Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S., killing at least 207 people in the nation in 2023. A new proposed federal rule aims to decrease fatalities in the workplace, as well as illnesses and injuries related to heat.
The Biden Administration made the proposal’s announcement earlier this month. It’s expected to help protect 36 million workers in both indoor and outdoor work settings from extreme heat, according to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration news release.
This would impact employees working all general industry, construction, maritime and agriculture jobs under OSHA’s jurisdiction, according to the release.
If the proposal is finalized, it would require employers to make a plan for preventing heat illness and injury, including requirements for drinking water, rest breaks and monitoring indoor temperatures. Under the proposal, employers must also make a heat emergency response plan including a process to respond to an employee with signs of heat-related illness.
Labor union United Farm Workers has advocated for heat protections since the early 2000s. The proposed rule has been a long time coming and is a big step forward, Communications Director Antonio De Loera said.
“It's a bittersweet moment, because we know that this probably would not have happened had workers not died, right?” De Loera said.
This rule would be the first federal standard, but several states – California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Minnesota – have their own heat standards for certain workers. In California, which was the first state to enact rules in 2005, the law includes rules for employers to prevent heat illness, give access to drinking water, and offer cooling areas under certain conditions.
There are also states with laws limiting local leaders from expanding heat protections beyond what’s required through state or federal law. Florida law blocks political subdivisions from making and mandating additional protections not required under state or federal law, and Texas law prevents local governments from making rules outside of state laws for certain industries.
De Loera said compliance with heat protection law on the books is a problem in California, where many United Farm Workers members work. He said the group has a bill in the state’s legislature to ensure employer compliance.
“But, of course, for workers in places like Arizona where a worker was killed last year, Texas, Florida, the federal rules are a huge step forward, right?” he said. “We can argue later about how we make sure that this right is enforceable, but step one is making sure that that right exists.”
For Scott Blubaugh, the president of American Farmers and Ranchers and the Oklahoma Farmers Union, the proposed federal rule is common sense. He does not foresee the proposed rule impacting his operation because it mirrors practices he uses on his farm anyway.
“You know, the devil's in the details, of course, but I didn't see anything that would give me any worry about the rule,” Blubaugh said.
Practicality concerns
The proposed rule has faced obstacles such as lobbying from groups. The American Farm Bureau Federation is one organization that has expressed hesitancy about federal rules surrounding heat safety.
John Walt Boatright, the group’s director of government affairs, said in a recent statement that farmers care about their workers.
“Yet another regulation comes on the heels of more than 3,000 pages of other new rules from federal agencies that impact how family farms operate and interact with their employees,” Boatright said in the statement.
The federation is still analyzing the proposed rule and engaging with members to form the organization’s comment to the proposal.
Ryan Flickner, senior director of advocacy at the Kansas Farm Bureau, said employee and operator safety is most important, but the uniform standard could be problematic because different places in the U.S. have different weather conditions.
“We’re seeking feedback from our members what these, the 85 degrees or the 95 degrees, what those certain thresholds mean on a day-to-day farming operation,” Flickner said.
The Oklahoma Farm Bureau also doesn’t like a one-size fits all approach. Many operators are already taking measures, the organization’s president, Rodd Moesel, said in an emailed statement.
“Oklahoma Farm Bureau members are concerned the proposed OSHA heat rules are not feasible or practical due to the nature of many agricultural operations and believe farmers and ranchers already make efforts to provide reasonable accommodations wherever possible,” Moesel said.
Federal officials are encouraging the public to submit comments on the proposal once it is posted on the Federal Register. The comment period will be open for 120 days after it is published.
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
