George Piemonte, NOSSCR Past President

The Router (DOT 222.587-038): A 1977 Job Description in a 2026 Economy

Introduction

With the issuance of Emergency Message 24027 and the growing judicial recognition that occupations like Addresser, Document Preparer, and Surveillance System Monitor are obsolete, vocational experts have been forced to migrate to a new set of “safe harbor” jobs at Step Five. Among the most frequently cited replacements is the occupation of Router (DOT 222.587-038). But as with its predecessors, the Router job description is a relic of a bygone era, and practitioners who fail to challenge it are leaving winnable arguments on the table.

The DOT Description: A Snapshot from 1977

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes the Router as follows:

“Stamps, stencils, letters, or tags packages, boxes, or lots of merchandise to indicate delivery routes. Reads addresses on articles and determines route, using standard charts.”

That is the entire description. The occupation is classified as light work, SVP 2 (unskilled), with reasoning level 2, math level 1, and language level 2. Its Date of Last Update (DLU) is 1977, nearly fifty years ago.

The picture the DOT paints is clear: a worker stands at a table, reads an address on a package, consults a paper wall chart to identify the correct delivery route, and then physically stamps, stencils, or tags the package accordingly. No computer. No scanner. No software. Just a rubber stamp and a chart on the wall.

The Modern Reality: How Routing Work Is Actually Performed Today

The world of package routing and logistics in 2026 bears no resemblance to the DOT’s 1977 description. The “standard charts” contemplated by the DOT have been replaced entirely by sophisticated, technology-driven systems. Consider what modern routing work actually looks like:

Barcode Scanning and Automated Sortation. Today, packages entering a distribution center or shipping facility are scanned, not stamped. Workers use handheld barcode scanners or radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers to capture package data. That data is transmitted to a warehouse management system (WMS) or transportation management system (TMS), which determines the correct route algorithmically. Companies like Zebra Technologies now offer automated scan tunnels that perform “efficient, error-free package sorting and routing” at high speed, using centralized processing, AI-powered hazmat detection, optical character recognition, and dimensioning, all in a single pass. Automated sortation systems from companies like Dematic integrate barcode scanning, load tracking, and computerized divert control to route packages without any manual stamping, stenciling, or tagging.

GPS and AI-Powered Route Optimization. The “standard charts” of 1977 have been replaced by GPS-based route optimization software. Modern routing decisions are made by algorithms that account for real-time traffic conditions, delivery windows, fuel efficiency, driver availability, and customer preferences. Amazon’s Vision-Assisted Package Retrieval (VAPR) system uses computer vision and projectors mounted in delivery vans to identify packages at each stop, reducing drivers’ cognitive and physical demands and eliminating the need for manual route identification.

Computer Literacy and Software Navigation. Even in facilities where a human worker still plays a role in routing decisions, that worker is interacting with computer terminals, scanning devices, inventory databases, and electronic shipping systems, not rubber stamps and wall charts. Operating these systems requires the ability to navigate menus, interpret system prompts, troubleshoot errors, and make decisions based on electronic data. These are not “simple, routine tasks” requiring only a “short demonstration.”

AI and Machine Learning. The logistics industry has moved aggressively toward artificial intelligence. AI-powered robotic arms now sort thousands of parcels per hour. Vision-guided sorting systems combine high-resolution cameras, neural networks, and machine learning to classify parcels and decode information in real time. Last-mile parcel sorting solutions process over 21,000 parcels per hour with 99.9% accuracy, reducing manual labor requirements by 80%. The rote, manual task of stamping a package and consulting a paper chart has been functionally eliminated.

The O*NET Conflict: SVP 2 vs. Job Zone 3

The DOT classifies Router as SVP 2, unskilled work requiring no more than a short demonstration (up to 30 days of training). However, when we consult the Department of Labor’s own replacement for the DOT, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), a very different picture emerges.

The DOT crosswalks Router to O*NET SOC code 43-9061, General Office Clerks. O*NET classifies this occupation as Job Zone 3, “Medium Preparation Needed,” which generally corresponds to an SVP of 6.0 to less than 7.0. That is semiskilled-to-skilled work.

The O*NET description of General Office Clerks requires workers to, among other things: operate office machines including photocopiers, scanners, and personal computers; maintain and update filing, inventory, mailing, and database systems using a computer; communicate with customers and employees to answer questions and address complaints; compute, record, and proofread data; and review files, records, and documents to respond to requests. These tasks require knowledge of office systems and procedures, computer literacy, and independent judgment, far exceeding the “little or no judgment” threshold for unskilled work under the regulations.

The conflict is stark: if an ALJ limits a claimant to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks” (i.e., SVP 2/unskilled), the modern equivalent of the Router job, as classified by the Department of Labor’s own current database, does not fit that hypothetical.

The Legal Framework: SSR 24-3p Opens the Door

A common VE defense when confronted with O*NET data is: “I use the DOT, not O*NET.” Social Security Ruling 24-3p, which replaced SSR 00-4p effective January 2025, dismantles that shield. SSR 24-3p clarifies that vocational experts may rely on “any reliable source of occupational information that is commonly used by vocational professionals.”

O*NET is not a fringe publication. It is the official replacement for the DOT, sponsored and maintained by the U.S. Department of Labor. The DOT has not been updated since 1991, and the Department of Labor no longer supports it. If the SSA permits VEs to use “reliable sources,” there is no source more reliable than the federal government’s current standard for occupational classification.

Moreover, the SSA’s own Vocational Expert Handbook now instructs VEs that when they cite an occupation “that currently exists but that is performed differently from the way the DOT describes it,” they “should explain that there is a difference compared to the way the occupation is performed now and explain it.” The burden is on the VE to address technological transformation, not on the claimant to accept a 1977 job description at face value.

Courts Have Already Flagged the Router

The Router occupation is not flying under the judicial radar. In Kelly P. v. Saul, No. 5:18-cv-00777-MAA (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019), the court noted that “it is readily conceivable that technological advances in computers and cellular phones have led to the reduction, at least to a modest extent, in the number of router jobs that used to be performed with ‘standard charts'” and concluded that “a reasonable mind would not accept the VE’s testimony that there are a sufficient number of router jobs, as they are described in the DOT, in the national economy to constitute a significant number.”

Similarly, the NOSSCR has documented a growing pattern of Appeals Council remands in which ALJs rely on outdated DOT occupations without obtaining VE testimony on whether those occupations are “performed with more modern tools or processes.” The Appeals Council has made clear that when the record “does not contain information regarding whether these occupations are performed with more modern tools or processes,” the hearing decision lacks an adequate evaluation of the apparent conflict.

Practical Implications: What Practitioners Should Do

When a VE cites Router at Step Five, practitioners should be prepared to challenge the citation on two independent grounds:

First, the occupation as described no longer exists. The core tasks of the DOT Router, stamping, stenciling, and consulting paper charts, have been replaced by barcode scanning, automated sortation, and computerized route-optimization systems. The VE should be asked: What specific source did you rely on to determine that the Router occupation still exists as described in the DOT? Have you consulted any post-DOT source to evaluate whether the DOT description reflects how this work is currently performed? Can you identify any employer in the national economy where a worker stamps or stencils packages and consults a paper wall chart to determine delivery routes?

Second, the modern equivalent is not unskilled work. Even if the VE concedes that the job is now performed with modern technology, the follow-up question is whether the job, as actually performed, still qualifies as SVP 2/unskilled. The O*NET data demonstrates that it does not. Under SSR 24-3p, the representative should introduce the O*NET Job Zone classification and require the VE to reconcile the DOT’s SVP 2 rating with the Department of Labor’s current assessment that the corresponding work requires medium preparation (Job Zone 3, which equates to SVP 6).

Conclusion

The Router is the next domino to fall. It shares the same fatal flaw as Addresser, Document Preparer, and the other phantom jobs that VEs relied upon for decades: the DOT description from 1977 simply does not match the reality of the modern labor market. The tools are different. The skills are different. The complexity is different. With SSR 24-3p providing the legal authority to introduce O*NET and other reliable sources, and with courts already questioning the viability of the Router occupation, practitioners have every reason and every tool to challenge this citation effectively.

The DOT is a history book, not a vocational tool. It is time we treated it that way.

---

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.