Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program and the U.S. Department of Labor's Proposed Changes in the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)

Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program and the U.S. Department of Labor's Proposed Changes in the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)

Order Code RL34739
Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program and
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Proposed
Changes in the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)
November 6, 2008
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program and the
U.S. Department of Labor’s Proposed Changes in
the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)
Summary
The H-2A temporary agricultural worker program allows American agricultural
employers to hire foreign workers to perform full-time temporary or seasonal work
on farms in the United States. H-2A workers must be paid at least the highest of the
adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), the prevailing wage, or the applicable federal or
state minimum wage. The prevailing wage is based on state surveys funded by the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The AEWR is based on wage data from the Farm
Labor Survey (FLS), which is conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
On February 13, 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published proposed
regulations that would change the way the AEWR is determined. Final action on the
proposed rule is expected in November 2008. Under the rule, the AEWR would be
calculated from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey, which is
conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor and
state workforce agencies. Wages from the OES survey are available at four levels of
skill and experience. The four wage levels are called Level I, Level II, Level III, and
Level IV. Under the proposed rule, the AEWR could not be less than $7.25 an hour.
The FLS and OES surveys cover different farm-related employers and provide
different levels of detail by occupation and geographic area. An issue for Congress
is the impact of the proposed change on the wages and employment of unauthorized
farmworkers, H-2A workers, and U.S. workers.
Generally speaking, under the proposed rule, in most areas both the minimum
AEWR of $7.25 and the OES Level I wage (for entry level workers) would be lower
than the current AEWR. In some areas, however, the Level I wage would be higher
than the current AEWR. On the other hand, in most areas, the OES Level IV wage
(for workers with management or supervisory duties), especially for livestock
workers and farm equipment operators, would be higher than the current AEWR.
Compared to the current AEWR, the proposed AEWR is more likely to be lower for
crop workers than for livestock workers or farm equipment operators.
In some areas, the prevailing wage could become the highest of the AEWR,
prevailing wage, or minimum wage. In some areas in some states, the state minimum
wage could become the highest of the three wage rates.
In areas where the proposed rule would lower the wages that employers must
offer H-2A workers, the rule should create an incentive for employers to hire more
H-2A, as opposed to unauthorized, workers. In areas where the rule would increase
the wages that employers must offer H-2A workers, the rule would probably not
create an incentive to hire more H-2A workers. On the other hand, in areas where
the rule would increase the wages of H-2A workers, it should create an incentive for
employers to hire more U.S. workers. However, in areas where the rule would lower
the wages that employers must offer H-2A workers, it could lower the wages
employers offer U.S. workers. This report will be updated as issues warrant.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The H-2A Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Wage Requirements for H-2A Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Prevailing Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Adverse Effect Wage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Proposed Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Potential Effects of the Proposed Change in the AEWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule on the Wages and
Employment of Farmworkers in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Preview of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Methodology and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Comparison of the AEWR Based on the FLS Versus OES Survey . . . 16
Potential Effects of the Proposed Regulation on the Wages
and Employment of Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Type of Wage Paid, FY2007 H-2A Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Adverse Effect Wage Rates by State, 1990-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Comparisons of the Current Adverse Effect Wage Rates
with Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level I Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 5. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level II Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 6. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level III Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 7. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level IV Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 8. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the
State of North Carolina, Effective July 2008 Through June 2009 . . . . . . . . 24
Table 9. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the
State of Georgia, Effective July 2008 Through June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 10. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the
State of Louisiana, Effective July 2008 Through June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 11. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the
State of Florida, Effective July 2008 Through June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 12. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the
State of Kentucky, Effective July 2008 Through June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 13. H-2A Prevailing Wages, North Carolina, 2008-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 14. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Georgia, 2008-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 15. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Florida, 2008-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 16. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Kentucky, 2008-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program
and the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Proposed Changes in the Adverse
Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)
Introduction
The H-2A temporary agricultural worker program allows American agricultural
employers to hire foreign workers to perform full-time temporary or seasonal work
on farms in the United States. H-2A workers must be paid at least the highest of the
adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), the prevailing wage, or the applicable federal or
state minimum wage. The AEWR is based on a farm labor survey conducted by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Prevailing wages are based on state
surveys funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
On February 13, 2008, DOL published proposed regulations that would make
changes in the H-2A program. The proposed rule would not change the requirement
that H-2A workers must be paid at least the highest of the AEWR, prevailing wage,
or applicable minimum wage. It would, however, change the way the AEWR is
determined. Under the proposed rule, the AEWR would be calculated from wage
data collected by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey, which is an
employer survey conducted by DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and state workforce
agencies (SWAs).1 USDA’s farm labor survey and DOL’s employer survey cover
different farm-related employers and provide different levels of detail by occupation
and geographic area. An issue for Congress is the impact of the proposed change on
the wages and employment of unauthorized farmworkers, H-2A workers, and U.S.
workers.
This report begins with a description of the H-2A program. Next, the report
explains how the AEWR is currently determined and how it would be calculated
under the proposed regulations. Finally, the report examines some potential effects
of the proposed change in the AEWR on the wages and employment of foreign and
U.S. workers on U.S. farms.
1 According to the U.S. Department of Labor, final action on the proposed regulation is
expected in November 2008. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, ETA Unified Agenda, Final Rule Stage, available at [http://www.dol.gov/
eta/regs/unifiedagenda/1205-AB55.htm].

CRS-2
The H-2A Program
Under the H-2A program, employers may hire foreign workers to perform full-
time temporary or seasonal agricultural work in the United States.2 Temporary or
seasonal employment is work that is performed during certain seasons or periods of
the year or for a period of less than a year. An H-2A worker may be hired to fill
either a temporary or permanent job, but the employer’s need for the worker must be
temporary. An employer cannot hire an H-2A worker to fill a job that is vacant
because of a strike or lockout. Before they can hire foreign workers, employers must
apply to DOL for a certification that qualified U.S. workers are not available and that
the employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.3 The wages offered to U.S. workers
must be at least the same as the wages offered to H-2A workers.
For workers paid a piece rate, their average hourly earnings must equal or
exceed the higher of the AEWR or prevailing wage rate. If the earnings of piece rate
workers fall below the higher level, the employer must supplement the workers’ pay
to raise it to the higher rate.
In addition to wage requirements, H-2A employers must meet minimum
standards with respect to housing, transportation, meals, workers’ compensation, and
other requirements.4
Some temporary worker visas are subject to annual limits. The H-2A visa is
not. From FY2000 to FY2007, the number of H-2A visas issued increased from
30,201 to 50,791.5
Although data are not available on the occupations of workers issued H-2A
visas, information is available on the types of jobs that employers seek to fill with H-
2A workers. In FY2007, DOL certified (i.e., approved) 7,491 requests for H-2A
workers. Most certification applications request permission to employ more than one
foreign worker. DOL certified requests to hire 89,575 H-2A workers.6 On the basis
2 An H-2A worker is identified under 8 U.S.C. at 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) as a nonimmigrant alien seeking temporary employment in the
United States.
3 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, H-2A Certification
for Temporary or Seasonal Agricultural Work, available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.
doleta.gov/h-2a.cfm]. (It is hereafter cited as Employment and Training Administration, H-
2A Certification for Temporary or Seasonal Agricultural Work.)
4 20 CFR, § 655.102(b)(9). Employment and Training Administration, H-2A Certification
for Temporary or Seasonal Agricultural Work.
5 The number of H-2A visas issued in FY2007 is a preliminary count. For more information
on the H-2A program, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations
Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
6 The number of H-2A visas issued is different from the number of workers certified by
DOL. After DOL issues a labor certification, the employer petitions the U.S. Citizenship
(continued...)

CRS-3
of our review of H-2A program data, it appears that most (76.7%) of the 89,575 H-
2A workers requested were for crop production. Another 5.0% of the requests were
for livestock production and 3.8% were for equipment operators.7
Wage Requirements for H-2A Workers
Employers must pay H-2A workers at least the highest of the prevailing wage,
AEWR, or the applicable state or federal minimum wage.
Prevailing Wages
Prevailing wage rates are based on surveys funded by DOL and conducted by
the states. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has established
criteria for state prevailing wage surveys. A state must conduct a survey if H-2A
workers were employed the previous season or if employers have requested or are
expected to request H-2A workers for the current season. A state must also conduct
a survey if 100 or more workers were employed during the previous season or are
expected to be employed in the upcoming season. The surveys should only include
U.S. workers employed in the same farm activity as H-2A workers.
Employment and wage data are collected from a sample of employers.
Information provided by employers is verified through worker interviews. The
prevailing wage is the wage paid to at least 40% of domestic seasonal workers or, if
no single rate accounts for 40% of workers, the prevailing wage is the wage paid to
workers at the 51st percentile.8 States submit the results of their surveys to ETA.
Prevailing wages may be hourly, monthly, or piece rates. For workers paid a
piece rate, the workers’ average hourly earnings must equal or exceed the higher of
the AEWR or prevailing wage rate. If a worker’s hourly piece rate earnings fall
6 (...continued)
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to hire foreign workers. DOL’s decision on the request
for certification (whether approved or denied) is advisory to the USCIS. Also, an employer
may hire fewer foreign workers than the number requested on the application for labor
certification.
7 The remaining certifications were for occupations such as cook, bee keeper, or fish
hatchery worker (1.5%). The specific occupation for 13.0% of certifications could not be
identified. The source for this information is our analysis of FY2007 H-2A labor
certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor, “H-2A Program Data,” Foreign Labor
Certification Online Wage Library and Data Center, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.
com/CaseData.aspx].
8 If workers are ranked from the lowest to the highest paid, workers at the 51st percentile
earn more than 50% of workers; 49% of workers earn more than the wage at the 51st
percentile.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, H-2A Program
Handbook, Handbook 398, January 1988, pp. II-1 to II-4. U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Employment Service Forms Preparation
Handbook, Handbook 385, August 1981, pp. I-111 to I-143.

CRS-4
below the higher level, the employer must supplement the worker’s pay to raise it to
the higher rate.9
The Adverse Effect Wage Rate
Current Procedures. The current AEWR is based on data from the Farm
Labor Survey (FLS), which is a quarterly survey conducted by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).10 The FLS provides estimates of the number of hired
workers, average hours worked, and wages paid to workers employed on U.S.
farms.11 Hired workers include field workers, livestock workers, supervisors,
administrative employees, and other workers employed directly by farmers.12 Field
and livestock workers include employees who operate farm equipment.
Approximately 12,000 farms are surveyed each January, April, July, and October.
The survey includes both full-time and part-time workers as well as workers who
work either part-year or year-round. Wages consist of cash wages before taxes and
other deductions. Wages paid on other than an hourly basis (e.g., a salary or piece
rate) are converted to hourly rates. Average hourly wages are total wages by type of
worker (i.e., crop, livestock, and all hired workers) divided by total hours worked.
Wages do not include fringe benefits, bonuses, housing, or meals.13
USDA publishes annual estimates of average hourly wages for field and
livestock workers in 15 regions. Separate estimates are published for California,
Florida, and Hawaii. The 15 regions include 46 states. Alaska is not included in the
survey. The AEWR is the weighted average hourly wage for field and livestock
workers (combined) from the previous year’s quarterly surveys. The AEWR is the
same for each state within a region; for example, the AEWR is the same for Oregon
and Washington. Similarly, the AEWR is the same for the six New England states
9 H-2A prevailing wage data are available, by state, at U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Agricultural Online Wage Library, available at
[http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/aowl.cfm].
10 For more information on the AEWR, see “Labor Certification Process for the Temporary
Employment of Aliens in Agriculture in the United States: Adverse Effect Wage Rate
Methodology,” Federal Register, vol. 54, no. 127, July 5, 1989, pp. 28037-28051.
11 For more information on the Farm Labor Survey, see U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Agriculture Statistics Service, “Farm Labor,” Surveys, available at
[http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Farm_Labor/index.asp]. (It
is hereafter cited as National Agriculture Statistics Service, “Farm Labor,” Surveys.)
12 Field workers are employees who plant, tend, and harvest crops. Livestock workers tend
livestock, milk cows, and care for poultry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Agriculture Statistics Service, Farm Labor, February 15, 2008, available at
[usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo/2000s/2008/FarmLabo-02-15-2008.pdf], p.
12. (It is hereafter cited as National Agriculture Statistics Service, Farm Labor, February
15, 2008.)
13 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Agricultural
Labor Survey Interviewer’s Manual, June 2005, pp. 104, 508-511. (It is hereafter cited as
National Agriculture Statistics Service, Agricultural Labor Survey Interviewer’s Manual.)

CRS-5
and New York.14 Nationwide, there may be up to 18 different adverse effect wage
rates (i.e., if the rates are different for each of the 15 regions and the three states that
are reported separately).
The FLS also collects information from about 600 employers who provide
agricultural services to farmers (e.g., fruit or vegetable pickers supplied by a farm
labor contractor) in California and Florida.15 The USDA only publishes estimates of
the average hourly wages of agricultural service workers in these two states.16
Estimates of the hourly wages of agricultural service workers are not available for the
15 regions or Hawaii. Hence, the wages of agricultural service workers are not
included in the calculation of the AEWR.
On the basis of our review of H-2A program data, in FY2007, 93.3% of the
wages for the 89,575 H-2A workers requested were the regional or state AEWR. The
prevailing wage applied to 4.7% of workers requested. Most prevailing wages were
monthly wage rates or piece rates. See Table 1.
Table 1. Type of Wage Paid, FY2007 H-2A Certifications
Type of Wage
Number of Workers
Percent of Workers
AEWR
83,576
93.3%
Prevailing wage
4,216
4.7%
Not identified
1,783
2.0%
Total
89,575
100.0%
Source: CRS analysis of H-2A certifications for FY2007. All monthly wage rates were assumed to
be prevailing wages. U.S. Department of Labor, “H-2A Program Data,” Foreign Labor Certification
Online Wage Library and Data Center, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseData.aspx].
The AEWRs for each state for the years 1990 through 2008 are shown in Table
2. Because the state is not included in the FLS, no AEWR is published for Alaska.
In Alaska, employers must pay H-2A workers at least the higher of the prevailing
wage or the applicable state or federal minimum wage.17
14 National Agriculture Statistics Service, Agricultural Labor Survey Interviewer’s Manual,
p. 105. Annual averages are published in the November Farm Labor report.
15 Service workers include contract laborers as well as harvesters who provide their own
machinery, sheep shearers, milk testers, veterinarians, and others who provide services for
a fee or under contract. National Agriculture Statistics Service, Farm Labor, February 15,
2008, p. 13.
16 National Agriculture Statistics Service, “Farm Labor,” Surveys.
17 Since January 2003, the minimum wage in Alaska has been set at $7.15 an hour. State of
Alaska, Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Minimum Wage Standard and Overtime
Hours, available at [labor.state.ak.us/lss/whact.htm].

CRS-6
Table 2. Adverse Effect Wage Rates by State, 1990-2008
(in current dollars per hour)
State a
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Alabama
$4.29
$4.46
$4.91
$5.04
$5.43
$5.66
$5.40
$5.92
$6.30
$6.30
$6.72
$6.83
$7.28
$7.49
$7.88
$8.07
$8.37
$8.51
$8.53
Arizona
4.61
4.87
5.17
5.37
5.52
5.80
5.87
5.82
6.08
6.42
6.74
6.71
7.12
7.61
7.54
7.63
8.00
8.27
8.70
Arkansas
4.04
4.40
4.73
4.87
5.26
5.19
5.27
5.70
5.98
6.21
6.50
6.69
6.77
7.13
7.38
7.80
7.58
8.01
8.41
California
5.90
5.81
5.90
6.11
6.03
6.24
6.26
6.53
6.87
7.23
7.27
7.56
8.02
8.44
8.50
8.56
9.00
9.20
9.72
Colorado
4.51
5.00
5.29
5.44
5.57
5.62
5.64
6.09
6.39
6.73
7.04
7.43
7.62
8.07
8.36
8.93
8.37
8.64
9.42
Connecticut
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
Delaware
4.89
4.93
5.39
5.81
5.92
5.81
5.97
6.26
6.33
6.84
7.04
7.37
7.46
7.97
8.52
8.48
8.95
9.29
9.70
Florida
5.16
5.38
5.68
5.91
6.02
6.33
6.54
6.36
6.77
7.13
7.25
7.66
7.69
7.78
8.18
8.07
8.56
8.56
8.82
Georgia
4.29
4.46
4.91
5.04
5.43
5.66
5.40
5.92
6.30
6.30
6.72
6.83
7.28
7.49
7.88
8.07
8.37
8.51
8.53
Hawaii
7.70
7.85
7.95
8.11
8.36
8.73
8.60
8.62
8.83
8.97
9.38
9.05
9.25
9.42
9.60
9.75
9.99
10.32
10.86
Idaho
4.49
4.79
4.94
5.25
5.59
5.57
5.76
6.01
6.54
6.48
6.79
7.26
7.43
7.70
7.69
8.20
8.47
8.76
8.74
Illinois
4.88
5.05
5.59
5.85
6.02
6.18
6.23
6.66
7.18
7.53
7.62
8.09
8.38
8.65
9.00
9.20
9.21
9.88
9.90
Indiana
4.88
5.05
5.59
5.85
6.02
6.18
6.23
6.66
7.18
7.53
7.62
8.09
8.38
8.65
9.00
9.20
9.21
9.88
9.90
Iowa
5.03
4.85
5.15
5.65
5.76
5.72
5.90
6.22
6.86
7.17
7.76
7.84
8.33
8.91
9.28
8.95
9.49
9.95
10.44
Kansas
5.17
5.20
5.36
5.78
6.03
5.99
6.29
6.55
7.01
7.12
7.49
7.81
8.24
8.53
8.83
9.00
9.23
9.55
9.90
Kentucky
4.45
4.56
5.04
5.09
5.29
5.47
5.54
5.68
5.92
6.28
6.39
6.60
7.07
7.20
7.63
8.17
8.24
8.65
9.13
Louisiana
4.04
4.40
4.73
4.87
5.26
5.19
5.27
5.70
5.98
6.21
6.50
6.69
6.77
7.13
7.38
7.80
7.58
8.01
8.41
Maine
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
Maryland
4.89
4.93
5.39
5.81
5.92
5.81
5.97
6.26
6.33
6.84
7.04
7.37
7.46
7.97
8.52
8.48
8.95
9.29
9.70
Massachusetts
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
Michigan
4.45
4.90
5.16
5.38
5.64
5.65
6.19
6.56
6.85
7.34
7.65
8.07
8.57
8.70
9.11
9.18
9.43
9.65
10.01
Minnesota
4.45
4.90
5.16
5.38
5.64
5.65
6.19
6.56
6.85
7.34
7.65
8.07
8.57
8.70
9.11
9.18
9.43
9.65
10.01
Mississippi
4.04
4.40
4.73
4.87
5.26
5.19
5.27
5.70
5.98
6.21
6.50
6.69
6.77
7.13
7.38
7.80
7.58
8.01
8.41
Missouri
5.03
4.85
5.15
5.85
5.76
5.72
5.90
6.22
6.86
7.17
7.76
7.84
8.33
8.91
9.28
8.95
9.49
9.95
10.44
Montana
4.49
4.79
4.94
5.25
5.59
5.57
5.76
6.01
6.54
6.48
6.79
7.26
7.43
7.70
7.69
8.20
8.47
8.76
8.74
Nebraska
5.17
5.20
5.36
5.78
6.03
5.99
6.29
6.55
7.01
7.12
7.49
7.81
8.24
8.53
8.83
9.00
9.23
9.55
9.90
Nevada
4.51
5.00
5.29
5.44
5.57
5.62
5.64
6.09
6.39
6.73
7.04
7.43
7.62
8.07
8.36
8.93
8.37
8.64
9.42

CRS-7
State a
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
New Hampshire
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
New Jersey
4.89
4.93
5.39
5.81
5.92
5.81
5.97
6.26
6.33
6.84
7.04
7.37
7.46
7.97
8.52
8.48
8.95
9.29
9.70
New Mexico
4.61
4.87
5.17
5.37
5.52
5.80
5.87
5.82
6.08
6.42
6.74
6.71
7.12
7.61
7.54
7.63
8.00
8.27
8.70
New York
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
North Carolina
4.33
4.50
4.97
5.07
5.38
5.50
5.80
5.79
6.16
6.54
6.98
7.06
7.53
7.75
8.06
8.24
8.51
9.02
8.85
North Dakota
5.17
5.20
5.36
5.78
6.03
5.99
6.29
6.55
7.01
7.12
7.49
7.81
8.24
8.53
8.83
9.00
9.23
9.55
9.90
Ohio
4.88
5.05
5.59
5.85
6.02
6.18
6.23
6.66
7.18
7.53
7.62
8.09
8.38
8.65
9.00
9.20
9.21
9.88
9.90
Oklahoma
4.65
4.61
4.87
5.01
4.98
5.32
5.50
5.48
5.92
6.25
6.49
6.98
7.28
7.29
7.73
7.89
8.32
8.66
9.02
Oregon
5.42
5.69
5.94
6.31
6.51
6.41
6.82
6.87
7.08
7.34
7.64
8.14
8.60
8.71
8.73
9.03
9.01
9.77
9.94
Pennsylvania
4.89
4.93
5.39
5.81
5.92
5.81
5.97
6.26
6.33
6.84
7.04
7.37
7.46
7.97
8.52
8.48
8.95
9.29
9.70
Rhode Island
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
South Carolina
4.29
4.46
4.91
5.04
5.43
5.66
5.40
5.92
6.30
6.30
6.72
6.83
7.28
7.49
7.88
8.07
8.37
8.51
8.53
South Dakota
5.17
5.20
5.36
5.78
6.03
5.99
6.29
6.55
7.01
7.12
7.49
7.81
8.24
8.53
8.83
9.00
9.23
9.55
9.90
Tennessee
4.45
4.56
5.04
5.09
5.29
5.47
5.54
5.68
5.92
6.28
6.39
6.60
7.07
7.20
7.63
8.17
8.24
8.65
9.13
Texas
4.65
4.61
4.87
5.01
4.98
5.32
5.50
5.48
5.92
6.25
6.49
6.98
7.28
7.29
7.73
7.89
8.32
8.66
9.02
Utah
4.51
5.00
5.29
5.44
5.57
5.62
5.64
6.09
6.39
6.73
7.04
7.43
7.62
8.07
8.36
8.93
8.37
8.64
9.42
Vermont
4.98
5.21
5.61
5.82
5.97
6.21
6.36
6.71
6.84
7.18
7.68
8.17
7.94
8.53
9.01
9.05
9.16
9.50
9.70
Virginia
4.33
4.50
4.97
5.07
5.38
5.50
5.80
5.79
6.16
6.54
6.98
7.06
7.53
7.75
8.06
8.24
8.51
9.02
8.85
Washington
5.42
5.69
5.94
6.31
6.51
6.41
6.82
6.87
7.08
7.34
7.64
8.14
8.60
8.71
8.73
9.03
9.01
9.77
9.94
West Virginia
4.45
4.56
5.04
5.09
5.29
5.47
5.54
5.68
5.92
6.28
6.39
6.60
7.07
7.20
7.63
8.17
8.24
8.65
9.13
Wisconsin
4.45
4.90
5.16
5.38
5.64
5.65
6.19
6.56
6.85
7.34
7.65
8.07
8.57
8.70
9.11
9.18
9.43
9.65
10.01
Wyoming
4.49
4.79
4.94
5.25
5.59
5.57
5.76
6.01
6.54
6.48
6.79
7.26
7.43
7.70
7.69
8.20
8.47
8.76
8.74
Source: Compiled from data provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. See Federal Register, February 26, 2003, pp. 8929-8930; March
19, 2003, p. 13331; March 3, 2004, pp. 10063-10065; March 2, 2005, pp. 10152-10153; March 16, 2006, pp. 13633-13635; February 21, 2007, pp. 7909-7911; and February 26, 2008,
pp. 10288-10290.
a. Because it is not included in the Farm Labor Survey (FLS), an AEWR is not calculated for Alaska.

CRS-8
A concern raised by some policymakers about the current procedures for
determining the AEWR is that the FLS does not provide sufficient wage detail by
area, occupation, or level of skill and experience required by employers. Currently,
the AEWR applies equally to all crop workers, livestock workers, and farm
equipment operators in a region or state. However, within a region or state, wages
for the same occupation may vary because of differences in the cost of living or in
the relative supply of or demand for workers.
Proposed Procedures. On February 13, 2008, DOL published proposed
changes to current regulations for the H-2A program.18 The proposed rule would
change the way the AEWR is determined. Instead of using data from the Farm Labor
Survey (FLS), the AEWR would be calculated using data from the Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) survey. Under the proposed rule, the AEWR could not
be less than $7.25 an hour. According to DOL, the proposed change would better
reflect the wages of farmworkers in local labor markets, as opposed to state or
regional areas.19
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. The OES survey
is a cooperative effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the state
workforce agencies (SWAs). The survey collects information from approximately
200,000 establishments each May and November and provides wage estimates for
workers in 801 occupations. Wages are defined as cash wages before taxes and other
deductions. The survey includes both full-time and part-time employees. Published
average hourly wages are based on data collected over a three-year period from
18 Congress has also considered legislation to change the AEWR. For example, in the 110th
Congress, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (the
AgJOBS Act; S. 237, S. 340, and H.R. 371) would freeze the AEWR in each state at the
rates in effect on January 1, 2003. The AEWR would be frozen at those rates for three
years. At the end of the three-year period, the rates would be adjusted each March. The
first adjustment would be the lesser of the annual change, beginning with 2006, in the CPI-U
or 4%. Subsequent annual adjustments would be the lesser of the change in the CPI-U or
4%.
19 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “Temporary
Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States; Modernizing the Labor
Certification Process and Enforcement,” Federal Register, vol. 73, February 13, 2008, pp.
8545, 8549-8552. (It is hereafter cited as Employment and Training Administration,
Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States; Modernizing the
Labor Certification Process and Enforcement.)
The proposed rule would make several other changes to the H-2A program. For
example, employers would no longer have to apply to DOL for a labor certification that
qualified U.S. workers are not available and that the employment of foreign workers will not
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly
employed. Instead, employers would have to “attest” to DOL that they have complied with
all H-2A program requirements. Attestation is used in the H-1B professional speciality
temporary worker program. For information on the H-1B program, see CRS Report
RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B)
Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

CRS-9
approximately 1.2 million establishments.20 The survey does not include farmers.
Instead, it includes employers involved in agricultural support activities. These are
activities performed by contractors or for a fee, and include soil preparation, planting,
harvesting, and management.21 Wage data from the OES survey are available by
state, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and “balance of state” areas (BOS), which
are areas that are not part of an MSA.22
The Four Wage Levels Calculated from the OES Survey. According to
the proposed H-2A regulations, the AEWR would be based on published wage data
from the Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data Center of DOL.23 Using data from
the OES survey, the FLC Data Center provides four levels of wages based on the
skill, experience, education, and supervisory duties required for a job. Level I
workers are entry-level workers who perform routine tasks that require limited
exercise of judgment. Level IV workers generally have management or supervisory
duties.24 The four wage levels are currently used in the H-2B temporary
nonagricultural worker program.
The Level I and IV hourly wages available from the FLC Data Center are
calculated by BLS directly from OES wage data. For each occupation and area, the
Level I wage is the average wage for the bottom third of the earnings distribution.
The Level IV wage is the average of the top two-thirds of the earnings distribution.
20 Published average hourly wages are based on information collected from the six most
recent May and November survey samples. Wages from the first five samples are adjusted
for inflation to produce average hourly wages in constant dollars. U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, 2006, available
at [stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf], Technical note.
21 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics, available at [http://www.bls.gov/OES]. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2005, Bulletin 2585, available
at [stats.bls.gov/oes/oes_pub_2005.htm], pp. 252-255. U.S. Census Bureau, North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS), available at [http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/
naics.html], NAICS Code 11.
22 An MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a
high degree of economic and social integration. Executive Office of the President, Office
of Management and Budget, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions,
Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, New England City and Town
Areas, and Combined New England City and Town Areas, OMB Bulletin No. 08-01,
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2008/b08-01.pdf], Appendix, p.
2. (It is hereafter cited at Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan Statistical
Areas.)
23 Employment and Training Administration, Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A
Aliens in the United States; Modernizing the Labor Certification Process and Enforcement,
p. 8574.
24 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Prevailing Wage
Determination Policy Guidance, Non-Agricultural Immigration Programs, May 9, 2005,
available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Policy_Nonag_Progs.pdf], p. 7.
(It is hereafter cited as U.S. Department of Labor, Prevailing Wage Determination Policy
Guidance, Non-Agricultural Immigration Programs.)

CRS-10
The Level II and Level III wages are then calculated from the Level I and IV wages.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 4818, P.L. 108-447) amended
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to say that “Where an existing
government survey has only 2 levels, 2 intermediate levels may be created by
dividing by 3, the difference between the 2 levels offered, adding the quotient thus
obtained to the first level and subtracting that quotient from the second level.”25
Farm Wages from the OES Survey. The OES survey collects wage
information, and the FLC Data Center provides four wage levels, for the nine farming
occupations listed below. The estimated wages for farming occupations are based
on data collected from employers in agricultural support activities.
! First-line supervisors or managers of farming, fishing, and forestry
workers,
! Farm labor contractors,
! Agricultural inspectors,
! Animal breeders,
! Graders and sorters, agricultural products,
! Agricultural equipment operators,
! Farmworkers and laborers: crop, nursery, and greenhouse,
! Farmworkers: farm and ranch animals,
! Agricultural workers, all other.26
Currently, there are 363 MSAs in the United States.27 If OES wage data were
available for all MSAs, all nine farming occupations, and at four wage levels, wage
data from the OES survey could provide over 13,000 adverse effect wage rates
nationwide (including Alaska, but not including balance of state — that is, non-MSA
— areas). The actual number of AEWRs that would be available from the OES
survey may be smaller, however. If the OES survey sample for an area is too small,
wage data may not be available for all farming occupations in the area.
Compared to the FLS, the OES survey provides wage information for more
geographic areas and more farming occupations. In addition, the FLC Data Center
provides wage rates at four levels of skill and experience. However, one of the
concerns raised about the OES survey is that it does not collect wage information
from farmers engaged directly in crop or livestock production. Instead, it collects
wage information from employers in agricultural support activities. These employers
include labor contractors who hire workers to harvest crops or tend livestock.
25 To illustrate the four wage levels, assume that the Level I and Level IV hourly wage rates
estimated from OES wage data are $10.00 and $22.00, respectively. The difference between
the Level IV and Level I wage is $12.00. Dividing this difference by three and adding the
result to the Level I wage yields a Level II wage of $14.00 (i.e., $12.00 ÷ 3 = $4.00. $10.00
+ $4.00 = $14.00). Subtracting the result from the Level IV wage yields a Level III wage
of $18.00 (i.e., $22.00 - $4.00 = $18.00).
26 Detailed descriptions of these occupations are available at the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations, available at
[http://www.bls.gov/soc/soc_r0a0.htm].
27 Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, p. 3.

CRS-11
Potential Effects of the Proposed Change
in the AEWR
DOL’s proposed regulations would not change the existing requirement that H-
2A workers must be paid at least the highest of the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR),
the prevailing wage, or the applicable federal or state minimum wage. The proposed
rule would, however, change the way the AEWR is determined. This section
compares the current AEWR to the current federal and state minimum wage rates and
then examines some of the potential effects of the proposed change in the way the
AEWR is calculated.
Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates
The current basic federal minimum wage is $6.55 an hour. It is scheduled to
rise to $7.25 an hour in July 2009.28 The federal minimum wage applies to most
agricultural employees. Exemptions apply to small agricultural employers,
immediate family members, workers engaged in the production of livestock on the
range, and certain hand harvesters.29
Several states have minimum wage rates that are higher than the federal
minimum wage. When the state minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum
wage, the higher state wage generally applies. As of July 24, 2008, among the 49
states with an AEWR (i.e., excluding Alaska), 23 states have a minimum wage that
is higher than the federal minimum wage.
Table 3 compares the current AEWR by state with the current federal minimum
wage of $6.55 and each state’s minimum wage. All minimum wage rates are
effective as of July 24, 2008. In each state, the current AEWR, as calculated from
the FLS, is higher than either the federal or state minimum wage. In addition, in each
state, the current AEWR is higher than the proposed minimum AEWR of $7.25.
28 On May 25, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R.
2206, P.L. 110-28). Title VIII, Subtitle A, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, raised the
basic federal minimum wage, in steps, from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.
29 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Agricultural
Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), available at [http://www.dol.gov/
esa/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs12.pdf].

CRS-12
Table 3. Comparisons of the Current Adverse Effect Wage
Rates with Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates
(as of July 24, 2008)
Amount by
Which the
Amount by
AEWR Exceeds
Which the
Adverse Effect
State
the Federal
AEWR Exceeds
Wage Rate
Minimum
Minimum Wage
the State
State
(AEWR)
Wage
Of $6.55 an Hour Minimum Wage
Alabama
$8.53
N.A.
$1.98
$8.53
Arizona
8.70
$6.90
2.15
1.80
Arkansas
8.41
6.25
1.86
2.16
California
9.72
8.00
3.17
1.72
Colorado
9.42
7.02
2.87
2.40
Connecticut
9.70
7.65
3.15
2.05
Delaware
9.70
7.15
3.15
2.55
Florida
8.82
6.79
2.27
2.03
Georgia
8.53
5.15
1.98
3.38
Hawaii
10.86
7.25
4.31
3.61
Idaho
8.74
6.55
2.19
2.19
Illinois
9.90
7.75
3.35
2.15
Indiana
9.90
6.55
3.35
3.35
Iowa
10.44
7.25
3.89
3.19
Kansas
9.90
2.65
3.35
7.25
Kentucky
9.13
6.55
2.58
2.58
Louisiana
8.41
N.A.
1.86
8.41
Maine
9.70
7.00
3.15
2.70
Maryland
9.70
6.55
3.15
3.15
Massachusetts
9.70
8.00
3.15
1.70
Michigan
10.01
7.40
3.46
2.61
Minnesota
10.01
6.15
3.46
3.86
Mississippi
8.41
N.A.
1.86
8.41
Missouri
10.44
6.65
3.89
3.79
Montana
8.74
6.55
2.19
2.19
Nebraska
9.90
6.55
3.35
3.35
Nevada
9.42
6.85
2.87
2.57
New Hampshire
9.70
6.50
3.15
3.20
New Jersey
9.70
7.15
3.15
2.55
New Mexico
8.70
6.50
2.15
2.20
New York
9.70
7.15
3.15
2.55
North Carolina
8.85
6.55
2.30
2.30
North Dakota
9.90
6.55
3.35
3.35
Ohio
9.90
7.00
3.35
2.90
Oklahoma
9.02
6.55
2.47
2.47
Oregon
9.94
7.95
3.39
1.99
Pennsylvania
9.70
7.15
3.15
2.55
Rhode Island
9.70
7.40
3.15
2.30

CRS-13
Amount by
Which the
Amount by
AEWR Exceeds
Which the
Adverse Effect
State
the Federal
AEWR Exceeds
Wage Rate
Minimum
Minimum Wage
the State
State
(AEWR)
Wage
Of $6.55 an Hour Minimum Wage
South Carolina
8.53
N.A.
1.98
8.53
South Dakota
9.90
6.55
3.35
3.35
Tennessee
9.13
N.A.
2.58
9.13
Texas
9.02
6.55
2.47
2.47
Utah
9.42
6.55
2.87
2.87
Vermont
9.70
7.68
3.15
2.02
Virginia
8.85
6.55
2.30
2.30
Washington
9.94
8.07
3.39
1.87
West Virginia
9.13
7.25
2.58
1.88
Wisconsin
10.01
6.50
3.46
3.51
Wyoming
8.74
5.15
2.19
3.59
Source: Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 38, February 26, 2008, pp. 10288-10290, and the U.S.
Department of Labor, Minimum Wage Laws in the States, July 24, 2008, available at
[http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm]. Minimum wage coverage in some states varies by
size of employer.
Note: N.A. means that a state does not have a state minimum wage.
Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule on the Wages and
Employment of Farmworkers in the United States
This section examines some of the potential effects on farmworker wages and
employment if DOL implements the proposed change in the way the AEWR is
determined.
Preview of the Findings. Under the proposed rule, in most areas both the
minimum AEWR of $7.25 and the OES Level I wage (for entry level workers) would
be lower than the current AEWR. In some areas, however, the Level I wage would
be higher than the current AEWR. On the other hand, in most areas, the Level III and
IV OES wages for livestock workers and farm equipment operators would be higher
than the current AEWR. Compared to the current AEWR, the proposed AEWR is
more likely to be lower for crop workers than for livestock workers or farm
equipment operators.
In some areas, the prevailing wage could become the highest of the AEWR,
prevailing wage, or minimum wage. In some areas in some states, the state minimum
wage could become the highest of the three wage rates.
In areas where the proposed rule would lower the wages that employers must
offer H-2A workers, the rule should create an incentive for employers to hire more
H-2A, as opposed to unauthorized, workers. In areas where the rule would increase
the wages that employers must offer H-2A workers, the rule would probably not

CRS-14
create an incentive to hire more H-2A workers. On the other hand, in areas where
the rule would increase the wages of H-2A workers, it should create an incentive for
employers to hire more U.S. workers. However, in areas where the rule would lower
the wages that employers must offer H-2A workers, it could lower the wages
employers offer U.S. workers.
Methodology and Assumptions. In order to analyze the potential effects
of the proposed rule on the wages and employment of farmworkers, it would be
necessary to compare the AEWR under current procedures with the AEWR under the
proposed rule. This section uses administrative data from employer requests for H-
2A workers, OES wage data from the FLC Data Center, and prevailing wage data
from ETA to analyze the potential impact of the proposed rule.
The analysis compares the current AEWR for crop and livestock workers
(combined), as calculated from the FLS, with the four wage levels of three
occupations from the OES survey: (1) farmworkers and laborers: crop, nursery, and
greenhouse production, (2) farmworkers: farm and ranch animals, and (3) equipment
operators. It is assumed that, under the proposed rule, these three occupations would
be used to determine the AEWR for crop workers, livestock workers, and farm
equipment operators.
The analysis also compares the hourly AEWR under the proposed rule with
hourly prevailing wage for the same area and occupation.
The analysis is based on labor certifications for five states. These states were
chosen because they are the five top states in terms of the number of H-2A workers
requested in FY2007. Together, the five states accounted for 43.7% of the H-2A
workers requested. The states are North Carolina (17.9%), Georgia, (8.0%),
Louisiana (6.1%), Florida (6.0%), and Kentucky (5.7%).
Wage data from the OES survey are available by metropolitan statistical area
(MSA) and areas that are called “balance of state” (BOS), which are areas that are not
part of an MSA. At the FLC Data Center, these areas are called “BLS areas.” For
each state, the BLS areas encompass all of the counties in a state. OES wage data
can be retrieved by county or BLS area.30 If the OES sample is sufficiently large,
wage rates are available at four levels of skill and experience for each farming
occupation in each BLS area.
The analysis presented here compares the current AEWR with the proposed
minimum AEWR of $7.25, the OES Level I, II, III, and IV wages, the prevailing
wage, and state minimum wage rates. Under the proposed rule, the actual wage that
would apply to an individual worker would depend on the occupation and the level
of skill and experience required by an employer for the job. Thus, any of the four
OES wage levels, the prevailing wage, or the minimum wage could become the
highest of the wage rates that employers must offer to H-2A workers. The discussion
30 The four OES wage levels are available by area and occupation at the U.S. Department
of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at
[http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].

CRS-15
below of findings and the analysis of the potential effects of the proposed rule
highlight workers who would be paid the minimum $7.25 AEWR or the OES Level
I wage. More emphasis is placed on these workers because it is assumed that the
majority of H-2A workers are entry-level workers.
Findings. The results of the analysis of the effect of the proposed rule on the
AEWR are summarized in Tables 4 through 7. For each of the five states chosen,
Table 4 shows the number of BLS areas where the OES Level I wage is less than or
equal to the current AEWR (column 3) and the number of areas where the proposed
Level I AEWR is higher than the current AEWR (column 6). The number of areas
where the proposed AEWR would be less than or equal to the current AEWR is
separated into two groups: Column 4 shows the number of BLS areas where the
proposed minimum AEWR of $7.25 is lower than the current AEWR and column 5
shows the number of areas where the OES Level I wage is more than $7.25 an hour,
but less than or equal to the current AEWR.
Tables 5 through 7 are similar to Table 4, except they compare the current
AEWR to the OES Levels II, III, and IV wages for each state, area, and occupation.
Tables 13 though 16 in the Appendix show the prevailing wage rates for North
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Kentucky. No prevailing wage rates are currently
available for Louisiana.
In general, the results show the following.
! In most areas, the $7.25 minimum AEWR and the OES Level I wage
for crop workers, livestock workers, and farm equipment operators
are lower than the current AEWR.31 For example, for cropworkers
in North Carolina, the OES Level I wage is lower than the current
AEWR in 18 of 19 BLS areas (compare columns 2 and 3 in Table
4).
! In many areas, the $7.25 minimum AEWR is lower than the current
AEWR. For example, in Georgia, the $7.25 minimum AEWR is
lower than the current AEWR in 15 of 19 BLS areas. Assuming the
$7.25 wage would not be adjusted for inflation (as wages rise due to
inflation, increased productivity, or both), as time passes the $7.25
wage would apply to fewer areas.
! The minimum $7.25 AEWR and the OES Level I wage are more
likely to be lower than the current AEWR for crop workers than for
livestock workers or farm equipment operators. For example, for
crop workers, the $7.25 minimum AEWR is lower than the current
AEWR in 51 of the 83 total BLS areas represented in Table 4 —
31 According to current rules, a wage determination that uses the four OES wage levels from
the FLC Data Center begins with a Level I, or entry level, wage. For jobs that require
greater skills or more experience, a higher wage applies. U.S. Department of Labor,
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Non-Agricultural Immigration Programs,
pp. 3, 7.

CRS-16
compared to livestock workers in 27 areas and farm equipment
operators in 24 areas.
! In some areas, the OES Level I wage is higher than the current
AEWR. For example, for equipment operators, the OES Level I
wage is higher than the current AEWR in 22 of the 83 BLS areas
shown in Table 4. Half of these 22 areas are in Kentucky. (See
column 6.)
! In most areas, the Level III and IV OES wages for livestock workers
and farm equipment operators are higher than the current AEWR.
For example, the Level IV wage for equipment operators is higher
than the current AEWR in all 83 wage areas shown in Table 7. For
livestock workers, the Level IV wage is higher than the current
AEWR in 80 of 83 areas. On the other hand, in 13 of 83 areas, the
Level IV wage for crop workers is lower than the current AEWR.
! In some areas, the prevailing wage could become the highest of the
AEWR, the prevailing wage, or the applicable minimum wage. For
example, in Greenville, North Carolina, the prevailing wage for
tobacco harvesters is $7.50 an hour. (See Table 13.) This is less
than the current AEWR of $8.85 but higher than the proposed
minimum AEWR of $7.25 or the Level I, II, or III OES wages for
crop workers in the Greenville MSA. Similarly, in Brunswick and
Valdosta (i.e., southern), Georgia, the prevailing wage of $8.00 an
hour for tractor drivers is less than the current AEWR of $8.53 but
higher than the Level I or II OES wages for equipment operators.
(See Tables 9 and 14.)
! Finally, in some areas in some states, the state minimum wage could
become the highest wage that employers must offer to H-2A
workers. In none of the five states studied here is the state minimum
wage higher than the $7.25 minimum AEWR. But, as of July 24,
2008, nine states have minimum wages that are higher than the
minimum $7.25 AEWR. Whether the state minimum wage would
apply to an H-2A worker would depend on whether it is higher than
the prevailing wage or the OES wage for the job.
Comparison of the AEWR Based on the FLS Versus OES Survey.
The current AEWR may overestimate the wages of crop workers and underestimate
the wages of livestock workers and farm equipment operators. Except for equipment
operators in Kentucky, the $7.25 minimum AEWR and the OES Level I wage for the
three occupations shown in Table 4 are generally lower than the current AEWR. For
example, in Georgia, the OES Level I wage for livestock workers is lower than the
current AEWR in all 19 BLS areas (compare columns 2 and 3). In Florida, the Level
I wage for equipment operators is lower than the current AEWR in 17 of 20 BLS
areas.

CRS-17
In general, the OES Level II wage for crop workers is also lower than the current
AEWR. See Table 5. This is not the case, however, for livestock workers or farm
equipment operators. With some exceptions (e.g., livestock workers in parts of
Louisiana and Kentucky and equipment operators in parts of Georgia), the Level II
wages for livestock workers and farm equipment operators are generally higher than
the current AEWR. The same is true for both the Level III and Level IV wages.
Thus, the proposed rule may have more of an adverse effect on the wages of crop
workers than on the wages of either livestock workers or equipment operators.
Potential Effects of the Proposed Regulation on the Wages and
Employment of Farmworkers. If the proposed rule is implemented as written,
its effect on the wages and employment of farmworkers would depend on a number
of factors. First, the rule may either raise or lower the wages employers must offer
H-2A workers. Second, the effect of the rule may vary by area and occupation. The
effect on the wages and employment of crop workers may be different from the effect
on livestock workers or farm equipment operators. The effect may be different in
labor markets where local wages are above or below the current AEWR. Finally, the
effect of the rule may be different for three groups of workers: unauthorized
farmworkers, H-2A workers, and U.S. workers.32
Effect of the Proposed Rule on Wages. Under the proposed rule,
employers would have to offer H-2A workers at least the highest of the minimum
AEWR of $7.25, the OES wage level that applies to the job, the prevailing wage, or
the state minimum wage. (Under current law, the federal minimum wage is not
scheduled to increase to more than $7.25 an hour.) Depending on local wages for the
occupation, skill, and experience that employers require for a job, the wage that
employers would have to offer H-2A workers under the proposed rule may be lower
or higher than the wage that employers must offer under current regulations. Under
the proposed rule, for employers who hire mainly entry level workers, the minimum
AEWR of $7.25, the OES Level I or Level II wage, the prevailing wage, or the state
minimum wage would likely apply. Nevertheless, for some occupations in some
areas, even the Level I or Level II wage would be higher than the current AEWR.
The current AEWR is higher than the state minimum wage in all states. On the
other hand, as of July 24, 2008, the state minimum wage is greater than the minimum
AEWR of $7.25 in nine states. Whether the state minimum wage would apply to H-
2A workers in these states would depend on whether it is higher than either the
proposed AEWR or the prevailing wage.
For those H-2A workers who qualify for Level III or Level IV OES wages, the
AEWR would likely be higher than the wage that applies under current regulations.
In most areas, the Level III and IV wages for livestock workers and farm equipment
operators are higher than the current AEWR. On the other hand, in some areas, even
the Level III or Level IV wage, especially for crop workers, would be lower than the
current AEWR.
32 U.S. workers include American citizens as well as foreign persons who have been legally
admitted to the United States.

CRS-18
Effect of the Proposed Rule on Employment. The effect of the proposed
rule on the demand for H-2A versus unauthorized workers may vary depending on
whether the rule lowers or raises the wages employers must offer H-2A workers.
In FY2007, 50,791 H-2A temporary agricultural worker visas were issued. At
the end of FY2007, an estimated 1.1 million hired farmworkers were employed on
U.S. farms and ranches.33 According to findings from the National Agricultural
Workers Survey (NAWS), as many as half of crop workers on U.S. farms are not
authorized to work in the United States.34 Thus, the available data suggest that U.S.
farmers and farm labor contractors employ more unauthorized crop workers than H-
2A workers.
Under the proposed rule, the AEWR should more closely reflect the wages of
farmworkers in local labor markets. In labor markets with a large concentration of
unauthorized farmworkers, wage data from the OES survey may, to some extent,
reflect the wages paid to unauthorized workers.35 For employers who hire mainly
entry-level workers, the proposed rule may lower the wages employers must offer H-
2A workers and could create an incentive for employers to hire more legal, as
opposed to unauthorized, foreign farmworkers. On the other hand, the rule may not
increase the incentive for employers to hire H-2A workers if it raises the wages
employers must offer H-2A workers.
Similarly, the effect of the proposed rule on the employment of U.S. workers
may depend on whether it raises or lowers the wages of foreign, as opposed to U.S.,
workers. The relative cost of benefits may also affect the demand for foreign and
U.S. workers. Although U.S. workers are entitled to the same benefits as H-2A
workers, employer costs for housing and transportation may be greater for H-2A than
U.S. workers (e.g., if U.S. workers live within commuting distance of a job).36 Thus,
the effect of the proposed rule on the employment of U.S. workers may depend on
how the rule changes the relative cost (i.e., wages and benefits) of foreign versus U.S.
workers.
33 According to the FLS, an estimated of 1,122,000 hired farmworkers were employed on
U.S. farms and ranches during the week of October 7-13, 2007. Farmworkers include field
and livestock workers employed directly by farmers and by agricultural service providers.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Farm Labor,
November 16, 2007, available at [usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo/2000s/
2007/FarmLabo-11-16-2007.pdf], p. 1.
34 U.S. Department of Labor, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey
(NAWS) 2001-2002, Research Report No. 9, March 2005, available at [http://www.doleta.
gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf], p. 6.
35 Wage estimates based on information collected from a sample of employers are subject
to sampling error. Because the wage estimates from both the FLS and OES surveys are
based on a sample of employers, a survey of all employers may yield different results.
36 Employment and Training Administration, Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A
Aliens in the United States; Modernizing the Labor Certification Process and Enforcement,
p. 8552.

CRS-19
Other factors may also affect the relative supply of or demand for foreign
farmworkers, including increased enforcement of U.S. immigration law and changes
in economic conditions in the United States and elsewhere. It may be difficult,
however, to separate the effects of these, and other, changes from the effect of the
proposed rule on hourly wages.
Table 4. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level I Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States
Number of BLS Areas Where the
Proposed AEWR Would Be Less
Than the Current AEWR
Number of Areas
Number of
Where the
BLS Areas
Proposed AEWR
Where the
Number of
Would Be
Proposed
Areas Where
Greater Than
AEWR Would
the $7.25
$7.25 but Less
Be Greater
Minimum
Than or
Than the
Number of
AEWR Would
Equal to the
Current
State
BLS Areas
Total
Apply
Current AEWR
AEWR
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Farmworkers and Laborers: Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
North Carolina
19
18
11
7
1
Georgia
19
18
15
3
1
Louisiana
12
12
8
4
0
Florida
20
18
10
8
2
Kentucky
13 a
12
7
5
0
Farmworkers: Farm and Ranch Animals
North Carolina
19
16
0
16
3
Georgia
19
19
7
12
0
Louisiana
12
11
10 b
1
1
Florida
20
18
2
16
2
Kentucky
13
11
8
3
2
Equipment Operators
North Carolina
19
16
8
8
3
Georgia
19
16
15
1
3
Louisiana
12
10
0
10
2
Florida
20
17
1
16
3
Kentucky
13
2
0
2 c
11
Source: CRS calculations based on the assumptions outlined in the text of this report. The Level I
OES wage rates by state and BLS area are shown in the Appendix.
a. For one of the BLS areas in Kentucky, no OES data for crop workers are available for the period.
b. For one of the BLS areas in Louisiana, the OES Level I wage for livestock workers is $7.25, the
same as the floor for the proposed AEWR.
c. For one of the BLS areas in Kentucky, the OES Level I wage for equipment operators is $9.13, the
same as the current AEWR.

CRS-20
Table 5. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level II Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States
Number of BLS Areas Where the
Proposed AEWR Would Be Less
Than the Current AEWR
Number of Areas
Number of
Where the
BLS Areas
Proposed AEWR
Where the
Number of
Would Be
Proposed
Areas Where
Greater Than
AEWR Would
the $7.25
$7.25 but Less
Be Greater
Minimum
Than or
Than the
Number of
AEWR Would
Equal to the
Current
State
BLS Areas
Total
Apply
Current AEWR
AEWR
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Farmworkers and Laborers: Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
North Carolina
19
14
4
10
5
Georgia
19
17
5
12
2
Louisiana
12
7
2
5
5
Florida
20
11
0
11
9
Kentucky
13 a
10
0
10
2
Farmworkers: Farm and Ranch Animals
North Carolina
19
4
0
4
15
Georgia
19
4
0
4
15
Louisiana
12
9
0
9
3
Florida
20
3
0
3
17
Kentucky
13
10
1
9
3
Equipment Operators
North Carolina
19
5
0
5
14
Georgia
19
14
2
12
5
Louisiana
12
0
0
0
12
Florida
20
2
0
2
18
Kentucky
13
0
0
0
13
Sources: CRS calculations based on the assumptions outlined in the text of this report. The Level
II OES wage rates by state, BLS area, and wage level are shown in the Appendix.
a. For one of the BLS areas in Kentucky, no OES data for crop workers are available for the period.

CRS-21
Table 6. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level III Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States
Number of BLS Areas Where the
Proposed AEWR Would Be Less
Than the Current AEWR
Number of Areas
Number of
Where the
BLS Areas
Proposed AEWR
Where the
Number of
Would Be
Proposed
Areas Where
Greater Than
AEWR Would
the $7.25
$7.25 but Less
Be Greater
Minimum
Than or
Than the
Number of
AEWR Would
Equal to the
Current
State
BLS Areas
Total
Apply
Current AEWR
AEWR
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Farmworkers and Laborers: Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
North Carolina
19
9
0
9
10
Georgia
19
8
0
8
11
Louisiana
12
2
1
1
10
Florida
20
6
0
6
14
Kentucky
13 a
6
0
6
6
Farmworkers: Farm and Ranch Animals
North Carolina
19
0
0
0
19
Georgia
19
2
0
2
17
Louisiana
12
3
0
3
9
Florida
20
0
0
0
20
Kentucky
13
6
0
6
7
Equipment Operators
North Carolina
19
0
0
0
19
Georgia
19
4
0
4 b
15
Louisiana
12
0
0
0
12
Florida
20
0
0
0
20
Kentucky
13
0
0
0
13
Source: CRS calculations based on the assumptions outlined in the text of this report. The Level III
OES wage rates by state and BLS area are shown in the Appendix.
a. For one of the BLS areas in Kentucky, no OES data for crop workers are available for the period.
b. For one of the BLS areas in Georgia, the OES Level III wage for equipment operators is $8.53, the
same as the current AEWR.

CRS-22
Table 7. The Number of BLS Areas Where the Proposed AEWR,
Using OES Level IV Wage Rates, Would be Less Than or Greater
Than the Current AEWR: A Comparison of Five States
Number of BLS Areas Where
the Proposed AEWR Would Be Less Than
Number of
the Current AEWR
BLS Areas
Number of Areas
Where the
Number of
Where Proposed
Proposed
Areas Where
AEWR Would
AEWR Would
the $7.25
Be Greater Than
Be Greater
Minimum
$7.25 but Less
Than the
Number of
AEWR Would Than or Equal to
Current
State
BLS Areas
Total
Apply
Current AEWR
AEWR
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Farmworkers and Laborers: Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
North Carolina
19
6
0
6
13
Georgia
19
5
0
5
14
Louisiana
12
1
1
0
11
Florida
20
1
0
1
19
Kentucky
13 a
0
0
0
12
Farmworkers: Farm and Ranch Animals
North Carolina
19
0
0
0
19
Georgia
19
0
0
0
19
Louisiana
12
1
0
1
11
Florida
20
0
0
0
20
Kentucky
13
2
0
2
11
Equipment Operators
North Carolina
19
0
0
0
19
Georgia
19
0
0
0
19
Louisiana
12
0
0
0
12
Florida
20
0
0
0
20
Kentucky
13
0
0
0
13
Sources: CRS calculations based on the assumptions outlined in the text of this report. The Level
IV OES wage rates by state, BLS area, and wage level are shown in the Appendix.
a. For one of the BLS areas in Kentucky, no OES data for crop workers are available for the period.

CRS-23
Appendix
Tables 8 through 12 show the four wage levels calculated from the OES survey
for each of the BLS areas in five states: North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida,
and Kentucky. BLS areas consist of MSAs and areas within a state that are not part
of an MSA. BLS areas encompass all of the counties in a state. The wage rates are
effective for the period July 2008 through June 2009.
Tables 13 though 16 show the prevailing wage rates for North Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, and Kentucky. No prevailing wage rates are currently available for
Louisiana. The prevailing wage rates apply to work scheduled for the years 2008 to
2009.

CRS-24
Table 8. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the State of North Carolina,
Effective July 2008 Through June 2009
Farmworkers and Laborers:
Farmworkers:
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
Farm and Ranch Animals
Equipment Operators
BLS area
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Asheville
$10.68
$11.07
$11.46
$11.85
$7.69
$8.47
$9.26
$10.04
6.97
8.58
10.19
11.80
Balance of State (BOS) 1
6.95
7.26
7.57
7.88
7.90
8.94
9.99
11.03
6.71
8.15
9.60
11.04
Balance of State (BOS) 2
6.76
7.13
7.51
7.88
8.91
9.64
10.38
11.11
8.13
9.37
10.61
11.85
Balance of State (BOS) 3
6.78
7.70
8.61
9.53
8.38
8.75
9.12
9.49
8.18
9.84
11.49
13.15
Balance of State (BOS) 4
8.32
9.44
10.57
11.69
8.18
8.65
9.12
9.59
10.26
12.80
15.33
17.87
Burlington
7.74
8.62
9.51
10.39
8.42
8.81
9.20
9.59
6.97
8.58
10.19
11.80
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord
7.37
8.44
9.51
10.58
8.00
8.49
8.99
9.48
6.97
8.58
10.19
11.80
Durham
6.77
7.50
8.23
8.96
8.23
9.14
10.05
10.96
8.18
9.66
11.13
12.61
Fayetteville
7.96
8.42
8.87
9.33
8.12
8.90
9.67
10.45
8.15
9.44
10.72
12.01
Goldsboro
6.82
8.03
9.24
10.45
8.54
9.48
10.42
11.36
8.15
9.64
11.14
12.63
Greensboro-High Point
7.57
8.21
8.86
9.50
8.40
9.12
9.84
10.56
8.15
9.46
10.78
12.09
Greenville
6.79
7.13
7.46
7.80
8.47
9.54
10.60
11.67
6.88
8.35
9.81
11.28
Hickory-Lenior-Morgantown
8.51
9.60
10.68
11.77
8.17
8.54
8.92
9.29
10.26
12.80
15.33
17.87
Jacksonville
6.79
7.16
7.53
7.90
8.92
9.70
10.47
11.25
6.95
8.40
9.84
11.29
Raleigh-Cary
8.05
8.82
9.59
10.36
7.62
9.28
10.94
12.60
6.91
8.39
9.88
11.36
Rocky Mount
6.79
7.32
7.85
8.38
7.29
9.57
11.85
14.13
6.88
8.41
9.93
11.46
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News
6.52
7.35
8.18
9.01
7.94
8.67
9.41
10.14
7.94
10.08
12.23
14.37
Wilmington
6.76
7.14
7.52
7.90
8.91
9.64
10.38
11.11
8.13
9.37
10.61
11.85
Winston-Salem
6.69
7.42
8.16
8.89
8.17
8.54
8.92
9.29
10.26
12.57
14.89
17.20
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].
Note: As a reminder, the AEWR for North Carolina is $8.85 an hour (see Table 1). Also, the proposed AEWR would be based on wage data from the OES survey, but it could not
be less than $7.25 an hour.

CRS-25
Table 9. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the State of Georgia,
Effective July 2008 Through June 2009
Farmworkers and Laborers:
Farmworkers:
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
Farm and Ranch Animals
Equipment Operators
BLS area
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Albany
$6.48
$7.30
$8.12
$8.94
$7.48
$8.80
$10.13
$11.45
$6.39
$8.17
$9.94
$11.72
Athens-Clarke County
8.29
8.98
9.66
10.35
7.35
9.18
11.01
12.84
6.32
8.14
9.95
11.77
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
6.59
7.84
9.09
10.34
8.01
9.49
10.97
12.45
9.35
11.32
13.30
15.27
Augusta-Richmond County
6.35
8.50
10.64
12.79
7.18
9.30
11.41
13.53
7.02
9.00
10.99
12.97
Balance of State (BOS) 1
6.28
7.71
9.13
10.56
7.81
9.56
11.31
13.06
6.33
8.45
10.57
12.69
Balance of State (BOS) 2
6.45
7.31
8.16
9.02
7.82
8.61
9.41
10.20
6.34
8.24
10.14
12.04
Balance of State (BOS) 3
6.45
6.85
7.25
7.65
6.78
7.41
8.03
8.66
6.29
7.16
8.04
8.91
Balance of State (BOS) 4
6.48
6.99
7.50
8.01
7.36
8.70
10.05
11.39
6.40
7.47
8.53
9.60
Brunswick
8.54
9.38
10.23
11.07
7.19
8.57
9.95
11.33
6.39
7.48
8.57
9.66
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
7.34
8.07
8.81
9.54
6.39
7.84
9.28
10.73
8.32
9.90
11.49
13.07
Columbus, Georgia-Alabama
7.68
8.37
9.06
9.75
7.31
8.77
10.22
11.68
11.38
12.73
14.07
15.42
Dalton
6.74
7.81
8.87
9.94
7.60
9.32
11.05
12.77
6.35
8.18
10.01
11.84
Gainesville
6.58
7.83
9.09
10.34
8.09
9.77
11.45
13.13
6.35
8.18
10.01
11.84
Hinesville-Fort Stewart
6.47
6.98
7.49
8.00
6.90
8.09
9.29
10.48
6.34
7.35
8.36
9.37
Macon
6.58
7.81
9.05
10.28
7.76
9.26
10.75
12.25
11.68
12.98
14.28
15.58
Rome
6.58
7.82
9.07
10.31
7.09
8.96
10.82
12.69
6.35
8.18
10.01
11.84
Savannah
6.45
6.88
7.32
7.75
6.78
7.41
8.03
8.66
6.29
7.20
8.10
9.01
Valdosta
6.43
7.01
7.60
8.18
7.36
8.67
9.99
11.30
6.40
7.47
8.53
9.60
Warner Robins
6.46
7.37
8.27
9.18
7.78
8.75
9.71
10.68
6.35
8.18
10.01
11.84
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].
Note: As a reminder, the AEWR for Georgia is $8.53 an hour (see Table 1). Also, the proposed AEWR would be based on wage data from the OES survey, but it could not be less
than $7.25 an hour.

CRS-26
Table 10. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the State of Louisiana,
Effective July 2008 Through June 2009
Farmworkers and Laborers:
Farmworkers:
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
Farm and Ranch Animals
Equipment Operators
BLS area
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Alexandria
$8.29
$9.09
$9.88
$10.68
$6.47
$7.38
$8.29
$9.20
$8.20
$8.75
$9.30
$9.85
Baton Rouge
6.31
7.55
8.79
10.03
6.78
7.80
8.81
9.83
8.18
8.74
9.29
9.85
Balance of State (BOS) 1
6.90
8.03
9.17
10.30
7.25
8.76
10.28
11.79
8.63
10.15
11.68
13.20
Balance of State (BOS) 2
8.09
9.82
11.55
13.28
6.47
7.38
8.29
9.20
8.22
8.73
9.24
9.75
Balance of State (BOS) 3
6.23
6.99
7.75
8.51
6.80
8.05
9.29
10.54
8.20
8.65
9.09
9.54
Balance of State (BOS) 4
6.38
6.65
6.91
7.18
6.88
7.99
9.11
10.22
8.36
10.47
12.59
14.70
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux
6.40
7.96
9.53
11.09
7.93
9.67
11.42
13.16
8.20
8.75
9.30
9.85
Lafayette
6.35
7.48
8.60
9.73
6.81
7.27
7.74
8.20
8.20
8.75
9.30
9.85
Lake Charles
6.46
7.97
9.49
11.00
6.53
7.49
8.46
9.42
8.20
8.75
9.30
9.85
Monroe
7.85
8.72
9.60
10.47
7.03
8.21
9.39
10.57
8.20
8.65
9.09
9.54
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner
6.97
8.61
10.25
11.89
10.29
11.59
12.90
14.20
8.88
10.48
12.07
13.67
Shreveport-Bossier City
7.40
8.83
10.25
11.68
6.81
8.24
9.67
11.10
8.22
8.66
9.09
9.53
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].
Note: As a reminder, the AEWR for Louisiana is $8.41 an hour (see Table 1). Also, the proposed AEWR would be based on wage data from the OES survey, but it could not be less
than $7.25 an hour.

CRS-27
Table 11. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the State of Florida,
Effective July 2008 Through June 2009
Farmworkers and Laborers:
Farmworkers:
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
Farm and Ranch Animals
Equipment Operators
BLS area
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Balance of State (BOS) 1
$9.11
$10.87
$12.63
$14.39
$8.23
$9.94
$11.66
$13.37
$9.75
$11.31
$12.87
$14.43
Balance of State (BOS) 2
7.24
8.71
10.19
11.66
8.03
9.98
11.93
13.88
7.85
9.46
11.06
12.67
Balance of State (BOS) 3
7.08
7.63
8.19
8.74
7.08
8.07
9.06
10.05
8.22
10.16
12.10
14.04
Cape Coral-Fort Myers
7.06
8.00
8.94
9.88
7.09
8.19
9.30
10.40
7.25
8.83
10.40
11.98
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach
6.96
7.60
8.23
8.87
7.78
9.21
10.65
12.08
7.70
9.24
10.79
12.33
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-
Deerfield Beach
7.13
7.74
8.35
8.96
9.14
10.57
11.99
13.42
7.35
8.81
10.26
11.72
Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin
8.70
9.87
11.05
12.22
8.23
9.94
11.66
13.37
9.62
11.58
13.55
15.51
Gainesville
7.17
7.92
8.66
9.41
7.86
9.40
10.94
12.48
8.16
9.59
11.01
12.44
Jacksonville
7.71
9.07
10.43
11.79
7.99
9.76
11.52
13.29
8.16
9.21
10.26
11.31
Lakeland
7.22
8.14
9.07
9.99
7.48
9.17
10.85
12.54
9.13
10.48
11.84
13.19
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall
7.07
7.99
8.91
9.83
8.04
9.41
10.77
12.14
7.90
9.28
10.67
12.05
Naples-Marco Island
7.39
7.98
8.56
9.15
7.37
8.68
9.98
11.29
7.21
8.09
8.98
9.86
Ocala
7.41
8.95
10.50
12.04
7.85
9.22
10.58
11.95
7.70
9.24
10.79
12.33
Orlando-Kissimmee
7.89
9.56
11.22
12.89
7.54
8.91
10.29
11.66
8.60
10.33
12.06
13.79
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville
8.45
9.68
10.91
12.14
7.45
8.85
10.25
11.65
7.70
9.24
10.79
12.33
Panama City-Lynn Haven
7.13
8.05
8.96
9.88
8.23
9.94
11.66
13.37
7.70
9.24
10.79
12.33
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent
8.74
9.92
11.11
12.29
8.23
9.94
11.66
13.37
7.70
9.24
10.79
12.33
Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce
8.63
9.61
10.59
11.57
9.29
10.72
12.15
13.58
8.57
10.17
11.77
13.37
Punta Gorda
7.08
7.77
8.45
9.14
7.47
9.22
10.97
12.72
8.19
10.11
12.04
13.96
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice
10.11
11.73
13.35
14.97
7.46
9.17
10.87
12.58
7.46
9.17
10.87
12.58
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].
Note: As a reminder, the AEWR for Florida is $8.82 an hour (see Table 1). Also, the proposed AEWR would be based on wage data from the OES survey, but it could not be less
than $7.25 an hour.

CRS-28
Table 12. The Four Hourly Wage Levels from the OES Survey for the State of Kentucky,
Effective July 2008 Through June 2009
Farmworkers and Laborers:
Farmworkers:
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse
Farm and Ranch Animals
Equipment Operators
BLS area
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Balance of State (BOS) 1
$6.69
$7.69
$8.68
$9.68
$6.57
$7.31
$8.04
$8.78
$10.35
$11.25
$12.15
$13.05
Balance of State (BOS) 2
7.40
8.19
8.99
9.78
6.95
8.32
9.68
11.05
11.18
11.96
12.73
13.51
Balance of State (BOS) 3
7.70
8.97
10.24
11.51
6.61
7.20
7.80
8.39
9.71
11.06
12.40
13.75
Balance of State (BOS) 4
7.07
8.51
9.96
11.40
9.70
10.97
12.24
13.51
9.70
10.97
12.24
13.51
Bowling Green
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
6.58
7.81
9.04
10.27
10.28
10.78
11.29
11.79
Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-
Kentucky-Indiana
8.23
9.32
10.41
11.50
7.79
9.66
11.52
13.39
9.13
10.28
11.43
12.58
Clarksville, Tennessee-Kentucky
6.64
7.97
9.29
10.62
6.64
7.72
8.79
9.87
9.34
10.24
11.13
12.03
Elizabethtown
7.30
7.98
8.67
9.35
7.01
8.29
9.57
10.85
10.28
10.78
11.27
11.77
Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky
6.28
7.55
8.82
10.09
10.38
11.25
12.11
12.98
10.13
11.00
11.87
12.74
Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio
8.17
9.22
10.27
11.32
6.60
7.84
9.08
10.32
8.85
9.96
11.07
12.18
Lexington-Fayette
6.91
8.77
10.62
12.48
7.98
8.99
10.00
11.01
9.67
11.28
12.88
14.49
Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky-
Indiana
7.05
7.90
8.74
9.59
7.71
8.99
10.26
11.54
9.91
10.71
11.52
12.32
Owensboro
6.26
7.28
8.31
9.33
6.57
7.51
8.45
9.39
10.32
11.09
11.85
12.62
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library, available at [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx].
Note: As a reminder, the AEWR for Kentucky is $9.13 an hour (see Table 1). Also, the proposed AEWR would be based on wage data from the OES survey, but it could not be less
than $7.25 an hour.

CRS-29
Table 13. H-2A Prevailing Wages, North Carolina, 2008-2009
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Statewide
Cabbage, harvesting
$6.30 per hour
Tomato, harvesting
$7.00 per hour
Strawberry, harvesting
$7.00 per hour
Cucumber, harvesting
$0.75 per 5/8 bushel
Banana peppers, harvesting
No finding a
Squash, harvesting
$6.50 per hour
Grape, harvesting
$8.50 per hour
Burley tobacco, harvesting
$9.00 per hour
Watermelon, harvesting
$7.00 per hour
Sweet corn, harvesting
$6.50 per hour
Long green cucumber, harvesting
$0.50 per 5/8 bushel
Jalapeno peppers, harvesting
$7.50 per hour
Onion, harvesting
No finding
Cantaloupe, harvesting
$6.40 per hour
Pumpkin, harvesting
$8.00 per hour
Sweet potato, harvesting
$0.40 per 5/8 bushel
Greenville
Tobacco, transplanting
$7.00 per hour
Horticulture, cultivating
$6.90 per hour
Tobacco, harvesting
$7.50 per hour
Mount Olive
Blueberry, harvesting
$5.00 per flat
Tobacco, transplanting
$7.00 per hour
Tobacco, harvesting
$7.00 per hour
Horticulture, cultivating
$8.00 per hour
Raleigh
Tobacco, transplanting
$7.00 per hour
Tobacco, harvesting
$7.00 per hour
Horticulture, cultivating
$7.00 per hour
Handersonville
Horticulture, cultivating
$8.00 per hour
Christmas tree, harvesting
$8.00 per hour
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Agricultural Online
Wage Library, available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/aowl.cfm].
a. “No finding” means that the number of workers in the sample for the occupation and area was too
small to estimate a prevailing wage. (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Employment Service Forms Preparation Handbook, Handbook 385, August
1981, p. I-139.) When there is no finding from the prevailing wage survey, employers must pay
at least the higher of the AEWR or the applicable minimum wage.

CRS-30
Table 14. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Georgia, 2008-2009
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Statewide
Yellow squash, pack
$6.00 per hour
North
Nursery, worker
$8.00 per hour
Central
Watermelon, cut
No finding a
Watermelon, load
$80.00 per 22,000-pound bus
Watermelon, packing shed
$7.00 per hour
Watermelon, unload
$8.00 per hour
Yellow squash, pick
No finding
Yellow squash, pack
No finding
Yellow squash, unload
No finding
Yellow squash, pick, wash, grade and field pack $1.00 per 6-gallon bucket
Vidalia onions, pulling
$1.20 per 30 bundle bag, 100 plants
Vidalia onions, planting
$0.25 per 1 foot ply row
Vidalia onions, field maintenance
$7.00 per hour
Vidalia onions, driver
No finding
Cabbage, driver
No finding
Cabbage, cut and load
No finding
Vidalia onions, planting
$0.0250 per foot 4 ply row
Vidalia onions, clip and bag
$0.75 per 60-pound bag
$11.50 per bin (30 five-gallon
Vidalia onions, clip, bag/bucket and dump
buckets)
Vidalia onions, driver
$7.00 per hour
Vidalia onions, forklift driver
$7.50 per hour
Vidalia onions, grader
$6.00 per hour
Vidalia onions, load
$0.03 per 60-pound bag
Vidalia onions, pack
$6.50 per hour
Vidalia onions, unload
$0.03 per 60-pound bag
Vidalia onions, bin setters
No finding
Vidalia onions, box
No finding
Vidalia onions, clip top, place on conveyor
No finding
Vidalia onions, field maintenance
No finding
Vidalia onions, experience forklift driver
No finding
Vidalia onions, experience grader
No finding
Vidalia onions, grader, experienced
No finding
Vidalia onions, load flat bed
No finding
Vidalia onions, load wagons
No finding
Vidalia onions, load and unload
No finding
Vidalia onions, machine operator
No finding
Vidalia onions, sort
No finding
Vidalia onions, unload with forklift
No finding
Cucumber, pick, pack and grade
No finding
Cucumber, grade
No finding
Cucumber, pick
No finding
Cucumber, truck driver
No finding
Cucumber, pickles
No finding
Cantaloupes, harvest
$0.06 per cantaloupe
Cantaloupes, packing shed
No finding
Nursery, worker
$7.00 per hour

CRS-31
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
South
Grape tomatoes, truck driver
No finding
Grape tomatoes, pick and palletize in bulk
No finding
Grape tomatoes, crew leader No
finding
Grape tomatoes, bus driver
No finding
Green tomato, pick, grade and field box
No finding
Green tomato, pick
No finding
Green tomato, dumper
No finding
Green tomato, driver, hauler
No finding
Tomatoes, pick, grade, field box
No finding
Tomatoes, pick
No finding
Roma tomatoes, pick
No finding
Watermelon, cut
$10.00 per hour
Watermelon, cut and load
$120.00 per 18,000-pound trailer
Watermelon, cut and load
$80.00 per 13,000-pound trailer
Watermelon, cut, load, unload, grade and pack
No finding
Watermelon, driver
$8.00 per hour
Watermelon, load
$450.00 per 15,000-pound bus
Watermelon, pack shed
$8.00 per hour
Watermelon, tractor driver
No finding
Watermelon, unload
$10.00 per hour
Yellow squash, pick, wash, grade and field pack $6.00 per hour
Yellow squash, pack
No finding
Yellow squash, supervisor
No finding
Zucchini, field supervisor
No finding
Zucchini, pick, wash, grade and field pack
$6.00 per hour
Corn, box maker
No finding
Corn, checker
No finding
Corn, crew leader
No finding
Corn, field walker
No finding
Corn, grade, pack and box at cooler
No finding
Corn, lead row
No finding
Corn, loader
No finding
Corn, machine driver
No finding
Corn, packer
No finding
Corn, puller
No finding
Corn, push down
No finding
Corn, tie man
No finding
Yellow squash, pick
No finding
Zucchini, pick
No finding
Cabbage, field cut
$0.26 per 50-pound box
Cabbage, loading boxes
No finding
Cabbage, pack on line
$5.50 per hour
Cabbage, pick and field pack
$0.60 per 50-pound box
Cabbage, unloading
No finding
Greens, cut, bundle and box
$0.85 per 24 bunch box
Greens, unloading
No finding
Greens, cut and box
No finding
Greens, icing
No finding
Greens, loading
$0.10 per 1.35 bushel box
Greens, packing shed
No finding
Greens, unloading and icing
No finding
Nursery, worker
$6.50 per hour
Cucumber, dumper
No finding

CRS-32
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Cucumber, packing
$6.00 per hour
Cucumber, picking
$0.35 per 5-gallon bucket
Cucumber, pick, pack and grade
$8.51 per hour
Cucumber, tractor driver
$8.00 per hour
Cucumber, pack and dump
No finding
Cucumber, pick, set bucket in trailer
No finding
Cucumber, place and pack
No finding
$6.00 per hour plus $0.10 per 5-
Bell pepper, pick
gallon bucket
Bell pepper, tractor driver
No finding
Bell pepper, place and pack
No finding
Bell pepper, pack
No finding
Bell pepper, dumper
No finding
Hot banana pepper, pick
No finding
Peppers, pack
$6.75 per hour
Peppers, pick
$0.30 per 7-gallon bucket
Peppers, pick, grade and pack
$8.51 per hour
Peppers, tractor driver
$8.00 per hour
Peppers, box maker, stacker
No finding
Peppers, dumper
No finding
Peppers, grade
No finding
Peppers, pick, set bucket in trailer
No finding
Peppers, washers
No finding
Eggplants, dumper
$6.67 per hour
Eggplants, pack
$8.51 per hour
Eggplants, pick
$0.50 per 7-gallon bucket
Eggplants, pick, grade and pack
$8.51 per hour
Eggplants, tractor driver
No finding
Eggplants, box maker
No finding
Eggplants, pick, pack and load
No finding
Eggplants, stack
No finding
Cantaloupes, harvest
$6.50 per hour
Cantaloupes, packing shed
$6.00 per hour
Cucumber, dumper
No finding
Cucumber, packing
$6.00 per hour
Cucumber, picking
$0.35 per 5-gallon bucket
Cucumber, pick, pack and grade
$8.51 per hour
Cucumber, tractor driver
$8.00 per hour
Cucumber, pack and dump
No finding
Cucumber, pick, set bucket in trailer
No finding
Cucumber, place and pack
No finding
$6.00 per hour plus $0.10 per 5-
Bell pepper, pick
gallon bucket
Bell pepper, tractor driver
No finding
Bell pepper, place and pack
No finding
Bell pepper, pack
No finding
Bell pepper, dumper
No finding
Hot banana pepper, pick
No finding
Peppers, pack
$6.75 per hour
Peppers, pick
$0.30 per 7-gallon bucket
Peppers, pick, grade and pack
$8.51 per hour
Peppers, tractor driver
$8.00 per hour
Peppers, box maker, stacker
No finding
Peppers, dumper
No finding

CRS-33
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Peppers, grade
No finding
Peppers, pick, set bucket in trailer
No finding
Peppers, washers
No finding
Eggplants, dumper
$6.67 per hour
Eggplants, pack
$8.51 per hour
Eggplants, pick
$0.50 per 7-gallon bucket
Eggplants, pick, grade and pack
$8.51 per hour
Eggplants, tractor driver
No finding
Eggplants, box maker
No finding
Eggplants, pick, pack and load
No finding
Eggplants, stack
No finding
Cantaloupes, harvest
$6.50 per hour
Cantaloupes, packing shed
$6.00 per hour
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Agricultural Online
Wage Library, available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/aowl.cfm].
a. “No finding” means that the number of workers in the sample for the occupation and area was too
small to estimate a prevailing wage. (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Employment Service Forms Preparation Handbook, Handbook 385, August
1981, p. I-139.) When there is no finding from the prevailing wage survey, employers must pay
at least the higher of the AEWR or the applicable minimum wage.

CRS-34
Table 15. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Florida, 2008-2009
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Statewide

Corn, detassler- mechanical
No finding a
Corn, cutter-puller
No finding
Corn, packer-pusher
No finding
Corn, crate maker
No finding
Corn, crate stacker-loader
No finding
Corn, crate closer-tie man
No finding
Corn, ticket maker-checker
No finding
Ticket writer operator-mobile packing equipment
No finding
Vegetable, assistant supervisor
No finding
Blueberry, harvest
$4.00 per six-pound bucket
Blueberry, packer
$7.00 per hour
Blueberry, planter
No finding
Citrus truck driver
$8.00 per hour
Citrus fruit for processing, mechanical harvesting
No finding
Early tangerine, hand harvest
$1.50 per 95-pound field box
Late Tangerine, harvest, fresh market
$2.00 per field box
Valencia orange, machine operator for processing
No finding
Central
$0.90 per 90-pound field box
Valencia oranges, harvest pickers for market
plus end of season bonus
Strawberry, planting
$10.00 per 1,000 plants
Strawberry, harvest fresh market
$1.50 per 8 x 1 pound flat
Early/mid orange harvest picker for processing
$0.85 per 90-pound field box
Valencia orange, harvest for processing
$0.90 per 90-pound field box
Grapefruit, hand harvest for fresh market
No finding
Grapefruit, hand harvest for fresh market
$0.60 per field box
South
Agricultural equipment mechanic
$11.00 per hour
Assistant supervisor, field operations
No finding
$0.90 per 90-pound field box
plus $0.01 to $0.03 per box
Early/mid orange harvest picker for processing
end of season bonus
Early/mid orange harvest picker for processing
$0.95 per 90-pound field box
Early/mid orange, machine harvest for processing
No finding
Valencia orange, harvest for processing
No finding
Grapefruit, hand harvest for processed fruit
No finding
Grapefruit, hand harvest for fresh market
No finding
East Coast
Early/mid orange harvest picker for processing
$0.98 per 90-pound box
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Agricultural Online
Wage Library, available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/aowl.cfm].
a. “No finding” means that the number of workers in the sample for the occupation and area was too
small to estimate a prevailing wage. (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Employment Service Forms Preparation Handbook, Handbook 385, August
1981, p. I-139.) When there is no finding from the prevailing wage survey, employers must pay
at least the higher of the AEWR or the applicable minimum wage.

CRS-35
Table 16. H-2A Prevailing Wages, Kentucky, 2008-2009
Area
Occupation
Prevailing Wage
Statewide
Tobacco, cutting and housing
$8.00 per hour
Tobacco, cutting
$8.00 per hour
Tobacco, housing
$8.00 per hour
Tobacco, stripping
$5.00 per hour
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Agricultural Online
Wage Library, available at [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/aowl.cfm].