'They Are at Risk': California Workers May Wait Longer for Heat-Illness Protections

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration withdrew support of new heat-illness protections for indoor workers, which was widely expected to win final approval from state regulators on Thursday.

The decision by the Department of Finance, revealed just hours before the scheduled vote, shocked and angered workplace safety advocates who view the proposed requirements as critically urgent for tens of thousands of workers who face heat hazards at warehouses, restaurants, packing houses and other indoor facilities.

The indoor heat rule would require employers to keep work areas below 87 degrees, if feasible, or reduce hazards by adjusting employees’ shifts or taking other steps. Concerns about compliance costs may delay implementation of the regulations, which have already taken the state years to develop.

“It’s an extraordinary disappointment,” Stephen Knight, the executive director of the nonprofit Worksafe, told KQED. “It was a moment for the State of California to step into its climate change leadership in a way that could provide relief and support for people at the bottom of the economy. Instead, the concern is still, ‘When are we going to have heat protections for workers?’”

Heat stress can cause nausea, fainting, seizures and even death.

California has had heat illness prevention rules for outdoor workplaces since 2006, a standard spurred by a string of farmworker deaths the previous year.

A 2016 law called on the state to formally propose regulations to minimize heat-related injuries and illnesses at indoor workplaces by 2019. Still, the contentious rulemaking process lagged for five more years.

Extreme temperatures have become more common due to climate change. Jassy Grewal, legislative director with the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, said additional setbacks would result in sickened or killed indoor workers.

“By delaying the standard, we are going to harm low-income workers the most. They are at risk,” Grewal said at Thursday’s occupational safety standards board meeting. “Heat in California is a public health emergency and a worker health emergency and needs to be treated as such.”

The hold-up comes as the Department of Finance must review the fiscal impact of major regulations on state agencies before they are approved. The department has already commented on the indoor heat rule through the formal rulemaking process.

However, new estimates it received recently signaled that the standard could cost correctional institutions billions of dollars to implement, said H.D. Palmer, a department spokesman. The agency lacked enough time to assess whether those figures were accurate or fiscally responsible at a time when California braces for a budget shortfall, he added.

“This wasn’t us trying to say we want to stop this from a policy standpoint,” Palmer told KQED. “It wasn’t a policy-based decision. It was simply that we could not sign off on — late in the game — cost estimates that could potentially be in the billions of dollars.”

If the heat standard is not formally adopted by a March 29 administrative deadline, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, also known as Cal/OSHA, may have to start the rulemaking process from scratch, according to worker advocates. Cal/OSHA did not immediately return a request for comment to confirm the impact of missing that time limit.

At its packed meeting, interrupted by chants from angered workers and advocates, the Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board held a largely symbolic vote on the regulations anyway. It passed unanimously.

“We’re in uncharted waters,” Laura Stock, a board member, said. “We just voted for it. We don’t know yet whether that’s going to have any impact whatsoever. We don’t know yet whether there’s going to be any pressure that is able to be put to bear on the Department of Finance.”