Connect with us

News

New rules will protect California workers from dangerous heat indoors

Published

on

New rules will protect California workers from dangerous heat indoors

Warehouses in California can get dangerously hot. The state just passed a rule protecting people who work indoors in industries like warehousing, restaurants or manufacturing from excessive heat.

Virginie Goubier/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Virginie Goubier/AFP via Getty Images

California’s Occupational Health and Safety (Cal/OSHA) Standards Board voted Thursday afternoon to implement rules protecting indoor workers from extreme heat.

California now joins just a few other states, including Oregon and Minnesota, to protect people who work indoors in facilities like warehouses, restaurants and refineries. The state estimates the new rule will apply to about 1.4 million people who work indoors in conditions that can easily become dangerously hot.

“It’s an urgent public health crisis, the impact of heat on health, as we’re seeing across the country,” says Laura Stock, a former Cal/OSHA Standards Board member and the director of the Labor Occupational Health Program at the University of California, Berkeley. “There was an urgent need for this regulation. It’s in line with what we already have in California, which is the recognition that heat is a life-threatening exposure hazard.”

Advertisement

Now, when indoor temperatures hit 82 degrees Fahrenheit, employers will be required to provide employees with cool places to take breaks. Above 87 degrees, they’ll need to change how people work. That could mean shifting work activities to cooler times of the day, for example, or cooling down workspaces using tools like fans or air conditioning.

The rule could be implemented by early August, says Eric Berg, Cal/OSHA’s deputy chief of health and research and standards.

That can’t come quickly enough for workers facing dangerously hot weather already, says Tim Shadix, legal director of the Warehouse Worker Resource Center, a worker advocacy group based in Southern California.

“In the worst places we’ve seen, you know, in the summer, those workplaces, they’re kind of like a tin can baking in the sun,” Shadix says. “We hope there are no further delays and employees and employers are informed of these new protections before summer’s end.”

Early June saw record-breaking temperatures across the state, well above 100 degrees in some inland regions home to thousands of warehouses. Scientists from the World Weather Attribution group recently determined that June’s heat wave was longer, hotter and 35 times more likely to occur than in a world without human-caused climate change.

Advertisement

Sarah Fee used to work in warehouses in the Inland Empire, in Southern California. Outdoor temperatures regularly hover in the 90s or above during the summer, and many warehouses are as hot, or sometimes hotter, than the outdoors.

“I would leave work, my shirt would be soaked in sweat, and I would be absolutely nauseous,” she says. “Fans weren’t enough.”

A spotty patchwork of heat rules nationwide

There are no national rules protecting workers, outdoors or indoors, from dangerous heat. Employers are required to provide workplaces “free from recognized hazards” under the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s General Duty clause, including heat, but worker advocates point out that the guidelines on heat-specific risk are challenging to enforce and have been used infrequently.

In the absence of robust federal guidance, individual cities like Phoenix, Ariz., and five states, including Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, have created their own regulations that give outdoor workers, like farmworkers or construction workers, rights to water breaks and access to shade when temperatures soar.

But others have explicitly blocked such rules. Earlier this year, Miami-Dade County in Florida was on the cusp of proposing a local rule to address heat risk for outdoor laborers. But Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a state law banning cities or counties from making their own heat rules.

Advertisement

OSHA has been developing a national-scale heat rule that would protect both indoor and outdoor workers, but the process could take years. A draft was recently sent to the White House for review.

California’s adoption of the indoor heat rule is “a really an important step, and a signal to other states and employers that this is really something to pay attention to,” says Jill Rosenthal, the director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress. “We hope to see that more states will take up these kinds of policies and again, for health reasons and also for economic reasons.”

In the meantime, workers in California and beyond are being hurt, and sometimes dying, from heat exposure.

A long road to indoor heat protection

In 2016, California lawmakers approved a bill tasking Cal/OSHA with creating a rule to protect people who worked indoors from heat exposure — a companion to the state’s 2005 law protecting outdoor workers. The state was supposed to create the rule by 2019, but conflict over its scope slowed the rule’s progress for years. The debates were over which industries the protections would cover, what actions would need to be taken after certain temperatures were reached and what businesses would be required to actively cool workplaces that were too hot.

The text for the rule was finalized earlier this year. The standards board was set to vote on it in March 2024, but the night before the vote, the board was informed that California’s Department of Finance had raised concerns about the cost to the state for complying with the rule — particularly about the effort required to get the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) into compliance. The department operates more than 30 adult state-owned facilities across the state, most of which are cooled by fans or evaporative coolers, not air conditioning.

Advertisement

At the March meeting, board members expressed their frustration with the last-minute delay and took a symbolic vote to approve the rule anyway.

The new version of the rule that passed Thursday now excludes CDCR. The Standards Board says it will work on developing a separate pathway to address those workers’ safety. But AnaStacia Nicol Wright, with the worker rights organization WorkSafe, worries the process could drag out, putting thousands of employees — and prisoners — at risk for another summer, or more. “Incarcerated workers are also employees under California labor code,” she said at the meeting. “These workers are at risk of heat exhaustion and dehydration, due to working in often archaic, poorly ventilated buildings with little protection from temperatures.”

Some employer groups still object to components of the rule. Rob Moutrie, from the California Chamber of Commerce, noted that many small businesses that rent their facilities don’t control their own infrastructure, making it difficult or impossible to provide the cool-down spaces the new rule requires.

Bryan Little, director of labor affairs with the California Farm Bureau, pointed out that groups like his had similar concerns to Corrections about the potentially prohibitive costs of installing and using “engineering controls,” like air conditioning, to cool workplaces. “As an employer advocate, I wonder what it takes to get heard,” he said in the meeting.

The rule could be in place by late summer. The sooner, the better, says Stock.

Advertisement

“I think the urgency of this is really evident,” she says. “The impact of climate change on temperature is just exacerbating the exposure, and temperatures are higher for more months.”

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending