Rules for keeping cool not enough
This spring, California is poised to become the third state in the nation to adopt specific regulations around indoor temperatures for frontline workers. Following in the footsteps of Minnesota and Oregon, the regulations proposed by California’s Occupational Safety and Standards Board would require worksites to remain below 87 degrees when employees are present and 82 degrees when wearing protective clothing.
For a state that broke or tied 348 temperature records last July alone, the regulations are a step in the right direction. But they are nowhere near enough.
According to employees willing to go on record, concerns abound over the 87-degree temperature threshold. Robert Moreno, a San Diego-based UPS worker, told the KFF Health News last month he wouldn’t even eat lunch outside in 87degree weather, much less work in a sun-drenched sheet metal warehouse. He’s right to be wary. A 2018 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 25 heat-related illnesses investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — which included six fatalities when the heat index was from 85 to 90 degrees — concluded that employers should start screening their workers for heat stress when the temperature reaches 85 degrees.
A two-degree difference may not seem like a lot, but given the CDC findings, it could be the difference between life and death. In truth, the primary issue is not that the state board might have chosen the wrong temperature, but rather that no one temperature can be deemed universally “safe” for employees because it does not take into account the variability of human physiology.
No two people are the same, and socioeconomic as well as physical contextual factors affect heat risk. For example, personal risk factors like heart disease and obesity can exacerbate heat intolerance. There are also factors like sex, age and genetic predisposition that could influence an individual’s likelihood of suffering from heat exhaustion.
Moreover, doctors warn that heat exhaustion can begin at temperatures in the low 80s, so pursuing a different standard is not a panacea for these injuries.
With a comprehensive, consensusbased governmental solution months or even years away, the best solution lies not in the legislative chambers of Sacramento, but with management. Employers can proactively preempt the threat of arduous (and costly) regulations by taking steps to independently protect workers. If companies begin mitigating heat risk now, they will find themselves in a more advantageous position once regulators come knocking. So what can employers do? First, they could reassess their approach to implementing tech in the workplace. Workplace wearables, for example, can analyze employee risk in real time and proactively mitigate risk before accidents can happen. Last year, my global safety solutions company, Soter Analytics, worked with one of Canada’s largest farm and ranch supply operations and petroleum distribution networks to combat the threat of workplace injuries by supplying over 100 workers with a wearable that sent realtime audible and vibration feedback of any high-risk spine movement. As a result, ergonomic injuries decreased by 86%. The same principle could apply to measuring various health metrics in high-heat environments. And as artificial intelligence and other technology advances, they too can be utilized to prevent heat exhaustion and temperature-related injuries.
Another area employers can invest in is training. A 2019 workplace study showed that after the implementation of a voluntary heat stress awareness program from 2009 to 2017, there was a decrease in heat-related illnesses for outdoor workers who had two or more risk factors. Researchers also found that the median workers’ compensation decreased by 50%.
As global temperatures rise and heat increasingly becomes a hazard in California, heat mitigation needs to be at the forefront of employee safety training and education. The simultaneous adoption of wearables and a robust workplace heat-mitigation training program would likely significantly improve worker safety and far surpass the impact of California’s proposed guidelines.
Preventing heat stress isn’t just about safeguarding employee health, but also the bottom line. Research shows that worker productivity decreases by at least 1% every 2 degrees over 77 degrees, with even more significant impacts once the temperature rises above 85 degrees. Taken together with the propensity of overheated workers to sustain long-term injuries, ignoring heat stress is worse for productivity than allowing breaks or investing in a cooler environment. That especially rings true in California, a state that serves as a primary hub for manufacturing in the United States and employs more than 1.2 million workers.
Rubber-stamping legislation that does not prevent workplace heat injuries isn’t the best solution for a real problem. As California’s climate grows hotter, employers do not need to wait for regulation to lead the way. Instead, they can take the initiative and proactively invest in better training and new technology to secure the health of their workers and their businesses.