Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Amazon and additional information about the company’s heat mitigation efforts.
The first federal legal protections for indoor and outdoor workers exposed to heat could go into effect next year following decades of activism by medical experts, unions and labor advocates.
The rule would, among other things, require employers in Georgia and across the U.S. to create heat safety plans and provide water and rest breaks when temperatures climb above 80 degrees. It also would empower the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to investigate alleged violations and issue fines.
That’s welcome news to Ron Sewell, one of a handful of Amazon employees who have protested conditions at the company’s East Point warehouse, where he said temperatures in summer range from about 90 degrees to over 100.
“They don’t turn on the air conditioning,” Sewell said at a protest last month. “They turned it up when OSHA [investigators] were coming, and after OSHA left we could tell the difference.”
Currently, there are no specific rules for workplace temperature under federal or state law. Sewell said the OSHA inspectors seemed focused on the size and weight of the packages that workers were asked to lift.
Sewell, who filed a complaint against Amazon with the National Labor Relations Board over the company’s response to his activism, called enforceable heat standards an “excellent idea.”
Amazon has denied wrongdoing and is seeking to have charges dismissed. After this article was published, a representative for the company referred a reporter to a June blog post in which Amazon outlined its heat mitigation practices, which it said meet or exceed federal guidance. It said nearly all employees in its North American fulfillment centers work in climate-controlled workplaces.
Maureen Lynch Vogel, Amazon spokesperson, disputed employee claims about working conditions.
“The average temperature at this facility is 74 degrees (Fahrenheit) and temperatures indoors haven’t exceeded 76 degrees (Fahrenheit),” she said in a statement.
The proposed heat rule still faces several steps, including a public comment process, before it could be finalized.
Several experts expressed optimism but cautioned that enforcement of heat standards would be key to whether the regulation actually would help workers. Some also lamented how long it took for the U.S. Department of Labor to issue a rule, given that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has been recommending a heat standard since the early 1970s.
“I’m glad to see it’s finally coming, but, really, we could have used it for a long time,” said Nellie Brown, an industrial hygienist and the director of Cornell University’s Workplace Health and Safety Program. “We’ve had a lot of deaths and a lot of illnesses at the workplaces.”
And with temperatures generally rising from climate change, the risk to workers both indoors and outdoors is increasing.
Doug Parker, assistant secretary for occupational safety and health at the Labor Department, said about 500 workplace deaths over the past 20 years have been officially attributed to heat, but the actual number is likely much higher because heat can trigger other health conditions.
Parker acknowledged the slow pace of the rule-making process, as well as the challenge of building trust with some of the most vulnerable workers, including undocumented immigrants or migrant workers in agriculture and construction. But he said his agency is committed to doing the necessary outreach to employers and employees alike.
“There’s been a change in people’s willingness to accept this as a cost of doing business,” Parker said. “A lot of credit goes to the activists and the unions out there who have pushed on this and have continued to push on it for years.”
Some industry groups have either come out against the rule or warned it could have a negative impact on employers.
“Numerous rule changes from this administration mean our farmers spend less time than ever growing produce and more time than ever trying to keep with up with expanding rules and excessive regulations,” Chris Butts, executive vice president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, said in a statement.
The Georgia Green Industry Association, which represents nurseries and landscaping businesses, struck a similar note.
“We recognize that the newly published OSHA Heat Rule is well-intentioned,” Lanie Riner, the organization’s executive director, said in a statement. “The focus should be on creating achievable guidelines and providing flexibility for employers to ensure safety while continuing to operate effectively.”
Brown said that, overall, the rule is a good one and that it should not be difficult for employers to comply.
“People think automatically that as soon as a (regulation) is passed, the cost of compliance will be enormous, but a lot of times people are not looking at all the things they’re already spending money on,” including lost productivity from heat stress, she said. “A lot of the prevention strategies don’t necessarily cost anything — they require planning.”
Daniel Smith, co-director of research for the Farm Worker Family Health Program at Emory University, said the new rule could protect workers if it is implemented appropriately through a combination of employer outreach and education, on the one hand, and vigilant enforcement on the other.
“Employers are not evil, right? A lot of times they just don’t have the tools and the knowledge to even monitor their own workforce,” Smith said. “At the same time, a part of that is also keeping employers responsible and accountable.”
Note of disclosure
This coverage is supported by a partnership with Green South Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. You can learn more and support our climate reporting by donating at ajc.com/donate/climate/
About the Author
