|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - April 2006 / Policy: Heat Stress in Washington? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Policy: Heat Stress in Washington? |
|
|
|
Written On: April 2006 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Grant Nelson - AWB Governmental Affairs Director |
|
|
|
In December, before the legislative session, the business community received an early Christmas present from the Washington Department of Labor & Industries — a pre-proposed emergency rule on "heat stress." After the initial shock wore off, employers were left asking, "Do we really need this?"
While heat cramps and heat exhaustion can ruin your day, come down with heat stroke and you may wind up in the morgue. And although there was at least one pre-existing medical condition that increased his sensitivity to heat, that's exactly what happened to a Mexican migrant worker last year. The ensuing uproar from Columbia Legal Services, the labor community and the Mexican consulate prompted L&I to respond with a pre-proposed rule that initially contained new employer responsibilities to further mitigate heat-related risks, for both indoor and outdoor businesses. In fact, any employer who had a worker pass through a room or parking lot where the temperature was above 84 degrees would be required to meet complicated new requirements. The proposed emergency rule surprised most employers because of the relatively low number of heat-related workers compensation claims in our state. According to L&I's own report, there were 446 claims reported over the last 10 years, including the one death, but only 33 which resulted in three or more days away from work. This is not a large problem.
AWB immediately questioned the need and basis for the pre-proposed rule, provided written comments on problematic language, and worked with L&I on an alternative approach that emphasized educating employers and employees about working in warm temperatures.
Do we really need this rule? The short answer is "no." But simple answers are sometimes hard to come by, especially when politics are involved. And the predicament that L&I now finds itself in — how to respond to the migrant worker’s death without imposing a high-cost rule on the entire employer community — is a prime example of how politics can blur the line between developing policy capable of standing on its own merits and defusing a potential political time bomb.
State and federal laws and regulations already require employers to provide safe workplaces free from recognized hazards that may cause death or harm; establish, supervise and enforce rules that lead to a safe and healthy work environment; evaluate safety and health concerns brought up by employees; develop an accident prevention program; and other requirements. WAC 296-800-11010 states that employers must "do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life and safety of your employees".
Related to heat in the workplace, employers must provide sufficient cool, potable water in all places of employment; take steps to protect workers wearing required personal protective equipment against heat-related illnesses; ensure that employees know where potable water is located; and include heat-related protections in accident prevention plans. WAC 296-62-09013 specifically addresses temperature extremes, radiant heat and high temperature-humidity combinations, and the required protections employers must provide in those conditions.
L&I should seize this opportunity to work with, rather than against the business community on an education campaign. Ensuring that employees know that their own behavior and pre-existing medical conditions can increase the risk when subjected to hot temperatures would be a good place to start. A late night bender in the local tavern the night before a hard day’s work in the sun, for example, can set someone up for a trip to the hospital — or worse.
Consuming enough fluids in the hot summer sun is not practiced nearly enough. And age, prescription medications, illicit drugs, cigarette smoking, too much caffeine, being overweight, or wearing too much clothing vastly increases your risk of a heat-related injury or death.
To its credit, L&I has responded to many of AWB's concerns. They have sought comments from stakeholders, been receptive to AWB member requests to remedy specific problems with rule language, and narrowed the scope down to outdoor-only businesses in the hottest months of the year. For that, L&I deserves our appreciation. However, we simply do not need a heat stress rule in Washington. What we need to do is educate employees and employers on how to reduce heat-related injuries. And if L&I wants to partner on that goal, AWB will help in achieving it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
