BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 838|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 838
Author: Swanson (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE LAB. & INDUS. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-2, 7/08/09
AYES: DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
NOES: Wyland, Hollingsworth
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-5, 8/27/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza, Price, Yee
NOES: Cox, Denham, Runner, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-30, 6/2/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Occupational safety and health
SOURCE : California Conference of Machinists
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Communication Workers of American, District 9
DIGEST : Requires the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board, by July 1, 2011, to adopt a standard for
controlling the risk of occurrence of heat illness where
employees work indoors.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
AB 838
Page
2
Existing law requires all employers to provide a safe and
healthy workplace environment, and empowers the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) to issue citations if
there is evidence that an employee was exposed to a
workplace hazard in violation of a DOSH requirement.
Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, every
employer to establish, implement and maintain an effective
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) that, among
other things, requires employers to train employees on
workplace hazards that are new or previously unidentified.
Existing DOSH regulations requires all employers with
outdoor worksites to take the following steps to prevent
heat illness:
1. Provide heat illness prevention training to all
employees, including supervisors.
2. Provide enough fresh water so that each employee can
drink at least 1 quart per hour and encourage them to do
so.
3. Provide access to shade for at least 5 minutes of rest
when an employee believes he or she needs a preventative
recovery period. They should not wait until they feel
sick to do so.
4. Develop and implement written procedures for complying
with the heat illness prevention standard.
This bill 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.
Background
Following a rash of heat-related deaths in the agricultural
industry in July of 2005, AB 805 (Chu) was introduced to
address heat illness by requiring the Occupational Safety
and Health Standards Board (Board) to adopt an effective
occupational safety and health standard for heat illness
prevention and response for all employees at risk of heat
AB 838
Page
3
illness. The bill was held under submission by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
However, as a result of this legislative push for
regulatory action, the Board promulgated an outdoor heat
illness prevention regulation. This regulation requires
employers to follow specified guidelines to prevent heat
illness in outdoor places of employment, which were
detailed above.
During the public comment period for the regulation, some
stakeholders argued that the regulation failed to protect
many at-risk workers who work indoors and are exposed to
heat-related illness. The Board's Final Statement of
Reasons in support of the regulation responded to these
concerns by recognizing that heat illness is not limited to
outdoor work environments and committing to reconvene "an
advisory committee to address the risk of heat illness in
indoor work environments, once the standard for outdoor
workplaces is in place." The Board also noted that
existing regulations, particularly with respect to Injury
and Illness Prevention Program, First Aid and Emergency
Services, and Provision of Drinking Water still apply to
employers with indoor workplaces.
In 2007, AB 1045 (Richardson) was introduced to require the
Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to adopt an
occupational and health standard by July 1, 2008 for
controlling the risk of occurrence of heat illness where
employees work indoors. The bill mandated the standard to
require employers to establish, implement, and maintain
written procedures to recognize the symptoms of, assure
medical treatment for, and prevent the occurrence of, heat
illness, and specified provisions to be included in those
written procedures.
AB 1045 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated
the following in his veto message on the bill:
Two years ago, my Administration worked with the
Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board
(Board) to adopt the nation's first outdoor heat
regulations. Those regulations require employers to
provide anyone working outdoors with appropriate
AB 838
Page
4
training, provide sufficient quantities of water, and
ensure access to shade. When the Board adopted those
regulations it also said it would commence a review
of indoor worksites.
The Board has conducted its review and is now
considering the appropriate means of protecting
indoor workers from excessive heat. This
legislation, which proscribes specific requirements
upon any regulation adopted by the Board,
unnecessarily circumvents the Board's established
rulemaking process. Just as the outdoor heat
standards were adopted via the regulatory process and
free of legislative interference, so too should any
indoor heat standard be adopted.
In July 2007, DOSH announced that it would not be seeking a
regulatory requirement specifically applicable to heat
illness in indoor places of employment. At the time, Len
Welsh, Chief of DOSH, noted that only six cases of indoor
heat illness had been investigated since 2006. Due to the
low case load, DOSH staff concluded the situation was best
handled with more attention to existing worker training
regulations as part of the Injury and Illness Prevention
Program.
Since that time, DOSH has produced a flyer entitled
"Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention for Indoor Working
Environments" which focused on five key areas of
prevention: (1) written procedures for addressing indoor
heat illness in the employer's Injury and Illness
Prevention Program; (2) frequent drinking of water; (3)
rest breaks in cooler areas; (4) acclimatization and
Weather Monitoring; and (5) being prepared for emergencies.
The flyer also stressed the need for employee and
supervisor training on heat illness prevention.
Prior legislation :
AB 1045 (Richardson) of 2007, would have required the
Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to adopt an
occupational and health standard by July 1, 2008 for
controlling the risk of occurrence of heat illness where
AB 838
Page
5
employees work indoors. AB 1045 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
AB 805 (Chu) of 2005, which was also discussed earlier,
would have required the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board to adopt a standard on heat illness
prevention at all workplaces. AB 805 was held under
submission by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Adoption of indoor Up to $135 Up to $256General/
heat standard Special*
Enforcement of Standard $293
$585Special*
Appeals $59 $118 Special*
*General Fund for the OSHSB; Occupational Safety and Health
Fund for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/09)
California Conference of Machinists (co-source)
California Federation of Teachers (co-source)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
Communication Workers of American, District 9 (co-source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing
Committee
California Professional Firefighters
AB 838
Page
6
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Engineers and Scientists of California
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Northern
California District
Professional & Technical Employees, Local 21
Strategic Committee of Public Employees, LIUNA
UNITE HERE!
United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Western States Council
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/09)
Associated General Contractors
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Framing Contractors Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Department of Finance
Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Motion Picture Association of America
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Growers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Labor Federation,
the sponsor of this bill, argues 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.
The California Labor Federation contends that there are
thousands of workers in California working in high-heat
indoor environments. For example, the Federation notes
that 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. These work environments require
AB 838
Page
7
close proximity to continuously running equipment that
cooks and dries products all day.
Similarly, the Labor Federation cites the example of
industrial laundries, which employ nearly 20,000 workers in
California. Indoor temperatures in this industry often
exceed one hundred degrees Fahrenheit. Combined with high
humidity, the heat index in such workplaces can easily be
120-130 degrees.
The California Labor Federation notes other high indoor
heat work environments can include warehouse workers,
steelworkers, pastry bakers, iron, steel and nonferrous
foundry workers, brick firing and ceramics operations,
glass products manufacturing plants, rubber products
manufacturing plants, electrical utilities (particularly
boiler rooms), restaurant kitchens, smelters, and steam
tunnels.
Unfortunately, the California Labor Federation reports that
over the last 4 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.
The California Labor Federation believes 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. However, 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents, who include the
California Chamber of Commerce and the California
Manufacturers and Technology Association, argue that
current law requires all employers to address workplace
hazards, including and especially those hazards that are
AB 838
Page
8
unique to each workplace. DOSH regulations also require
that if an IIPP is not adequate or complete, DOSH can issue
citations. Opponents note that 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. Opponents believe
that indoor heat exposure is especially suited to the IIPP
to ensure employee safety in these unique environments.
Opponents also argue that an IIPP gives an employer
flexibility to design a safety plan specific to the
workplace, and that this bill would create another set of
regulations to apply to all employers, even where excessive
heat exposure is not present would impose an unnecessary
burden on employers.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Block
AGB:do 8/28/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****