Friends,
A little bit after my first president’s message was issued in July, I got a few messages praising my lack of political commentary. I also got a few messages angry at my alleged continued politicization of this presidency; I suppose my Ferris Bueller references upset the gaggle of Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley fans on our rolls. I can’t win for losing, I guess. It’s not that I don’t have opinions on politics; I certainly do and have found myself aligned with neither and both of our political parties over the years. But as a stereotypical Midwestern middle child, I do like making peace and tend to avoid talking politics at the dinner table lest I be forced to awkwardly ask “who’d like some dessert?” Discussing even vaguely political topics in mixed company is fraught these days, and our Association has not been immune from that, based on feedback and my own observations. I don’t think we’ve been overly or overtly political as an Association in recent years, but it has been my intention to try to focus on camaraderie and general good vibes this year. I hope it’s worked.
(The astute reader will correctly predict that I don’t open a communiqué like that without a “but” coming…)
But SEAONC, like many professional associations, trade groups, and smoke-filled rooms full of robber barons, was founded not just to talk shop and regale each other with hilarious anecdotes over drinks, but to talk business and understand how world events and politics were impacting members’ ability to make money, whether that be getting rich or just getting by. So, to the extent that politics and policies impact what we do and who we are as an industry, I think we have license, if not a duty, to discuss it. Following the news over the last year has been hard and doom scrolling the headlines each evening has not been helpful for a guy who already struggles to get enough sleep. The last month, in particular, has been a cavalcade of national embarrassment. I’m not going to try to unpack that here, but it was a kick in the pants for me to take a break from my usual kumbaya and warm-fuzzy content to risk shoving my foot in my mouth this month. I think the Bylaws grant me at least one of those per year. If you’ve co-authored a paper with me, you know that “starting a dialogue” is one of my favorite “topics,” wherein I monologue, asking a bunch of tough questions and failing to answer most of them. Well, here’s a starting monologue, which I should disclaim in no way represents the official position of SEAONC on this matter.
I vividly remember when the current administration issued a proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, back in September on a Friday evening. You know, the time of week when all good news is issued? My demographics have insulated me from many of this administration’s policies, but that announcement hit differently. I had just finished a mentoring meeting with one of our high-performing engineers who is on a visa, excitedly talking about future goals and career path. SEAONC had just held our committee involvement fair filled with plenty of new graduates, committee chairs, and other young leaders of the Association, many of whom are on visas. This was my team, my family, my friends, my community. I went home fuming.
For those not tracking the news closely (I don’t blame you), the gist of the announcement was that there would be a $100,000 fee imposed for new H-1b applicants, a cost that might be a drop in the bucket for some large tech companies but is prohibitive for most structural engineering firms, roughly doubling the cost to hire an early-career engineer. Since that announcement, there has been a bit more “clarity” provided with respect to the scope of these fees, which may keep the student visa-to-employment visa transition fees relatively constant. However, changes to the H-1b lottery odds that weight highly compensated individuals significantly more than lower (and in our industry most entry level hires are in those lowest tiers), mean that the odds of being selected are much lower than in the past. For those on existing visas and the companies that employ them, there seems to be increased scrutiny for strict compliance with oftentimes vague requirements that are dangerously open to interpretation. I’ve heard at least one example of a structural engineering firm being subjected to an unannounced audit by USCIS. A UC Berkeley professor was prevented from re-entering the country, leaving colleagues to pick up the additional teaching load. It’s far less dramatic than being visited by masked ICE agents, but our industry is feeling the impacts of immigration restrictions in our own way.
As things stand now (and even if things were to immediately revert back to the way they were pre-proclamation), a non-celebratory vat of icy-cold sports drink has been poured on our ability to attract the best and brightest minds from around the globe to our Bay Area universities to teach, research, and learn, and then have graduates stick around to make our SE firms amongst the best in the world. The ability to make this happen at minimal cost to individuals and businesses has been our country’s unfair advantage for a long time and our willingness to throw that away is confounding. Even if our universities remain the envy of the world, it’s having those people stay and keep the fruits of that education here that makes the difference between a boon for the Universities and a boon for our economy more broadly.
The bigger issue, and where this might impact us all the most, is that having this global workforce is not just a luxury for us. There are not enough civil engineering graduates from American universities each year to fill hiring demand, and that’s with a significant number of those graduates being non-citizens. Those non-citizens that we do hire are usually the best of the best, and at least around here they do not come at a lower cost than hiring American citizens; if anything, prevailing wages that must be paid to visa recipients are often higher than industry average, maintaining upward pressure on wages for everyone. I’m all in favor of increasing the value and quality of our services and being able to demand higher wages in return, but I’m concerned that a move like this makes the risk of mass offshoring of structural engineering (and other technical jobs) more likely, not less. If wages were to double overnight, we’re still 5 years away from replenishing our pipeline but with a potentially dangerous gap in experience to deal with. In the meantime, not only would the cost of domestic structural engineering rise, with its own economic dampening effects, but there will be a growing number of structural engineers educated at the best American universities able (and forced, perhaps) to work from other countries at lower cost. This isn’t just bad for business, it’s bad for innovation, bad for the vibrancy of our Association, and bad for public safety and the respect our profession seeks in a world where many view us as a commodity.
So, there are my feelings and concerns. Do I have answers for you? Nope. I was just here to start a dialogue, after all. But I will leave with three more points:
- To our Members whose career and life plans have been impacted by these changes: I know you are dealing with a lot and bravely going about your work just the same. Life on a visa is uncertain enough, and I want to apologize for the extra anxiety I’m sure this brings. It’s always been hard to tell if the general public recognizes and values what we do as structural engineers, and changes like this certainly make it seem as though the government doesn’t.But for what it’s worth, this Association does, and I hope this community has been and will be a source of support. Please reach out to your board to let us know what we can do to help during this time and know that you can stay connected and engaged with the Association and the community we’ve built wherever your career takes you.
- To our Business Leaders: You now know my feelings on this matter. If you’re a fan of this move or are simply less pessimistic than I am about it and see a silver lining or alternative route, let me know, maybe at my next office hours. If you’re similarly concerned, I’d like to hear it too, along with your ideas to help drive a rollback to these policies and/or adapt as best possible (other than AI). I’d like to take some action but honestly do not know where to start with this administration, as it does not seem like typical letter writing sort of advocacy routes are effective and I think we’re beyond offering pro-bono services for the reconstruction of the East Wing.One would think that the construction industry would be one that holds a somewhat special place in our developer-in-chief’s heart, though, right?
- I want our Association to be a place where these conversations can happen in a productive and respectful manner. We are civil engineers and I know we have it in us to act the part (see our Event Code of Conduct). We can generally all agree on policies like licensure, life safety, and resilient and sustainable construction, but I don’t want an inability to discuss tougher topics to stand in the way of us taking positions on less technical topics where it makes sense to do so. There have been discussions about reviving our Business Forum or Policy Forum, which might be a venue for that kind of dialogue.If you think that’s a good idea and are interested in taking part, please let me know.
I’m well overdue to send this message in for publication, so I’d better sign off. Thank you for hearing me out, and I’m sure I’ll be hearing from some of you quite soon.
Your President,
David Ojala
dojala@thorntontomasetti.com