BILL ANALYSIS
AB 838
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 838 (Swanson)
As Introduced February 26, 2009
2/3 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 |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-30|(June 2, 2009) |SENATE: |24-15|(September 4, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
AB 838
Page 2
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 $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
AB 838
Page 3
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
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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"This bill would require the Occupational Safety & Health Standards
Board (OSHSB) to adopt standards to control the risk of occurrence
of heat illness for employees working indoors.
"As I said when vetoing similar legislation two years ago, there is
no need to legislate a mandate in this area. The OSHSB has the
authority to adopt regulations in this area and will do so when it
determines the need for a specific standard on indoor heat."
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
AB 838
Page 4
FN: 0003258