Protecting California Workers from Heat: Challenges and Objections

photo of factory workers to represent the industries that would benefit from protection from heatPhoto byRemy GielingonUnsplash

This article is summarized from several sources including California Healthline and AP News. Attributions are linked within.

Last week Cal/OSHA, also known as California Division of Occupational Safety and Health approved standards to “require companies to protect employees from excessive indoor heat, particularly in warehouses.” Unfortunately, the state Department of Finance objected, citing high costs.

Though there’s no federal standard to protect indoor workers from overheating, and no California standards in place except for outdoor workers (added in 2006), OSHA isn’t giving up. State legislation was passed to draft standards to protect warehouse and other indoor workers but these practices have yet to be formalized or enacted.

If you live in Southern California, you likely agree with Sheheryar Kaoosji, executive director of the Warehouse Worker Resource Center who is in favor of the vote, knowing 15 million workers in the state stand to benefit.

“The hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. That means the danger of working in high heat has become more acute in the time it has taken to finalize these standards,” he said.

The regulation up for vote applies to “workplaces ranging from warehouses to schools and kitchens, requiring cooling devices, access to water and cooling-off break areas at certain temperature thresholds as well as monitoring for signs of heat illness.”

Though Amazon states they have “heat safety protocols often exceed industry standards, and it provides air conditioning in all of its fulfillment centers and air hubs” other organizations are not as diligent about employee comfort and safety.

Concerns “have been repeatedly raised by workers in the industry” yet the “Department of Finance sought to halt the Cal/OSHA board’s vote, citing concerns about huge costs to correctional and other facilities.”

Unfortunately because offering protection from excessive heat could cost, “in the neighborhood of billions of dollars” per H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance, the regulations are on hold, until the Department of Finance agrees.

In defense of the Department of Finance, they have not had ample time to review all the data thoughtfully as they only received some of the data in February. “This was a decision that was driven by our inability to do our fiscal due diligence and evaluate this data late in the process that had a potential impact to the state,” Palmer said.

For the workers who toil ten-hour days in stifling heat not only in the summer but year round, “It’s easy to break into a sweat and grow tired, workers say. The ventilation feels inconsistent…and workers have testified in a public hearing about nosebleeds, nausea, and dizziness. In some warehouses, the walk to find a place to cool down is at least half a mile.”

If California is able to move beyond the objections, ideally in the spring, requirements include businesses must: “be required to cool worksites below 87 degrees Fahrenheit when employees are present and below 82 degrees in places where workers wear protective clothing or are exposed to radiant heat, such as furnaces. If businesses are unable to lower the temperatures, they must provide workers with water, breaks, areas where they can cool down, cooling vests, or other means to keep employees from overheating.”

Even if the regulation passes, it may not be good enough. “Some businesses fear they won’t be able to meet the requirements, even with the flexibility the regulation offers. Workers argue buildings should be kept even cooler.”

The opposers of the regulations are not limited to the Department of Finance. Katie Davey, former legislative director of the California Restaurant Association, suggests that lowering temperatures for meet these requirements could be in conflict with others, such as putting restaurants in violation of food safety laws that require food to be heated to specific temperatures.

On a national level, U.S. OSHA’s attempts have stalled in Congress and to date only two states, Minnesota and Oregon, have adopted heat rules for indoor workers.