Spring is in the air; summer is not far behind. Seems like a good time to reprise what is and is not happening on heat exposure. It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that heat can be a serious health hazard. Beyond simple discomfort, science tells us that extreme heat can cause a host of illnesses – from heat cramps and heat exhaustion to heat stroke and death (see more here, here). Everyone is at risk when temperatures soar. But indoor and outdoor workers, children, the elderly, those socially isolated, and people with incomes below the federal poverty level are especially vulnerable, as are communities of color (see here, here). For outdoor workers, three basic accommodations prevent heat stress: water, shade, and rest breaks.
Some States Are Taking Protective Action
Heeding the science, five states have enacted heat standards covering some workers – California (outdoor workers), Colorado (agricultural workers), Minnesota (indoor workers), Oregon (outdoor and indoor workers, with some exceptions), and Washington (outdoor workers). Maryland is in the process of developing a heat illness prevention standard, making it the first state on the east coast to do so. See here for more information and an interactive map. This is progress, though many workers in these states still lack regulatory protection from hazardous heat.
One State Is Going In the Other Direction
Florida takes the cake when it comes to protecting its workers from heat -- and not in a good way. Several years ago, state lawmakers enacted a good piece of legislation to protect high school athletes from heat illnesses following the tragic death of a young football player. Contrast this with what happened after two farmworkers died from heat exposure last July.
Protests organized by the Farm Workers Association of Florida led the Miami-Dade County Commission to pass a preliminary measure requiring agriculture and construction employers to give their workers 10-minute water breaks after every two hours of outdoor work, and to offer them a shaded area to cool down during the workday. But state lawmakers and their big business constituents wanted none of it. To kill it, they advanced a bill that prohibits political subdivisions from requiring an employer or contractor to meet or provide heat exposure requirements that are not required under state or federal law.
Essentially preempting local action, the bill gives the state sole authority to enact heat-safety regulations for workers in Florida. And Republicans in the state legislature don’t intend to use that authority any time soon. In fact, if passed the bill would delay the state’s authority to enact its own heat standards until 2028. I guess giving them time to tally up four years’ worth of deaths to see if an occupational heat law is really needed. Instead, these lawmakers intend to rely on federal OSHA and the goodwill of employers, who they believe know what’s best for their employees.
Basically, these elected officials have told their county counterparts to butt the heck out; they’ve decided that the health impacts of heat on Florida workers should not drive state action. You can read more about that here, here, here, and here. Never mind that Florida is one of if not the hottest state in the country (here, here). Never mind that working people are the linchpins of the state economy and the cornerstones of the state’s families and communities. Never mind that the UN reports 2023 as the hottest year on record, with more expected.
Federal Action?
And that federal standard the Florida lawmakers are relying on? Well, there is no federal occupational heat standard, so they must be thinking about OSHA’s General Duty Clause. The general duty clause requires employers to provide workplaces that are “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” Here’s the rub – the general duty clause is seldom enforced.
It's not that OSHA doesn’t recognize heat as a serious occupational hazard. In October 2021, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings and started the lengthy rule-making process. It can take years and even decades for OSHA to issue a standard, so we won’t see an occupational heat rule any time soon. In the meantime, the agency issued a heat hazard alert in July 2023, putting employers on notice that they are responsible for protecting workers from heat illness. And it noted an intention to step up enforcement. But with its limited resources and inspection staff, there’s no way OSHA can visit every farm, field, agricultural operation, and construction site in the state. So we can expect to see more heat-related illness and death. More grieving families. More workers at risk.
My Take
When policy makers ignore science and put special interests ahead of the public good, we, the ordinary people, suffer. In this case, it’s Florida’s outdoor workers who will continue to suffer the consequences of hazardous heat: those who labor in the fields to harvest the food we’ll put on our tables tonight; those who build and maintain the places we live, work, shop, visit, worship, and play. And the roads we use to get there. Heat-related deaths and illnesses are totally and easily preventable. That some Florida lawmakers ignore the science and turf the problem to someone else is an outrage.
I write this brief post to welcome SciLight as another forum for shining a spotlight on the role of science in public policy and its role in protecting the health and safety of the public, the environment, and the integrity of science itself. I write also with hope that the good people of Florida will put the proverbial heat on their elected officials to prioritize the health and safety of working people over the wishes of their monied and special interest constituents. And I write because we too can have voice and influence as advocates for worker health and safety no matter what the thermometer says.
About the Author
Kathleen Rest is a Senior Fellow in Boston University’s Institute for Global Sustainability and former Executive Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists where she oversaw the organization’s work on climate change, clean energy & transportation, sustainable agriculture, and protecting the integrity of science in public policy. She previously served as the Acting Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and has held faculty appointments at several medical schools. She has served on committees for the National Academies and authored publications on occupational and environmental health issues. She is a Board member for the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics and the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU Law School. She is an Elected Fellow of the AAAS and a member of the American Public Health Association. She has a PhD in health policy from Boston University and a MPA from the University of Arizona.
Contact the south Florida worker center WeCount (https://www.we-count.org/) to support construction and farmworkers.
According to Public Citizen today (March 26): "On the eve of a vote to enact a rule that would protect indoor workers from excessive indoor heat last week, the California Department of Finance withdrew its support for a proposed rule, citing a late adjustment to costs to make California prison workers safe from excessive heat.
While the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Board (Cal/OSHA) voted to move forward with the rule in its March 21 meeting, the law requires the California Department of Finance to approve a fiscal review for the regulation ahead of the rule being adopted. By retracting the previously submitted Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment — an assessment the California Department of Finance spent years developing — California Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has blocked protection for workers this summer and beyond. Governor Newsom must step in by March 30 in order for the rule to go into effect. If the rule is not in place by March 30, 2024, the rulemaking process would start over.