What does the future hold for U.S. workplace heat protections?

Some midsummer musings

Alaska experienced its first heat advisory several weeks ago. Europe's first major heat wave of the summer claimed several lives. And on the East Coast, it looks like June is the new July. None of this is surprising—it will soon be trite to hear that this hellacious summer will be the coolest you'll experience for the rest of your life. But it does feel poignant as the federal government is increasingly, pardon, hellbent on destroying renewable energy (alongside gutting healthcare for the poor to entrench tax advantages for the wealthy).

Amidst Supreme Court decisions solidifying the imperial presidency and scores of forced disappearances by masked officials, it can be difficult—including for me—to focus on the “normal” ways in which our lives and legal protections are being degraded. And let us not count all the ways but note, at least, a few losses, from the DOGE-led dismantling of critical research at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, to the abrupt termination of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's¹ Center for Heat Resilient Communities grants, to the now non-existent American Climate Corps. It's enough to make you want to learn who Huda is.

And yet.

Even in Washington, there are glimmers—not of hope, exactly, but of something other than despair. Politico reports: “A Southwest Democrat and an East Coast Republican are teaming up to form the Congressional Extreme Heat Caucus in hopes of finding bipartisan legislative solutions to address dangerously high temperatures.” Meanwhile, Rep. Greg Casar from Austin remains probably the staunchest advocate for federal legislation protecting workers from climate impacts, all while some in our home state have doubled down on efforts to prevent cities from doing anything good, including passing common sense workplace protections like mandatory water breaks.

Positive congressional action on heat, or any other issue we might care about, is, of course, not in the cards for the years ahead, but there is still a possibility of workplace heat regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sometime before the next presidential election (should we be so lucky as to have one). How could that be in Trump 2.0?

The Deep State Marches On

Between June 16 and July 2, somewhere in the recesses of the Frances Perkins Building, hardworking bureaucrats in the Department of Labor heard dozens of hours of testimony on OSHA's proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule, having already received more than 20,000 written comments since the 300+ page proposal was made public in August 2024. This informal rulemaking hearing was a necessary step towards promulgating a final rule, but it confused advocates and skeptics alike that it was taking place at all, given that any unfinished Biden-era regulatory efforts are exceedingly unlikely to be finalized now.

Still, to the government officials’ credit, they did their homework, pushed on with the hearing as if nothing had changed, and had thoughtful questions for most who appeared about their presentations and written submissions. But was this just the equivalent of an administrative show trial—everyone trotting out familiar arguments towards an immutable end? Perhaps; perhaps not.

To start, Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has some pro-worker instincts, though seems to have fallen in line with the MAGA agenda. Current, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA—the head of that sub-agency—is Amanda Wood Laihow, serving in a temporary capacity while Trump’s pick, David Keeling, awaits Senate confirmation. Keeling has spent his career leading workplace safety efforts at UPS and Amazon, businesses which were fined more than $2 million by OSHA between 2021 and 2023 for more than 300 violations. Analysts expect Keeling will be a moderate, pro-business administrator, who will likely either kill or weaken the heat regs.

With that in mind, what I believe most likely is that the people who have spent years developing an extensive record in favor of heat-protective measures are doing whatever they can to bolster that record and make it difficult for Keeling to reverse course; hence, the possibly quixotic hearing. Wise to that gambit—and favoring a weak rule now rather than the proposed or stronger coming to pass down the line—industry groups used the hearing to give Keeling anything he might use to overcome institutional inertia.

Embarrassing, but I hadn't thought before about how much these flowers look like the sun. Spotted on a Freno run, complete with a Fresno bee!

Above all, every trade association and their mother made clear that a supposedly “one-size-fits-all” approach to governing workplace heat risks is unacceptable: Why should a construction site in Texas be subject to the same requirements as a factory in Michigan? Jordan Barab over at Confined Spaces did a great job breaking down the absurdity of these arguments, starting with the simple observation that the rule does “take into consideration regional differences: If it’s hot, you have to do stuff [like give recovery breaks on hot days], no matter where you are. If it’s never hot, you don’t have to do stuff.”

Some industry arguments veered into more bizarre, pseudo-scientific, and sometimes blatantly racist territory, such as the claim that people from hot places are naturally more adept at performing labor in hot environments. And at least one participant previewed likely lawsuits the proposed rule would face if enacted, an issue I’ve written about before. Overall, the party line was clear: Despite the changing climate, despite dozens of documented deaths from heat exposure in the U.S. annually, and despite growing scientific evidence of the devastating short- and long-term effects of hard work in hot and humid environments, employers want to set their own heat standards.

How exactly this will shake out in the years ahead is anyone’s guess. Personally, I would rather the rule be ignored than weakened, so that in a few years (hopefully) a more friendly administration could pick up where the Biden appointees left off, with the added benefits of a hearing already on the books and more data from the states with standards in place, which might support strengthening the existing proposal on the margins. Speaking of…

The Deep States March On

Seven states now have workplace heat standards, ranging from the fulsome (Washington; Oregon) to the notional (Nevada). Another six states are somewhere in the process of developing rules and at least one, California, is revisiting some existing provisions.² Arizona—a purple state, with a Democratic governor and Republican legislature—is an interesting case study. Though legislation to kick off state-level rulemaking has stalled,³ Arizonan municipalities aren’t waiting for mandates from above: Pima County crafted a Heat Ordinance, binding county contractors; the cities of Tucson and Phoenix passed similar measures; and Phoenix remains a leader in urban heat mitigation efforts generally, as one of only three U.S. cities with a “heat czar”.

Okay, that’s a lot about what governments are (not) doing. What about the people?! Well, I’ve had several good conversations recently with researchers and organizers about worker-led efforts to win climate protections. These are interests I share and hope to continue learning and writing about, as they can provide (safe amounts) of sunshine in dark times. But my thesis here, if any, is that we should not give up entirely on making advances in local, state, and, yes, even federal policy. That said, we aren’t even six months in to this new reality, so I would like to invoke my new favorite bit of bureaucratic lingo and “reserve my final analysis for supplementary post-hearing comments.”

Thank you for reading! I’ve been slower with these because work is busy, but it’s still nice to have this outlet; as usual, everything above reflects only my views.

1. Cuts to NOAA and FEMA possibly contributed to the flooding tragedy in Texas, too.

2. By my count, New Mexico is the only state that is regularly exposed to high heat, has an OSHA state plan agency, is governed by a Democratic trifecta, and has not yet made any official steps towards implementing a heat standard. There is, however, a strong coalition pushing the Land of Enchantment to do exactly that.

3. In the meantime, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has convened a task force to propose non-binding recommendations for heat protections on the job, with plenty of input from employer representatives; I’m skeptical of this approach.