At a House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN) spoke about OSHA’s heat prevention rule.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Next, we'll go to Mr. Mesmer from Indiana.
00:04Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all the witnesses for being here today.
00:08As currently proposed, OSHA's heat illness and injury prevention rule is unworkable,
00:13overly prescriptive, and out of step with the practical realities and operational needs.
00:18It's a one-size-fits-all framework that fails to account for a wide variation in work environments
00:23across industries, including differences in job functions and geographic climates.
00:29Ms. Watson, while we all agree on the importance of protecting workers' health and safety,
00:34how could this rule be revised to allow employers to tailor compliance strategies to their specific circumstances?
00:40Thank you for the question, sir.
00:42I think one of the main reasons or one of the main ways that it can be revised to actually be workable
00:47is to really focus on even something that formed the basis of OSHA's national emphasis program on heat,
00:56and that is water, rest, shade, but also having training, which is also part of OSHA's existing national emphasis program,
01:02and really focusing on what it means, what it looks like, how to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness and heat stroke,
01:09what to do in that emergency, and focus on those elements, providing water, providing shade.
01:15Many of the home builders I've spoken with across the country, when this rule first hit OSHA's radar of doing a rulemaking,
01:24prior to even the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, was how do we keep this simple?
01:28How do we get this so everybody understands what they're supposed to do, and that they can comply with it, and it needs to be flexible?
01:36I've talked to builders in New Mexico who say 80 degrees is a great day to build.
01:41It's perfect weather, and you might have something completely different in Florida.
01:45So the heat triggers are a little bit difficult, but really the focus of a program or a regulation should be water, rest, shade,
01:54rest breaks when they need them, not necessarily mandated every two hours if under the high heat trigger is proposed.
02:02Having something that is clear and straightforward and provides that flexibility for the type of job site it is or workplace it is,
02:09but also that the employees can understand, and it needs to use terms that are simple and clear cut.
02:15A lot of employees struggle with that word acclimatization.
02:19How do you say it? What does it mean? What does it really look like in practice?
02:23And so that reality needs to be that it has to be something that is workable, that everybody understands, that is simple and straightforward.
02:30The more complex, the more burdensome the regulation is for rulemaking and record keeping.
02:35That just makes it harder for small businesses especially to handle. Thank you.
02:40Thank you. Mr. Parson, the Biden OSHA ignored calls from employers to consider that the climate varies from region to region.
02:47What may be considered an extreme temperature in one part of the country could be normal in another.
02:53How does the geographic location of employees determine the best way to protect them from heat-related injuries and illnesses?
03:00Similar to what Ms. Watson said, the challenges in Texas are different than the challenges in Maine.
03:06And the geographies are different, the employees are different, and they are used to working in different climates.
03:12And so having a standard that says this fits everybody and is going to work for everybody makes no sense.
03:19In my career, we were paving roads in Austin, Texas in July.
03:24And you can imagine the heat involved with that.
03:27So local management, providing local solutions, and looking after your own employees there on the ground makes much more sense than prescription in this case.
03:36And so trying to figure out what that means is going to be important.
03:39Okay. Thank you.
03:40Could you go into detail on if a heat rule was enacted, how the heat rule would negatively impact members of your association,
03:49and what changes you'd have to make to comply to the rule?
03:52It would definitely increase cost and likely decrease productivity.
03:57So it's going to get in the way of making progress on the things that we're trying to do.
04:01Okay. Thank you.
04:03Ms. Watson, is there a way under existing law that the federal government could supersede state heat standards through regulatory action?
04:13Your Honor, excuse me, sir.
04:16I think the problem with that potentially is, and not having looked at this issue in detail,
04:22is that the OSHA Act itself allows states to come up with their own plans, provided that they're at least as effective as federal OSHA.
04:30Now, while federal OSHA has never identified or defined what at least as effective as means,
04:35the states do have the ability to come up with their plans.
04:38So with respect to any type of preemption, that would be difficult, and that would take thorough analysis,
04:46which I don't think the committee needs to hear at this point.
04:49But it should be something that is focused and consistent across the states.
04:54I mean, I think that's one of the issues with a lot of the people I've spoken with that fall under the scope of this,
04:59is that the rules in all these different states are conflicting.
05:04So if a business has multiple locations, each one is going to be slightly different.
05:09And I think that inconsistency is extremely problematic.
05:12Thank you. I yield back my time.
05:14All right.
05:15Do we have one time?