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.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

US Supreme Court rejects Sackler liability releases in Purdue bankruptcy

Published

on

US Supreme Court rejects Sackler liability releases in Purdue bankruptcy

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The US Supreme Court has invalidated a measure in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy that would shield members of the company’s founding Sackler family from future civil liability in exchange for a $6bn contribution, in a closely watched case involving the maker of the opioid OxyContin.

The Department of Justice had sought to invalidate the comprehensive liability releases granted to the Sacklers, saying they could not be justified under existing US law. The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed in a 5-4 ruling.

But the high court’s majority stressed that its decision was a “narrow one” that did not “call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganisation plan”.

Advertisement

This is a developing story

Continue Reading

News

CAUGHT ON CAM: Massive sinkhole swallows part of soccer field

Published

on

CAUGHT ON CAM: Massive sinkhole swallows part of soccer field

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Surveillance video captured a massive sinkhole opening up in the middle of a soccer field in Illinois.

According to NBC affiliate KSDK, the sinkhole is roughly 100 feet wide and 30 feet deep.

The video shows a light pole being swallowed, along with some bleachers, where benched players would sit during their games. Thankfully, no one was seated there at that time.

“It looks like something out of a movie, right? It looks like a bomb went off,” the Director of Alton’s Parks and Recreation Department told KSDK.

KSDK said the cause is reportedly due to an underground mine.

Advertisement

The owners of the mine said the area is currently closed while inspectors conduct repairs.

Continue Reading

News

Toplines: June 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

Published

on

Toplines: June 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

How This Poll Was Conducted

Here are the key things to know about this Times/Siena poll:

• We spoke with 1,226 registered voters from June 20 to 25, 2024.

• Our polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. More than 90 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for this poll.

• Voters are selected for the survey from a list of registered voters. The list contains information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter, allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region. For this poll, we placed nearly 150,000 calls to more than 100,000 voters.

Advertisement

• To further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the page, under “Composition of the Sample.”

• The poll’s margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus three percentage points. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error. When computing the difference between two values — such as a candidate’s lead in a race — the margin of error is twice as large.

If you want to read more about how and why we conduct our polls, you can see answers to frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here.

Full Methodology

Advertisement

The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,226 registered voters nationwide, including 991 who completed the full survey, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from June 20 to 25, 2024. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for the likely electorate. Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.6 percentage points for the likely electorate.

Sample

The survey is a response rate-adjusted stratified sample of registered voters on the L2 voter file. The sample was selected by The New York Times in multiple steps to account for differential telephone coverage, nonresponse and significant variation in the productivity of telephone numbers by state.

First, records were selected by state. To adjust for noncoverage bias, the L2 voter file was stratified by statehouse district, party, race, gender, marital status, household size, turnout history, age and home ownership. The proportion of registrants with a telephone number and the mean expected response rate were calculated for each stratum. The mean expected response rate was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena surveys. The initial selection weight was equal to the reciprocal of a stratum’s mean telephone coverage and modeled response rate. For respondents with multiple telephone numbers on the L2 file, the number with the highest modeled response rate was selected.

Second, state records were selected for the national sample. The number of records selected by state was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena national surveys as a function of state, telephone number quality and other demographic and political characteristics. The state’s share of records was equal to the reciprocal of the mean response rate of the state’s records, divided by the national sum of the weights.

Advertisement

Fielding

The sample was stratified according to political party, race and region and fielded by the Siena College Research Institute, with additional field work by ReconMR, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida, the Institute of Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, and the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at Winthrop University in South Carolina. Interviewers asked for the person named on the voter file and ended the interview if the intended respondent was not available. Overall, 91 percent of respondents were reached on a cellular telephone.

The instrument was translated into Spanish by ReconMR. Bilingual interviewers began the interview in English and were instructed to follow the lead of the respondent in determining whether to conduct the survey in English or Spanish. Monolingual Spanish-speaking respondents who were initially contacted by English-speaking interviewers were recontacted by Spanish-speaking interviewers. Overall, 13 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 17 percent of weighted interviews.

An interview was determined to be complete for the purposes of inclusion in the ballot test question if the respondent did not drop out of the survey by the end of the two self-reported variables used in weighting — age and education — and answered at least one of the age, education, race or presidential election ballot test questions.

Weighting — registered voters

Advertisement

The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.

First, the sample was adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.

Second, the sample was weighted to match voter file-based parameters for the characteristics of registered voters.

The following targets were used:

• Party (party registration if available, or else classification based on a model of vote choice in prior Times/Siena polls) by whether the respondent’s race is modeled as white or nonwhite (L2 model)

Advertisement

• Age (Self-reported age, or voter file age if the respondent refuses) by gender (L2)

• Race or ethnicity (L2 model)

• Education (four categories of self-reported education level, weighted to match NYT-based targets derived from Times/Siena polls, census data and the L2 voter file)

• White/non-white race by college or non-college educational attainment (L2 model of race weighted to match NYT-based targets for self-reported education)

• Marital status (L2 model)

Advertisement

• Home ownership (L2 model)

• National region (NYT classifications by state)

• Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Method of voting in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Metropolitan status (2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties)

Advertisement

• Census tract educational attainment

Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.

Weighting — likely electorate

The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.

First, the samples were adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.

Advertisement

Second, the first-stage weight was adjusted to account for the probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election, based on a model of turnout in the 2020 election.

Third, the sample was weighted to match targets for the composition of the likely electorate. The targets for the composition of the likely electorate were derived by aggregating the individual-level turnout estimates described in the previous step for registrants on the L2 voter file. The categories used in weighting were the same as those previously mentioned for registered voters.

Fourth, the initial likely electorate weight was adjusted to incorporate self-reported intention to vote intention. The final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was four-fifths based on their ex ante modeled turnout score and one-fifth based on their self-reported intentions, based on prior Times/Siena polls, including a penalty to account for the tendency of survey respondents to turn out at higher rates than nonrespondents. The final likely electorate weight was equal to the modeled electorate rake weight, multiplied by the final turnout probability and divided by the ex ante modeled turnout probability.

Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.

The margin of error accounts for the survey’s design effect, a measure of the loss of statistical power due to survey design and weighting. The design effect for the full sample is 1.21 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate.

Advertisement

Historically, The Times/Siena Poll’s error at the 95th percentile has been plus or minus 5.1 percentage points in surveys taken over the final three weeks before an election. Real-world error includes sources of error beyond sampling error, such as nonresponse bias, coverage error, late shifts among undecided voters and error in estimating the composition of the electorate.

Continue Reading

Trending