States’ job site data differs
California employs patchwork in contrast to Oregon’s policy
California and Oregon were lauded for their early responses to the pandemic, with swift and broad shutdowns and stringent mask requirements aimed at slowing the spread of coronavirus. In reopening their economies, both states imposed rigorous requirements for masks and face coverings.
But eight months into the public health crisis, the neighboring states have made starkly different choices on tracking and reporting workplace outbreaks — decisions that shape how much the public knows about the spread of coronavirus as hot spots appear at meat- packing plants, warehouses and other essential worksites.
Since May, Oregon has used a centralized tracking system which has enabled health officials there to release weekly reports that list the names and addresses of every known business with at least 30 employees where five or more positive COVID-19 cases are identified. For outbreaks of more than 20, the state issues special daily reports.
California, in contrast, doesn’t post workplace outbreaks. The state lets its 58 counties handle coronavi
rus data, with wide variety in how each county tracks and reports workplace outbreaks.
The distinction has workers and public health experts worried.
“It’s fundamental data that should be readily available,” said Dr. Melissa Perry, epidemiologist and chair of the Environmental and Occupational Health department at George Washington University.
Throughout the pandemic, the Golden State has advised but did not mandate that employers notify workers of positive cases among employees. This means millions of workers in the fifthlargest economy in the world receive less information than they could about whether it’s safe to go to work.
While business groups say it’s not productive to publicly shame companies, public health experts say posting workplace outbreaks would improve tracking and help target response to the virus as pandemic-fatigued residents seek to return to school and work. More than 18,000 Californians have died from the virus with Latino and Black people infected at a significantly higher rate than White and Asian people.
Only a few states, including Oregon, Arkansas, New Mexico and Colorado, do disclose where workers have contracted the virus.
In Oregon, health officials made an early pivot with public support.
State health officials came under heavy criticism last spring in choosing not to disclose two outbreaks at Townsend Farms, a Portlandbased fruit company. On May 28, the department made an administrative decision to track outbreaks statewide using lab results and data from health care providers. Oregon posts reports that include workplace outbreaks along with those in schools, child care facilities, and senior living and care facilities.
“There was a demand for transparency,” said Oregon Health Authority director Patrick Allen. “We had to shift.”
Today, Oregonians know nearly as much as their public health officials about the number of workers who have died or been infected as a result of workplace exposures. It’s 37 deaths and 8,605 cases.
Californians don’t know.
“It immediately paints a patchwork quilt picture of data,” said Perry, the George Washington University epidemiologist. “Very incomplete, very selective.”
Oregon has just over a tenth of California’s population, which accounts in part for the state’s low infection rate. But its coronavirus case rate is still 1,116 per 100,000, the sixth lowest in the country. California’s rate is more than double that, according to data analyzed by this news organization.
Though it’s difficult to know if Oregon’s reporting contributed to a lower fatality rate, officials there believe sharing information ha s helped. California’s reluctance was on display in Sacramento this legislative cycle as lawmakers pushed for greater transparency. A bill signed in September by Gov. Gavin Newsom aims to give workers timely notice, but a key requirement to disclose worksite outbreaks to the public got stripped from the final draft.
“The opposition was very strong against the bill,” said Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes, D- San Bernardino, who authored it. “They were basically saying, ‘ Trust us, we’ll do the right thing.’”
Her bill, AB 685, initially required the state health department to post online the location of every outbreak. But that provision got struck along with a $ 10,000 penalty for failure to notify workers in a timely fashion.
Because some counties ask businesses to self report outbreaks, local officials say they fear employers won’t participate if outbreaks are publicly posted.
Instead of disclosing workplace outbreaks, when the bill takes effect Jan. 1 the California Department of Public Health plans to publish aggregated data by job sectors. The department, which provided “guidance documents” to local health departments and employers, declined requests for a phone interview and said in an email statement that with regard to information about coronavirus at workplaces, county health departments “would be the appropriate agency to contact regarding outbreaks.”
Business groups led by the California Chamber of Commerce call disclosure a “name and shame” tactic, noting employers aren’t always to blame for virus outbreaks. Diane O’Malley, a lawyer at Hanson Bridgett, a San Francisco- based firm which represents employers, said California’s new law is a “backdoor way of getting where Oregon is without making it so splashy.”
But things in Oregon weren’t that splashy. Some individual businesses were upset at health officials’ decision to disclose, but “mostly the organizational pushback was gentle,” said Allen, the state health director.
“Oregon’s smaller, we all know each other personally,” said Sandra McDonnough, president and CEO of Oregon Business and Industry, adding that businesses felt heard after several conversations with the state. Still, McDonnough worried disclosure might act as a disincentive for workers and businesses to get tested.
Allen believes transparency has built confidence. And to protect patient privacy, Oregon only posts known infections — not deaths — by employer. Perhaps an indirect measure is how comfortable workers feel about filing complaints with their state workplace safety agency: California has received about 7,300 pandemic-related complaints so far, compared with 11,600 in Oregon.
“People know what’s going on,” Allen said. “They don’t feel like anything is being hidden.”
Ca lifor nia , on the other hand, continues to debate workplace disclosure in county board meetings.
In Sonoma County, residents are demanding coronavirus updates include locations of workplace infections even though the local health officer says that information would add little value since people should be cautious wherever they go.
Last month, it took the Santa Rosa Police Department two weeks before notifying Cal/OSHA that an employee had died after contracting COVID-19 at work. And surveys have shown many workers don’t think their employers will notify them.
Although Los Angeles County posts currently known workplace outbreaks, most counties do not. But in the Bay Area, some are pushing their own health officials to release more.
“I like to be establishing best practices, not following best practices,” said Supervisor Dave Cortese, who represents San Jose, Milpitas and Sunnyvale. “It shows somewhere along the line Oregon made a commitment to transparency. So shame on us.”