CT Labor Committee expected to OK bill seeking to prevent heat-related illness in workplaces
HBJ PHOTO | DAVID KRECHEVSKY
The State Capitol in Hartford.
The state Labor and Public Employees Committee on Thursday was expected to approve a bill seeking to prevent heat-related workplace illness.
During its regular meeting, which began at 9 a.m. Thursday, the committee considered a number of bills for final action, including voting to send them on to the full House or Senate.
Among the bills being considered was Senate Bill 830, which proposes safety standards to prevent employee exposure to the risk of heat-related illness.
The bill sets requirements for employers to follow when employees are working outdoors when the temperature exceeds 80 degrees. The requirements include providing shaded areas or other cooling methods, such as misting machines or fans. It also requires employers to provide water at no cost to employees, and sets a standard amount of water to be consumed, at “not less than 32 fluid ounces” per hour by employees.
In testimony submitted during a public hearing on the bill held on March 11,
Stacey Zimmerman, associate director for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) State Council, spoke in support of the bill, stating that it is “essential” to the health and well-being of workers.
“We all hoped that OSHA (the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration) would be the agency that would draft a rule that would look at heat-related safety issues, but with the disassembly of the federal regulatory authority it now must fall to the states,” Zimmerman said. “Connecticut has a responsibility to the health and safety of its workforce to regulate such matters.”
Ed Hawthorne, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, also spoke in favor of the bill.
“Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States,” Hawthorne said. “Excessive heat in the workplace can cause a number of adverse health effects, including heat stroke and even death, if not treated properly.”
He noted that while heat poses a hazard for workers in many industries, “those in construction, agricultural, landscaping and other industries where work is primarily conducted outdoors have a higher likelihood of facing hazardous heat exposure.”
The bill, he said, “is a common sense approach to making employees aware of the hazards heat can pose to their wellbeing while ensuring employers take steps to mitigate those hazards to the greatest extent possible. We urge the committee to support this bill.”
Other organizations, however, spoke against the bill.
John Butts, associate director of the Associated General Contractors of Connecticut, a division of the Connecticut Construction Industry Association, told the committee his organization opposes the bill.
He said the bill is “unnecessary considering the existing protections in place and the minimal incidences of heat-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities in Connecticut.”
OSHA, Butts said, has “for decades enforced extreme heat protections,” and that “existing federal regulations provide an effective system of enforcement to address heat exposure concerns without the need for additional state-level mandates that may create costly and unnecessary regulatory overloads for employers.”
Butts also provided some data, noting that between 2011 and 2020 there were 2,510 incidences of severe injuries or illnesses by event or exposure in Connecticut, according to the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health.
“Of the total,” Butts said, only 50, or 2%, were due to exposure to environmental heat, and there were no fatalities related to heat exposure.
“While every workplace injury or fatality is a tragedy, relating these numbers to the approximately 1.7 million people working each year in Connecticut suggests that this legislation is solving a problem that does not exist.”
Paul Amarone, a lobbyist for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), also submitted testimony opposing the bill.
“Several aspects of this bill are repetitive, unrealistic, and at times unenforceable,” he said. “We recommend utilizing existing state and federal safety laws and enforcement to ensure the safety of all workers impacted by this bill. We urge the committee to take no action on S.B. 830.”
The committee held open voting on the bill to allow members not present to vote, but the legislation was expected to be approved.
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments