Lawsuit filed to force state to enact and enforce new heat stress rules
August 10, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Compliance, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, New rules and regulations, Worker health
PDF California is one of only two states to have regulations that require employers to take steps to reduce employee injuries or deaths due to heat stress. It’s also been issuing fines and even shutting down some companies that have violated the regs. But now a lawsuit says California isn’t doing enough.
The ACLU has filed, on behalf of the United Farm Workers Union, a lawsuit accusing the state of not being able to protect its 650,000 agricultural employees from heat injury and death.
The lawsuit also alleges that California hasn’t done enough to establish common-sense regulations that would provide water, shade and rest to farm workers who experience 100° conditions.
The ACLU and union also faults California for not having enough inspectors to enforce the heat stress regulations it has.
California was the first state to establish heat stress regulations in 2005. Washington is the only other state to do so.
However, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has failed twice so far this year to upgrade those standards.
Cal-OSHA wanted emergency amendments requiring employers to provide shade for at least 25% of their workers to rest in if temperatures exceed 85°.
When it met this summer, the board voted 3-3 on the proposed amendments. One member was absent. Governor Schwarzenegger supports the changes and criticized the board for not acting.
Cal-OSHA says it’s conducted 167 outdoor workplace inspections and identified over 200 violations between July 11 and 27. In all of 2009, it’s issued $415,398 in citations.
The lawsuit notes that California has 35,000 farms and only 187 inspectors, who also have to enforce safety and health regulations other than the ones about heat stress.
Should states have regulations regarding heat stress and outdoor workers? Or should OSHA just cite companies when they don’t provide enough water, shade and rest using the General Duty Clause? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: ACLU lawsuit, agricultural workers, CAL-OSHA, heat stress, United Farm Workers Union
Loading ...
August 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Somewhere, one would have to codify the ‘enough’ [water, shade, rest] but I vote for the General Duty Clause. We have workers who routinely work in >100 deg F conditions - welding, heavy steel fabrication, tall tower erection. We are very cognizant of the ambient conditions and assure that all three items, above, are provided. Sometimes that’s difficult in the Middle East at our clients’ facilities, but not too difficult here in Texas (where we are in the 45th straight day of >100 deg F weather).
August 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Personally, I think allowing OSHA to handle heat stress under the General Duty Clause is enough. At the same time, I commend California and Washington for going a step above. What I see wrong with this scenario is that the United Farm Workers Union needs to take responsibility for its workers, rather than suing California to do so.
The union collects union dues and is supposed to represent the best interests of its members. The union under its own set of responsibilities should know if unsafe conditions exist for its members and then report those conditions to the appropriate agency such as Cal-OSHA. This would make it easier for Cal-OSHA to best appropriate the resources it has. Everyone is struggling in this economy, and expecting Cal-OSHA to hire more staff is not feasible right now.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
What do you expect from the ACLU? They’re certainly not pro-business.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Having worked compliance at a State OSHA program, relying on the General Duty Clause is fraught with cmplications. Heat exposure is a specific hazard with well known and effective protections, it’s fine to have a sepcific rule to address it.