Protecting workers from hazardous heat: part i, behind-the-scenes

For colleagues in WISC-EEWG (the Washington Interfaith Staff Community - Environment and Energy Working Group) world, this is a memo to which you might point others in your organization -- as you too consider if, how, and how much to work on the Heat Rule…

And for readers of the COEJL blog, this is an example of the coalitional work we and our allies do, taking turns going deep into various issues, and sharing resources and suggestions with one another – in this case, on an issue with great moral clarity, that marries human dignity and worker safety with climate adaptation.  

​    Hi all – yesterday the AFL-CIO held a helpful webinar on the Heat Rule that OSHA recently proposed.  The process will be long, far beyond the public comment period that closes on 12/30/24 – and we’ll want religious leaders involved again across 2025 & 2026, to present testimony, raise visibility of worker safety concerns, etc. The question here is how deeply our sector might be involved in driving large numbers of supportive comments this Fall (i.e. making a widespread but easy ask of our folks to make their voices heard).  My sense is, pretty deeply -- through NRPE and jewishearthalliance.org and others, we've already started -- and I look forward to further explorations with you all on it.    [continued, below...]

          

         ​When asked about a grass-roots push to drive comments in the coming months, their Worker Safety director Rebecca Reindel said:
              Yes, it’s important to drive comments this period – it shows OSHA that faith communities and other allies do indeed care.  We can also play a key role politically, in demonstrating widespread support, which is part of the agency’s ultimate calculus when finalizing and adopting a rule.  And, the next 3 months is likely the only time when advocates can drive large numbers of comments into the record; opportunities will open later for those testifying in public hearings, but not for easy mass engagement.
           In the chat, another labor organizer wrote, “If faith communities made public statements/published op-eds on this it would make the protection morally compelling and hard for the employers to oppose it.”   And a third noted, as some of us have previously said, how making this a grass-roots priority has “co-benefits” such as firing up our own base, and deepening the ties between the religious and labor constituencies.
             Most of the webinar was rather technical (meant to equip folks to drive the submission of comments that speak to particular workplaces, industries, initiatives, etc).  The rest remains interesting, though, and while it was recorded, I’ve tried to summarize it, below…

         Bottom line, for us as a network of faith communities:  It’s not entirely clear just how much our full mobilization might move the needle – how the final rule might be stronger, with or without thousands of broadly supportive comments from people of faith.  But clearly, our efforts should help to some degree, and make a real difference for real workers.  So at least some sustained engagement across our sector does seem worthy – and since the comment period stretches more than seven weeks following the elections, for those of us engaged in voter mobilization, our efforts can ramp up after Nov 5th.
       And that engagement has begun – again, here are a few key resources as of mid-September, with more to come -- including an NRPE “grass-tops” faith leader letter to be circulated, and individual comment portal (stay tuned for more from Katie on those):

• Climate Action Campaign’s initial comment portal: Submit your comment on the OSHA Heat Rule (google.com)
• The White House announcement: FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Protect Workers and Communities from Extreme Weather | The White House
• The State angle, from NRDC: Heat Stress Is Killing Workers. States Can Protect Them. (nrdc.org)
• And of special interest to readers of the COEJL blog, our friends at Jewish Earth Alliance made this their September-October action alert: Protect Workers from Extreme Heat (jewishearthalliance.org)

​Here’s hoping for some sustained coordination within and beyond the WISC-EEWG, between now and Dec 30!  Best, all; the summary follows…     -Fred

Summary of AFL-CIO webinar on OSHA Heat Rule, 9/19/24, for Faith Advocates

Nearly a hundred attendees, including a few faith advocates and others from the public health and secular environment worlds, as well as numerous representatives of unions and other experts within the labor world.  It was led by Rebecca Reindel, Dir. of Worker Safety at the AFL-CIO. 
              Though our focus is federal, it’s worth also looking at the STATE level:   CA, OR, WA, CO, and MN already have meaningful workplace heat protections; MD is close to finalizing; NY, NJ, and NV are in process, among others.  On the other hand, TX & FL are now rolling back protections.  Also some local ordinances (like Phoenix) are taking effect.
             TIMELINE:  the written comment period ends Dec 30.  The best case scenario under a supportive Administration would be a public hearing process in 2025, perhaps into 2026, which would inform a lengthy intenal-to-OSHA editing process.  A final Heat Exposure Standard could be published later in 2026 or into 2027.  For context, the silica exposure rule took fully 20 years, so this is moving fast by comparison!
Overlap with LEGISLATIVE efforts:  eventually yes, though not a fous until the legislative environment becomes more supportive.  They’re keeping their eyes on what is now HR-8578, the Public Sector Worker Protection Act; and HR-4897 / S-2501, the Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act (which would direct OSHA toward comprehensive standards for indoor as well as outdoor workplaces, and specify key elements of the ultimate standard).
    SUBMISSIONS:  Can be either the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/30/2024-14824/heat-injury-and-illness-prevention-in-outdoor-and-indoor-work-settings -- or, Regs dot Gov: OSHA-2021-0009-4761: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OSHA-2021-0009-4761.  Numerous unions have their own submission portals as well.
              CONTEXT:  OSHA’s regs are quite different from other agencies.  Their standard-setting burden includes:  must use best available evidence, which support the conclusions; must be “significant risk of harm,” specifically through occupational exposure and not just general public health; such exposure must be likely to cause material impairment to people’s health or function; standard imposes “reasonably necessary or appropriate actions” that would decrease risk; must be both technologically and economically feasible. 
              Thus advocates’ burden includes:  marshal substantial evidence supporting the standard, or recommended strengthenings; address “factual basis” (which can be anecdotal stories, needn’t be scientific certainty), along with documentation and evidence wherever possible. 
​                  Most interesting to me was the following:

              HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS:  this inverted pyramid has been used in most other OSHA rules in recent years, but is not (yet) part of the heat rule – this season's advocacy effort includes putting the Hierarchy into the heat rule, so that “elimination” touches on climate mitigation, as well as adaptation.  Higher up would be limiting and preventing exposure to heat in the first place; lower down is mitigating the bodily response.
              The topmost of five layers is ELIMINATION of the threat, followed by SUBSTITUTION for something less hazardous.  OSHA’s current efforts (as usefully outlined here) skip those higher aims, and start at the middle level of ENGINEERING CONTROLS (ventilation, insulation, etc), followed by WORK FLOW changes (shorter shifts, more frequent breaks, etc), and with PPE at the bottom.  A fuller explication of the Hierarchy is at Identifying Hazard Control Options: The Hierarchy of Controls (osha.gov).
              SPECIFIC CONCERNS:  (a) most “indoor sedentary” work is not (yet) covered by the proposed rule, though we know that water and rest and shade are not enough in extreme heat (with the majority of heat wave deaths being indoor rather than outdoor); the move here needs to be toward employer responsibility rather than individual/worker behavior.  (b) Training will be needed, both on the controls employers are putting in place, and on monitoring and compliance.  (c) Lone workers need protections too.  (d) Acclimatization schedules/practices are not fleshed out.  And (e) as in many labor efforts, there must be explicit protection against employer retaliation for workers reporting unsafely-hot working conditions, or reporting heat-related injuries or illnesses. 
              Much of the webinar was geared toward labor leaders and experts, with jamboard exercises to brainstorm (a) which kinds of voices to elevate and what sorts of resources to amass to inform the comments they’re driving; (b) specifics around how to demonstrate technological feasibility of greater protections; (c) parallel exploration of how to make the case for economic feasibility.  Bottom line, the need is to advocate for ADDITIONAL control measures, beyond the obvious – OSHA already gets the need for hydration; now, what about specifics?   E.g., cooling vests failed as a protection for workers at top of an insulated crane, where heat rises; they lost their cooling power before workers had even reached the top, a 25-minute trek.  Victory here was the requirement to instead put in a proper ventilation system, bringing exterior air directly into the top of the crane, a 40 degree reduction in worker’s heat exposure.
              SUGGESTED CONTENT FOR COMMENTS:  All supportive comments are helpful.  Where stories can be told, or individual industry or workplace examples can be cited, all the better.  Ideally, comments should emphasize whatever can be done across the board, since without this rule incorporating the hierarchy of controls, OSHA basically lets companies cherry-pick what they’ll do.  Comments can highlight what works, cost-effectively, in other sectors or places – for instance, big ag will likely complain that a strong standard will “drive prices too high, and we won’t be able to feed people” -- yet California (with the largest ag output of any state) has had worker heat exposure limits for a decade…  And of course, focus where possible on the costs already being borne by workers in the absence of a standard, which will offer key context when compared to the dollar cost to industry of adopting higher standards…