In the bustling city of Reno, Nevada, a remarkable story unfolds. Santos Brizuela, a resilient individual who has dedicated over twenty years of his life to toiling under the open sky, has faced numerous challenges along the way.
From enduring the debilitating effects of heatstroke while toiling in the sugarcane fields of Mexico, to suffering from chronic laryngitis due to prolonged exposure to the scorching sun in various other occupations, Brizuela’s journey has been one of perseverance and determination.
However, it was during a scorching summer in Las Vegas, while working on a construction crew, that he finally reached his breaking point.
The relentless exposure to the sun’s rays triggered excruciating headaches and robbed him of his appetite. Thankfully, Brizuela has now found solace in a maintenance job where he is allowed to take breaks and prioritize his well-being.
The walls of his workplace are adorned with informative flyers, providing valuable insights on optimal practices for maintaining good health—a luxury he had never been afforded until now.
In the realm of employment, there are instances where workers find themselves in a position where they must approach their employers seeking protection or addressing health and safety concerns.
However, it is disheartening to note that in certain cases, these employers fail to lend an ear or take appropriate action.
This lack of attentiveness and adherence to the needs of their employees can have detrimental consequences.
Such disregard for the well-being and security of workers not only undermines their trust in the employer-employee relationship but also poses significant risks to their physical and mental health.
It is imperative that employers recognize the importance of actively listening and responding to the concerns raised by their workers, as it is their moral and legal responsibility to provide a safe and secure working environment.
By neglecting these responsibilities, employers not only jeopardize the welfare of their employees but also tarnish their reputation and potentially face legal repercussions.
The scorching heat wave that has engulfed the Southwest and various regions of the country this summer has brought to the forefront a crucial yet often overlooked consequence of climate change in the United States: the escalating number of deaths and injuries among individuals working in extreme heat conditions, be it within warehouses and kitchens or outdoors under the relentless sun.
Alarmingly, a significant portion of these individuals are migrants employed in low-wage occupations. While state and federal governments have long implemented protocols to address environmental risks exacerbated by climate change, such as droughts, floods, and wildfires, measures to protect against extreme heat have remained grossly inadequate, lacking a clear authority within both state and federal entities.
Ladd Keith, an esteemed assistant professor of planning and a research associate at the University of Arizona, asserts that there is a substantial governance gap in acknowledging and treating extreme heat as a genuine climate hazard, indicating that significant progress is required to bridge this divide.
Astonishingly, despite the current administration’s efforts under President Joe Biden to establish a federal heat standard, the United States still lacks such a regulation, with the majority of states experiencing scorching temperatures failing to implement heat-specific standards.
In numerous states, rather than having specific regulations in place to address the dangers of extreme heat in the workplace, employees are ostensibly safeguarded by the implementation of the “general duty clause.” This clause places the responsibility on employers to take necessary measures to mitigate hazards that have the potential to result in severe injury or even death.
As a result, state authorities are granted the authority to conduct inspections at various work sites to ensure compliance with this clause.
While many states actively engage in such inspections, a significant challenge arises from the absence of consistent benchmarks to determine what exactly constitutes a serious heat hazard.
This lack of clarity ultimately hinders the enforcement of adequate protective measures, leaving workers vulnerable to the detrimental effects of extreme heat in their work environments.
The lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes as unsafe conditions in relation to extreme heat poses a significant challenge for regulators, according to Juanita Constible, a senior advocate from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Without a specific heat standard in place, it becomes more difficult for regulators to determine whether an employer is violating the law or not.
To address this issue, many states have taken it upon themselves to adopt their own versions of a federal “emphasis” program, which involves increasing inspections to ensure that employers are providing water, shade, and breaks for their workers.
However, it is important to note that citations and enforcement still rely on the general duty clause.
Surprisingly, extreme heat is not included in the list of disasters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is equipped to respond to.
Furthermore, while regional floodplain managers are a common sight throughout the United States, there are only three newly established positions for “chief heat officers” responsible for coordinating extreme heat planning.
These positions can be found in Miami-Dade County, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.
It is worth mentioning that federal experts have been recommending the implementation of extreme heat protections since 1972. However, it took until 1997 and 2006 for Minnesota and California, respectively, to adopt the first statewide protections.
For a long time, these two states were the exception, with only a few others joining them in implementing such protections throughout the early 2000s.
In recent years, the intensifying heat waves have prompted a significant shift in the way we approach the issue. Keith, an expert in the field, acknowledges that there are several positive movements that offer a glimmer of hope.
This can be seen in the actions taken by certain states to strengthen their existing regulations. For instance, Colorado implemented stricter rules last year, mandating regular breaks for rest and meals in extreme temperatures and providing necessary provisions like water and shade when the mercury rises above 80 degrees Fahrenheit (26.7 degrees Celsius).
Similarly, Washington state recently updated their heat safety standards, which were originally established 15 years ago, to include lower temperature thresholds for cool-down breaks and other protective measures.
Moreover, Oregon, after initially implementing temporary heat protection rules in 2021, decided to make them permanent last year. Encouragingly, several other states are also contemplating the implementation of similar laws or regulations to address the growing heat crisis.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, in response to the severity of the situation, recently introduced new regulations through the heat emphasis program and declared a state of emergency due to extreme heat.
This declaration enables the state to reimburse various government entities for the funds they spend on providing relief measures to combat high temperatures. These developments signify a promising shift in our approach to tackling the escalating heat crisis.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable change in the way we approach the issue of intensifying heat waves. Keith, an expert in the field, recognizes that there are several positive movements that offer a glimmer of hope.
This can be observed in the proactive actions taken by certain states to strengthen their existing regulations.
For example, Colorado took the initiative to implement stricter rules last year, which now require regular breaks for rest and meals in extreme temperatures, as well as providing necessary provisions such as water and shade when the temperature rises above 80 degrees Fahrenheit (26.7 degrees Celsius).
Similarly, Washington state recently updated their heat safety standards, which were originally established 15 years ago, to include lower temperature thresholds for cool-down breaks and other protective measures.
Furthermore, Oregon, after initially implementing temporary heat protection rules in 2021, made the wise decision to make them permanent last year.
It is encouraging to note that several other states are also considering the implementation of similar laws or regulations to address the growing heat crisis.
In response to the severity of the situation, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs recently introduced new regulations through the heat emphasis program and declared a state of emergency due to extreme heat.
This declaration enables the state to reimburse various government entities for the funds they spend on providing relief measures to combat high temperatures. These developments signify a promising shift in our approach to tackling the escalating heat crisis.
Throughout his two decades of working in the construction industry, Eleazar Castellanos has encountered a dichotomy of employers when it comes to addressing the challenges posed by extreme heat.
As a trainer at Arriba Las Vegas, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting migrant and low-wage workers, Castellanos has witnessed firsthand the varying approaches taken by employers in ensuring the safety and well-being of their employees in such demanding conditions.
While some employers prioritize the implementation of comprehensive measures to mitigate the risks associated with extreme heat, others seem to overlook or downplay the importance of such precautions.
Castellanos’s extensive experience has allowed him to discern the stark contrast between these two types of employers and the profound impact their attitudes and actions have on the lives and livelihoods of the workers they employ.
In a statement delivered in Spanish through an interpreter, the speaker highlighted two distinct types of employers when it comes to ensuring the well-being of their workers.
The first type is characterized by their commitment to providing essential necessities such as water, shade, and rest for their employees.
Conversely, the second type of employer adopts a threatening stance, using intimidation tactics to discourage workers from requesting these crucial preventative measures.
However, the implementation of heat protection laws has encountered consistent opposition from various industry stakeholders, including chambers of commerce and business associations.
These opponents argue that a universal mandate would pose significant challenges in terms of practicality and applicability across a diverse range of industries.
Tray Abney, a lobbyist representing the National Federation of Independent Businesses, expressed concerns about the potential drawbacks of a one-size-fits-all approach during discussions with Nevada legislators.
The failure of the Nevada bill, despite initially passing the Senate along party lines, has sparked debate regarding its underlying causes.
Some attribute it to partisan politics, while others argue that the extensive competition among numerous bills vying for attention during the limited four-month biennial session played a role.
Vince Saavedra, the secretary-treasurer and lobbyist for Southern Nevada Building Trades, emphasized that financial considerations often dictate decision-making.
To support his claim, he challenged anyone to experience working outside alongside these workers and then dismiss the necessity of implementing such regulations.