BILL ANALYSIS
AB 838
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 838 (Swanson)
As Introduced February 26, 2009
Majority vote
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Eng, Furutani, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Ma, Portantino | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill, Gaines |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Board to adopt a standard for controlling the risk of occurrence
of heat illness where employees work indoors by July 1, 2011.
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)Employers to follow specified guidelines to prevent heat
illness in outdoor places of employment.
2)Employers to provide safe and healthful working conditions for
all employees by authorizing the enforcement of effective
standards and provides for research, information, education,
training, and enforcement in the field of occupational safety
and health.
3)With certain exceptions, every employer to establish,
implement and maintain an effective Injury and Illness
Prevention Program.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriation
Committee, the development of a standard for indoor heat illness
prevention would cost about $75,000. In addition, if the
standard requires employers to maintain written procedures,
state employers would incur one-time costs potentially exceeding
AB 838
Page B
$100,000.
COMMENTS : Supporters argue that an effective approach to
heat-related illness is vital to protect the lives of California
workers. The key to preventing heat-related illness is to train
employers and workers on how to identify heat related hazards
and to implement proper controls and work practices.
Unfortunately, in many cases, neither the workers nor their
employers have the awareness of the symptoms that would alert
them to report heat illness cases before it is too late.
They contend that throughout California there are thousands of
workers who have daily exposure to hot indoor work environments.
For example, there are over 100,000 workers who work in food
processing and manufacturing carrying out such tasks as packing
melons, cooking sugar beets, meatpacking, and making dog and cat
food.
Supporters state that the need for a heat standard to protect
outdoor workers was proven almost four years ago with the
preventable deaths of several farmworkers during the brutal 2005
heat wave. This led to an outdoor heat illness regulation that,
among other things, required training of both employers and
employees in the signs and symptoms of heat illness. They argue
that this standard is a good start, but is insufficient, as we
saw in 2008, when a number of farmworkers died of heat stress in
spite of this regulation.
In 2005, CalOSHA decided that a regulation for indoor workers
could wait. Unfortunately, supporters contend that over the
last four years, two union workers have died at indoor worksites
in California. Last year a worker died at a warehouse in Tracy.
He complained of heat illness symptoms and was sent home but
sadly, he died in the warehouse parking lot. Three years ago
another union member died under similar circumstances at a
warehouse in Lancaster. In this instance, the worker made it to
the hospital where he died. Supporters argue that had an indoor
regulation been in place, these two workers would have been
trained along with their co-workers on how to recognize,
prevent, and treat the symptoms of heat illness and the workers
might be alive today. With no regulations in place, there is no
requirement for employers to make sure that they or their
workers are trained to identify the symptoms of heat illness and
the appropriate response. Even one preventable death on the job
AB 838
Page C
is too many. The time to create a standard has come. A heat
standard to protect indoor workers will alert medical providers
and employers to the dangers of heat in the workplace and save
lives.
Opponents argue that current law requires all employers to
address workplace hazards, including and especially those
hazards that are unique to each workplace. The premise of an
injury and illness prevention program (IIPP) is that DOSH
recognizes that a one-size-fits-all safety program will not
effectively protect employees across all industries. The IIPP
specifically requires all employers to develop a safety program
to identify and mitigate safety hazards in the workplace and to
train employees about the hazards. Indoor heat exposure is
especially suited to the IIPP to ensure employee safety in these
unique environments. Opponents argue that creating yet another
set of regulations to apply to all employers, even where
excessive heat exposure is not present would impose an
unnecessary burden on employers.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0001091