment Quarterly (OEQ), it used to be the only game in town. Ridiculed by David Traver so many years ago, superseded by Job Browser Pro (JBP), and obsoleted by the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) joined by the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS). I have labeled the OEQ statistical trash, mostly because it is. But the OEQ does have a cadre of devotees that cling to it like a plank of balsa wood adrift in a sea storm. What's wrong with the OEQ? I am so glad that you asked. 

The OEQ is well-known for its use of the equal distribution method of calculating job numbers. The Seventh Circuit labels that methodology as preposterous. Alaura v. Colvin. As Kevin Liebkemann points out in Job Incidence Numbers in Social Security Disability Claims: ACase Study and Analysis, even SkillTRAN publicly derides the OEQ as using a preposterous equal distribution methodology in its SkillTRAN Process for Estimating Employment Numbers (citing the later decision in Hill v. Colvin). 

In Woods v. Bisignano, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the vocational witness's patent use of the OEQ using the equal distribution method. Judge Nelson concurring states that a categorical rule excluding testimony based on the equal distribution method runs afoul of Biestek v. Berryhill. Woods is wrong and so is Judge Nelson. Job numbers in Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) groups with very few DOT codes leads to results that are absurd. Consider telemarketers -- one sedentary semi-skilled DOT code. The Occupational Outlook Handbook disagrees. Telemarketers typically have short-term on-the-job training. The 2018 ORS dataset describes telemarketers as having up to 1 month of training in 50.3% of jobs. Equal distribution should require an explanation -- every single time it is used. The Seventh Circuit is right.

But let us assume that Judge Nelson is right, the equal distribution method is not so inherently flawed that there do exist some circumstances where it might be reasonable to use it. Let's play along. Ask the witness this question:

What is the data source that US Publishing uses to estimate job numbers stated in the OEQ?

The first page of the OEQ II  3.2 states that column 4 sets out the "current employment for this occupation." The last page of the OEQ 3.2 states that  

- All data are estimates from government sources including the U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Employment Statistics and of the Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

The US Publishing web site invokes the 2010 decennial census. Clearly US Publishing has not updated its page or claim to use the 2020 decennial census. Nowhere does US Publishing claim to use the Current Population Survey or any other data source. Nor the US Publishing recognize that the OES is now the OEWS. A rose by any other name is still a rose and the OEWS and the OEWS data is found at www.bls.gov/oes/. 

Since we know the US Publishing relied on OES/OEWS data from the OEQ and from the web page, we can compare and contrast the gross job number cited by the OEQ to the OEWS. A sample:

Occupation	OEQ total employment 4th Qtr. 2024	OEWS total employment  2024
Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks SOC 43-4041	63,662	11,960
Order Clerks  43-4151	216,280	83,420
Couriers and Messengers SOC 43-5021	232,941	71,920
Word Processors and Typists  SOC 43-9022	258,841	36,020
Office Clerks, General SOC 43-9061	2,351,948	2,510,550
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers SOC 51-2022	179,597	261,140 SOC 51-2028 (includes SOC 51-2022 and SOC 51-2023)
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weigher SOC 51-9061	727,005	591,180
Helpers—Production Workers SOC 51-9198	273,294	167,490
Production Workers, All Other SOC 51-9199	813,370	277,060
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment SOC 53-7061	395,474	373,960
Packers and Packagers, Hand SOC 53-7064	676,479	601,440
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers SOC 43-5081	2,009,370	2,779,530 Stockers and Order Fillers SOC 53-7065

 The numbers are not reconcilable. Most of the occupations selected off the top of my head are so far off that they are clearly unreliable. 

That is strike two against the OEQ. US Publishing uses equal distribution based on the number of exertion-skill DOT codes resident in the SOC code. US Publishing's stated source for job numbers does not support the job numbers stated. Of the 867 codes in the 2018 SOC, 485 have at least some change from the 2010 SOC. US Publishing and its OEQ have not kept up nor paid attention to the combination of two SOC detailed groups into a single reported group (51-2028) in the current dataset. 

The OEQ as it is currently constituted needs to die.

___________________________



Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, What's Wrong with the OEQ -- Attacking Its Foundation and Methodology, California Social Security Attorney (August 27, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com


The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.

What We Know About Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi -- Reading the Tea Leaves

 Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi is precedent in the Ninth Circuit.  It is important for what it says and what it does not say.  This is not a dissection of the case but instead a dissection of the vocational witness.  

We start with Sarahrose K. v. Saul.  The hearing took place in July 2018.  From the District Court decision, we learn:

The VE noted he did not do a "typical labor market survey" but instead

I use a software program that will allow me to manipulate the data such that I can exclude certain industries and . . . isolate to the best degree that I can the DOT numbers, and then it also allows me to isolate just the full-time jobs based on another set of data. And then I am able to estimate, sort out, just the DOT numbers for that one job out of the OES numbers that I have.

There is one software program that estimated job numbers, allowed manipulation of industries, and allowed inclusion or exclusion of part-time jobs -- Job Browser Pro.  And that is the problem.  SkillTRAN released Job Browser Pro version 1.6 in 2015.  That version allowed manipulation of industries and inclusion or exclusion of part-time jobs.   The last version of 1.6 was active in July 2018.  

The VW identified usher and children's attendant totaling 114,000 jobs.  The 2017 dataset for the Occupational Employment Statistics was the version available to May -- July 2018.  At that time, OES estimated 124,710 jobs in the Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers occupational group (SOC/OES 39-3031).  The OES released in May 2018 estimated 133,970 jobs.  

JBP currently reports 16% of Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers working full-time.  And there's the rub.  How many Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers including usher and children's attendant did the VW think worked full-time.  Even if it was half, the VW overshot the number of ushers and children's attendants by double the possible amount.  The only way to make the numbers work is to count sector 71; subsectors 711, 712, and 713; in industry groups 7111, 7112, 7113, 7114, 7115, 7121, 7131, 7132, and 7139.  Only then could someone force JBP 1.6.x to report 64,000 full-time ushers and 50,000 children's attendants.  The VW cheated the program and used it dishonestly.  

The same is true of sandwich-board carrier.  The 2018 OES reports 81,250 jobs in the group.  JB P reports 24% work full-time.  The VW double counted industries or added industries that don't belong.  The VW used JBP dishonestly.  Kilpatrick did not know it, flailing with even worse data and failing to ask the right questions. 

    1. What version of JBP are you using?

    2. What is the aggregate size of the OES group according to JBP?

    3. What percentage of workers in that occupational group work full-time according to JBP?

    4. What (NAICS codes) industries does JBP assign to this DOT code?

    5. What (NAICS codes) industries did you add?

    6. Have you avoided double counting NAICS industries, groups, subsectors, and sectors?

    7. Do you know what that means?

    8. And finally, submit the JBP reports for the then-current addition to show the number of jobs actually reported.

The system let the VW get away with it.  The economy did not change significantly from 2012 to 2018.  The data was stale as reported by the Ninth Circuit but stale as in day-old bread, still edible and still nourishing.  The stale evidence should have informed the record but Kilpatrick did not explain why  it was still probative or identify the source of the non-DOT estimate data from the 2012 JBP.  Lesson, keep the up-to-date version of JBP and use it.  Otherwise, we let the VW prevaricate and the courts will look the other way.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Stacy S. v. Kijakazi and the Occupational Requirements Survey, California Social Security Attorney (August 4, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers for since 2009. 

  

Douglas Prutting, Vocational Expert and Probable Prevaricator

Vocational experts are not used to being challenged.  We need to make the challenge ordinary.  The time investment up front is extraordinary but the dividends in the long run will more than compensate for the initial investment.  Douglas Prutting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, is the example of the day.

We get to a light residual functional capacity, simple repetitive tasks, minimal educational requirements, and limited to standing/walking four hours in a workday.  Prutting identifies small products assembler I (DOT 706.684-022).  Prutting uses Job Browser Pro.

Which version?
 The latest version that came out in July 2019.  

Houston, we have a problem.  The latest version of JBP did not come out in July 2019.  Version 1.7 came out in October 2019.

How many jobs does JBP state there are for small product assembler?
218,000.

Is that for the entire SOC group (51-9199) and not the for the DOT code?
Yes.  

How many jobs does JBP estimate exists for small product assembler?
I don't know how to get that number.  

JBP uses the OES job numbers.  JBP is plain about that.  The current OES job number for production workers, all other is 230,760.  I do not have to check JBP, I know that Prutting is not looking at a 2019 release of JBP, either the last installment of ver. 1.6 or ver. 1.7.  He is not truthful.

The May 2014 OES data, released by BLS in May 2015, estimates the number of production workers, all other (SOC 51-9199) at 217,500.  No other year comes close.  Data for years after 2014 are too high.  Data for 2013 reports 206,600 jobs.  Prutting is using the JBP release from 2015 and has either never bothered to check current data or never updated JBP, another misstatement.

Douglas Prutting is a prevaricator.  It is just that plain.  He got caught using old data and resorted to the natural human instinct of self-defense by speaking falsely.  Prutting probably is not used to anyone challenging him or caring that he lies.  But I do.  I care.  And so should the agency.  The ALJ has access to JBP at their desk on the fly and can check witness testimony that relies on JBP.  But they don't care.  Neither does the agency.  Public confidence in the system demands that we expose false testimony and demand that Prutting and his ilk speak truthfully and accurately.  The quality of life of disabled people depends on it.  In an age of budget retraction, we have to prove disability when the person cannot work.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Douglas Prutting, Vocational Expert and Probable Prevaricator, California Social Security Attorney (March 4, 2020)
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/douglas-prutting-vocational-expert-and.html

Ford v. Saul -- What Jobs and How Many?

The Ninth Circuit decided Ford v. Saul on February 20, 2020.  Ford is capable of a limited range of sedentary work.  We consult the District Court decision to fill in some of the gaps.  Ford can perform sedentary work with no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; no climbing of stairs, crouching, crawling, or kneeling; occasional stooping; frequent handling and fingering; avoiding concentrated exposure to extreme cold; understand, remember, and carry out simple and routine tasks; no fast-paced production work; superficial contact with the public; can work in small groups; can interact with co-workers and supervisors to complete tasks.

The Ninth Circuit reports that the vocational expert identified 130,000 jobs as an addresser and 9,800 jobs as ink-printing.  Addresser belongs to the occupatinal group of word processors and typists (SOC 43-9022)..  Ink printer belongs to the occupational group of printing press operators (SOC 51-5112).

Addresser is obsolete.  Addresser is a word processor and typist (SOC 43-9022) occupation.  Word processors and typists contains eight DOT codes.  BLS reported in May 2015 (data that would have been published in 2016 and have been the most current data in the November 2016 hearing) that there were 68,660 word processors and typists in the nation.  The OOH relied on the 2014-24 employment projections as of November 2016, estimating the number of word processors and typists at 90,700.  That would represent the number for the O*NET OnLine as of November 2016.  The two BLS sources (EP and OES) do no support the 130,000 jobs as an addresser in 2016 or even 130,000 jobs in the group of word processors and typists.  The vocational expert lied and the failure to submit available evidence from the BLS allowed the witness to get away with it. 

An “everything report” from OccuCollect gives the data that we need to destroy the testimony.  The O*NET reports that addresser is the only unskilled DOT code.  The O*NET Resource Center reports that 51.54% of word processors and typists have 30 days or less of on-the-job training; 4.05% do not require related work experience of more than 30 days; and 51.57% of jobs require a high school education or less.  SVP is a function of training, work experience, and education.  The SVP can never be lower than the smallest component.  The exception is the exchange of experience or education where those criteria are treated interchangeably as qualifications.  Then the lowest of the two defines the SVP.  For word processors and typists, the requirement for six months to two years of related work experience means that most of the jobs are skilled.  Relatively few (8.12%) of word processors and typists are semi-skilled. 

The O*NET Resource Center does not support the presence of more than 4,500 addresser jobs in the nation in 2016. Current OOH job numbers permit the inference of 3,000 addressers.  Current OES job numbers permit the inference of 2,600 addressers.  The testimony of the vocational expert in Ford, that there were 130,000 addresser jobs, is patently false. 

Ink printer is a printing press operator (SOC 51-5112) occupation.  The ORS component of the  “everything report” from OccuCollect tells us that the OOH describes printing press operators stand/walk five hours per day at the 10th percentile.  Printing press operators engage in unskilled work in 23.8% of jobs.  Printing press operators engage in medium work in 62.7% of jobs and lift up to 25 pounds at the 25th percentile.  That data point tells us that at least 13% of the jobs require heavy or greater exertion (62% above the 25th percentile is 87%).  If there are sedentary printing press operators, they represent less than 10% of the jobs.  The testimony that ink printer represent 9,800 jobs is possible. 

Ford waived the important issues at the hearing level.  The vocational expert gave unreliable testimony.  The court embarrassed itself by allowing junk to decide the entitlement to benefits.  SSA embarrassed itself by defending that kind of testimony.  The public confidence in the system of administrative justice should go down. 

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Ford v. Saul -- What Jobs and How Many?, California Social Security Attorney (March 1, 2020) edited (March 2, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/ford-v-saul-what-jobs-and-how-many.html

Valerie Williams, VE, Relies on Job Browser Pro 2017

Valerie Williams testifies as a vocational expert in Las Vegas and the nine southern California Social Security hearing offices -- that I know of.

Here are some facts that I have gleaned:

1. Williams does not own a license for Job Browser Pro -- she shares a copy with another expert.
2. The copy of Job Browser Pro is version 2017.
3.  Williams does not check current job numbers.

Really, a vocational expert that is pinching pennies does not have her own copy of JBP.  It is $549 for the initial license and significantly less for annual renewals.  While we are on this rant, attorneys must have access to a current version of JBP.  If an attorney does not have access to a copy of JBP, then the attorney cannot submit rebuttal evidence to vocational expert testimony.

SkillTran launched version 1.7 in the fall of 2019.  Use of any version prior to that date is irresponsible and unreliable.  Version 1.6.3 is not reliable when the publisher declares openly that the methodology and ability of users to add and subtract industries constituted a flaw.  The version out in 2017 is at least one release behind in terms of ver. 1.6 and completely misses the 1.7 improvements.  That does not mean that JBP is correct or reliable in every instance but it is always useful evidence.

And here it is, Williams testifies to 85,000 jobs as an usher (DOT 344.677-014) and 40,800 jobs as a barker (DOT 342.657-010).  The ALJ confirmed that these are full-time job numbers.  Cross-examination confirmed that JBP version 2017 (no such designation) is the data source for the job numbers.

But that is not what JBP says, not even close.  JBP estimates the number of full-time ushers at 4,460 in the nation and the number of full-time barkers at 3,144 in the nation.  Williams played fast and loose with the job numbers and misrepresented what she did not have to look at.  That is negligent at best, more likely reckless, if not plainly false testimony.

A check of the OES job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates that ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers represent 133,970 jobs in the nation.  The OOH job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates job numbers for ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers at 136,400 jobs.  The OES and OOH reports are free non-subscription reports available by registering your email address.

The O*NET OnLine states that 90% of ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers work less than full-time.  The O*NET is part of the subscription package on OccuCollect.com.  JBP estimates the number of part-time workers at 86%.  JBP uses the definition of full-time at 35 hours per week.  the O*NET uses 40 hours per week.  It is impossible for the occupational group of  ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers to represent 85,000 jobs in the nation.

A check of the OES job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates that amusement and recreation attendants represent 318,900 jobs in the nation.  The OOH job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates job numbers for amusement and recreation attendants at 338,600 jobs.

The O*NET OnLine states that 59% of amusement and recreation attendants work less than full-time.  The O*NET is part of the subscription package on OccuCollect.com.  JBP estimates the number of part-time workers at 71%. The Everything Report from OccuCollect.com uses the Occupation Requirements Survey to describe amusement and recreation attendants as unskilled in 80% of jobs; lifting/carrying 20.56 pounds at the mean; standing/walking 80% of the day at the 25th percentile and 66.7% of the day at the 10th percentile; and no minimum education requirement in 72.6% of jobs.  Most of the jobs are part-time and don't count; most of the jobs require medium exertion; and some reduction is warranted for skill and education.

Usher and barker are targets because of the SCO description of occasional handling.  The ORS states that amusement and recreation attendants require gross manipulation with both hands in 82.3% of jobs and require fine manipulation in 97.5% of jobs.  Limitations to light work with six hours of standing/walking and occasional use of one or both hands will not leave a significant number of jobs.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Valerie Williams, VE, Relies on Job Browser Pro 2017, California Social Security Attorney (February 26, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/02/valerie-williams-ve-relies-on-job.html

What is Your Reliable Methodology for Extrapolating Your Experience?

That is the question that we should all ask in the course of cross-examining vocational experts in Social Security disability hearing.  What is your reliable methodology for extrapolating your local experience to the national economy?  The reason that this question should be deeply ingrained into the practice of every representative that does this kind of work is simple, that is the question that the Supreme Court directs us to ask.  Biestek v. Berryhill says:

Now say that she testifies about the approximate number of various sedentary jobs an applicant for benefits could perform. She explains that she arrived at her figures by surveying a range of representative employers; amassing specific information about their labor needs and employment of people with disabilities; and extrapolating those findings to the national economy by means of a well-accepted methodology.

(Emphasis added). 

The well-accepted methodology could take the form of using Job Browser Pro because the vocational expert could say that it is accepted by the community of vocational experts as reliable.  The  First Circuit accepted that testimony in Purdy v. Berryhill.  Well-accepted should not include the equal distribution method of calculating job numbers, at least not when conflicting evidence is present.  The Seventh Circuit suggested that result in Chavez v. Berryhill.  Here is what Biestek says about the Chavez line of questioning:

Even without specific data, an applicant may probe the strength of testimony by asking an expert about (for example) her sources and methods—where she got the information at issue and how she analyzed it and derived her conclusions. See, e.g., Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962, 969-970 (CA7 2018).

Most vocational experts either use Job Browser Pro, the equal distribution method (with or without knowing it), or have no discernible methodology at all.  This results in identifying the entire SOC/OES number of jobs as applicable to a single DOT code.  That methodology is worse by equal distribution; it is just lazy and ignorant. 

Here is a working list after hearing the vocational expert identify jobs and job numbers:

1. Confirm the DOT code.
2. Obtain the SOC/OES code.
3. Obtain the number of jobs in the SOC/OES code (most will not know).
4. Obtain the number of DOT codes within the SOC/OES code (most will not know).  
5. Ask for the reliable and well-accepted methodology for extrapolating the local experience to the national economy.  

With that information, we can disassemble the vocational expert testimony post-hearing.  If we use the O*NET and the Occupational Requirements Survey during the hearing (use OccuCollect.com), we can ask after an offer of proof of what the Department of Labor says:

6.  Who as greater resources for accumulating job requirements data (or job numbers data) in the national economy, you or the Department of Labor?

We still have the industry-occupation matrix used by Job Browser Pro, the BLS employment projections, and the Occupational Employment Statistics.  If that route is necessary ask:

7. In what industries, by NAICS code and name, does this occupation work?

We must have the first five.  Number six is the concession by which we hang the witness testimony.  Number seven tightens the knot.  We must use the data from Labor for the sake of our client's benefit entitlement. 

Why OccuCollect Provides a More Reliable Job Number Estimate -- A Cascading of Occupational Attributes

The nature of work has changed since the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was last published in 1991 and certainly changed since 10,000 of the 13,000 DOT codes were last updated in 1977.  Occupations have become obsolete; new occupations emerged; and other occupations morphed into something new.  When we look at an occupation and ascertain its job numbers, we typically examine gross job numbers (Occupational Outlook Handbook, Employment Projections, and Occupational Employment Statistics) and then whittle that number down using industry (Employment Projections, and Occupational Employment Statistics).  Once we get that that density model of occupational groups existing within specific industries, the trick requires an estimation of the number of jobs attributable to different occupations at that occupation-industry intersection.  The Occupational Employment Quarterly uses equal distribution at the occupational level.  Job Browser Pro uses equal distribution at the occupation-industry intersection.

OccuCollect uses a different methodology.  OccuCollect examines the gross number of jobs within the occupational group and then uses either the Occupational Requirements Survey or the O*NET Resource Center report of education, training, and experience to ascertain the number of unskilled jobs within the group.  Cascading the work requirements on the Specific Vocational Preparation separates the jobs by strength, sitting, standing, walking, or manipulation ... for example.  For the cognitive-emotional requirements of work, the O*NET Work Context reports work best for establishing the amount of contact with others, interaction with the public, dealing with conflict, and the need for teamwork ... for example.

Job Browser Pro and the Occupational Employment Quarterly assume the presence of unskilled work or the presence of light work based on the number of DOT codes counted.  That method assumes a fact without evidence.  Better to use the estimates of the percentage of jobs that represent unskilled and light work from the survey of the economy conducted by the Department of Labor.

See When to Use Occu Collect.

What You Need to Effectively Cross-Examine Vocational Experts

We talked about Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) last week.  The question is how to create conflict.  It starts with basic curiosity.  "How do you know that?"  "How does that work?"  Once the curiosity takes root, we begin to use the data sources available to disassemble the vocational expert's testimony; we begin to understand.  Here's is what a representative handling Social Security disability cases needs to be minimally ready to follow along with the vocational expert's testimony on cross-examination:

1. Access to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles;
2. Access to the Selected Characteristics of Occupations; 
3. Access to the electronic files of the DOT/SCO;
4. Access to the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs:
5. Access to the O*NET OnLine;
6. Access to the O*NET Resource Center;
7. Access to the Occupational Outlook Handbook; 
8. Access to the Employment Projections;
9. Access to the Occupational Employment Statistics;
10. Access to the County Business Patterns; and 
11. Access to the Occupational Requirements Survey.  

Those 11 sources form the foundation of the statistics that most vocational experts do not grasp.  They cite to the Bureau of Labor Statistics without understanding or knowing that a difference exists between the OES and the EP.  But we have to know the differences exist and the significance of those differences.  Vocational experts cite to the DOT/SCO, act as if it is controlling, and then deviate unknowingly.  We have to know when they deviate and when that deviation matters. 

For items 1-3, the U.S. Publishing provides the data in the Specific Occupation Selector.  USP uses current population surveys for job numbers.  USP uses equal distribution to estimate job numbers for occupational groups, SOC codes. 

For items 1-4, WestLaw provides the data in a single page report by DOT code.  WestLaw does not provide job numbers or access to job numbers, correlation with the O*NET, OOH, OES, EP, CBP, or the ORS. 

For items 1-4 and 9, Job Browser Pro provides access to the data.  JBP integrates the OES with industry designations found in the EP and the CBP.  JBP hyperlinks to the O*NET.  JBP lists data from out-of-date versions of the OOH.  JBP uses an intersection of occupational group and industry to estimate job numbers at the intersection and then equal distribution within that intersection of SOC and NAICS codes. 

For items 1-8 and 11, OccuCollect provides the data.  OccuCollect does not provide data for the OES (coming later this year) or integrate CBP.  The focus is on the incidence of work across the occupational group using a DOT code as an example.  OccuCollect estimates job numbers based on a cascaded approach to characteristics within an occupational group across (or ignoring) industry designations. 

We need to have access to all the data.  We need the data to ask whether occupations exist and if occupations exist, how many jobs exist.  Those are the two Biestek questions.  If we don't create a conflict, the vocational expert testimony will stand.  Create the conflict. 

Election Clerk - DOT 205.367-030 - Job Browser Pro is Wrong

Every once in a while, a vocational expert will rely on Job Browser Pro to identify 200,000 election clerk jobs in the national economy.  That is what the 2018 release of JBP says.  JBP is wrong.  Let's start with the definition of the occupation from the DOT. 

205.367-030 ELECTION CLERK (government ser.) alternate titles: poll clerk; returning officer

    Performs any combination of the following duties during elections: Compiles and verifies voter lists from official registration records. Requests identification of voters at polling place. Obtains signatures and records names of voters to prevent voting of unauthorized persons. Distributes ballots to voters and answers questions concerning voting procedure. Counts valid ballots and prepares official reports of election results. 
GOE: 07.04.03 STRENGTH: S GED: R3 M2 L2 SVP: 2 DLU: 77

JBP places the occupation where it belongs in SOC group 43-9061, office clerks, general.  The occupational group contains 74 DOT codes, 41 of which are sedentary with 3 of those unskilled.  Election clerk is one of the unskilled sedentary occupations. 

As the DOT name states, election clerks work in the government service industry.  But in our system of state and federal government, the federal government does not run the elections.  Local governments do.  The correct industry is NAICS 932000 and that is the industry that JBP uses. 

JBP approximates the Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its occupation-industry matrix.  JBP lists election clerk as the only general office clerk in the group.  That is because JBP lists 12 other DOT codes as working in government at all levels, NAICS 930000.  Using the industry sector (930000) captures 13 DOT codes.  Using the industry subsector (932000) captures just one, election clerk.  This observation shows that JBP is wrong about election clerk and reflects a lack of consistent application of two, three, and four-digit NAICS codes to the industry assignment.  Blind acceptance of JBP numbers is a mistake, not reliable, and not substantial evidence.  We must prove JBP either reliable or unreliable on a case-by-case basis. 

JBP uses an industry-occupation matrix to index the number of jobs within the intersection of the SOC/OES/O*NET group and the NAICS code.  At that intersection level, JBP uses the illogical equal distribution method of determining the number of jobs attributed to each DOT code.  The Occupational Requirements Survey provides a better alternative -- breaking down the occupational group by skill and exertion. 

Education, Training, And Experience Report

43-9061.00 (office clerks, general)

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000064

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; svp is short demonstration only

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: office clerks, general

Estimate: svp is short demonstration only

Year	Period	Estimate
2017	Annual	5.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000064

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000065

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: office clerks, general

Estimate: svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Year	Period	Estimate
2017	Annual	29.5

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000065

According to the ORS, 35.3% of office clerks, general are unskilled. 

Physical Demands Report

43-9061.00 (office clerks, general)

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000661

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; strength is sedentary

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: office clerks, general

Estimate: strength is sedentary

Year	Period	Estimate
2017	Annual	32.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000661

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000662

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; strength is light work

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: office clerks, general

Estimate: strength is light work

Year	Period	Estimate
2017	Annual	41

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000662

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000663

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; strength is medium work

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: office clerks, general

Estimate: strength is medium work

Year	Period	Estimate
2017	Annual	25.1

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000663

These observations bring us back to full circle, the definition of the election clerk occupation:  " Performs any combination of the following duties during elections."    Election clerks don't engage in substantial gainful activity; they work one or two days two or three times per year in ordinary predictable circumstances. 

How many election clerks engage in substantial gainful activity?  Probably none.  If election clerks can represent sedentary unskilled work in the government sector (920000), it would be 11.6% of the intersection of office clerks, general and local government.  The BLS-OES report states:

Industry	Employment	Percent of industry employment
Local Government, excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation)	175,720	3.22

That approximates 20,384 jobs in the national economy as a sedentary office clerk, general in government services industry subsector.  It also means that sedentary unskilled office clerks represent about 344,244 jobs in the nation.  Limitations in complexity, dexterity, manipulation, or sitting more than six hours in a day would erode those job numbers. 

Garment Folder Represents 57,000 Jobs: How Do You Know That?

In two separate hearings, Mary Jesko testified as a vocational expert.  In neither case was Jesko prepared for cross-examination.  That puts the cases in post for interrogatories and possible supplemental hearings.  

Case #1:  Assume younger individual with limitation to light work; occasional postural activities; no crouching; limited to simple repetitive tasks defined as one- and two-step instructions; no fast paced work; at an observably slower pace.  Assuming less than a 10% loss of productivity measured over a day, Jesko identified:

Garment folder – 789.687-066 Light SVP 2
57,000 jobs
 Gluer – 795.687-014
Light SVP 2
20,000 jobs
 Steam Presser 789.687-166
Light SVP 1
28,000 jobs

When asked for the Standard Occupational Classification codes, Jesko said she didn't have them but would have to look them up on a crosswalk.  

When asked how she estimated the job numbers, Jesko testified that she used the Occupational Employment Statistics as the base and then considered the industries to get the job numbers.  

Q: Well, then you must have the OES numbers since you used the OES statistics. 
A: No, I would have to use the crosswalk to get the OES numbers.   

That is actually a good answer because the OES numbers and the SOC codes are the same six-digit codes.   Your intrepid examiner looked up the occupational groups on OccuCollect and posed them to Jesko.  Nope, she wouldn't acknowledge the easily ascertained information.  From OccuCollect's DOT full report, the first five lines:

DOT Code: 789.687-066
SOC Code: 51-9198.00
O*NET URL: https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/51-9198.00
DOT-O*NET Crosswalk: https://www.onetonline.org/crosswalk/DOT?s=789.687-066 &g=GO
DOT Name: Garment folder (garment)

SOC 51-9198 are the helpers production workers.  The OOH provides:

Occupational Outlook Handbook Report

Quick Facts: Helpers--production workers
Typical Entry-Level Education	High school diploma or equivalent
Work experience in a related occupation	None
On the job training	Short-term on-the-job training
Number of jobs, 2016	426,000
Employment Projections	XLSX

The DOT crosswalk inside of the O*NET lists 553 distinct DOT codes that form helpers - production workers.  That pesky XLSX link in the OOH box opens up the Employment Projections for this group. The DOT narrative identifies the industry as garment; knitting.  The EP state the job numbers:

Code

Title

Employment

313-40

Textile mills and textile product mills

5.9

315-60

Apparel, leather and allied product manufacturing

3.2

The employment numbers are in thousands:  9,100 jobs in the textile and apparel manufacturing industry subsectors.  Our friends at Job Browser Pro identify industry groups 314900, 315200, and 315900.  The EP for those applicable subsectors:

Code

Title

Employment

314000

Textile product mills

2.6

315000

Apparel manufacturing

2.6

Now we are down to 5,200 jobs in the nation.  JBP lists 30 helpers - production workers that exist in the textile product mills industry; 21 that exist in apparel manufacturing (315200); and 23 that exist in the second apparel manufacturing industry group (315900).  JBP estimates 63 garment folders in the nation.  

Jesko's affinity with the OES will not save her.  The current OES numbers as of May 2017 state that employment of helpers - production workers has declined to 402,140 jobs in the nation.  The top industry employing helpers is employment services (NAICS 561300) at 129,160 jobs.  The next highest employer of helpers is animal slaughtering and processing (NAICS 311600) at 24,210.  None of the next three industries amount to 57,000 jobs and none of them touch on the garment industries.  The OES does not throw a lifeline to Jesko.  

County Business Patterns will pour cement in the testimonial trap.  CBP now has the 2016 data.  For our two industry subsectors for this occupation:

NAICS code         Name                                          Paid Employees March 12, 2016

314                       Textile product mills                   113,013

315                       Apparel manufacturing               96,791

The EP provides the percentage of helpers in the industries:  2.2% and 2.0%.  

With a hotspot and computer or internet enabled phone everything presented here is available on the fly.  How does Mary Jesko know that there are 57,000 jobs as a garment folder in the national economy?  She doesn't.  There is no statistical support for that testimony.