EPI’s Margaret Poydock delivered the following testimony for an informal public hearing on OSHA’s Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposed rule. 

Dear OSHA Panel,

My name is Margaret Poydock, and I am a Senior Policy Analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank founded in 1986 to research the economic status of working America and propose public policies that protect and improve conditions for low- and middle-wage workers.

Today I am testifying in support of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed rule on Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. In my testimony I will discuss the economic benefits of implementing a heat standard, the economic harms of the Unites State lacking a federal heat standard, and the importance of implementing a strong heat standard on the federal level.

First, I would like to briefly discuss the economic benefits of a federal heat standard. By OSHA’s own estimates, the proposed rule would provide 36 million workers with protections against extreme heat. The proposed rule would help with worker productivity by establishing protections, such as paid rest breaks and access to cool water, which help prevent heat-related illnesses and injuries. By mitigating these risks, the proposed rule would reduce workers’ need to take additional days off to recover from the effects of heat exposure, which in turn helps limit disruptions in worker productivity. The proposed rule would also help foster innovation in the workplace by requiring certain employers to implement heat injury and illness prevention plans (HIIPPs), which encourages employers to become innovative in ways they can protect workers against heat-related stress.

Moreover, not implementing a federal heat standard is financially costly for workers, employers, and the economy. While extreme heat can impact all workers, it more adversely impacts outdoor occupations, which are disproportionally held by workers of color. One study by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the impacts of extreme heat on outdoor workers found that Black workers would lose up to $7.5 billion and Latino workers would lose up to $16.1 billion in pay each year due to cut hours and injuries.1 Low wage workers also shoulder much of the harms associated with heat exposure. Research by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth found that low wage workers are more likely work in places with greater heat exposure and experience heat-related injuries at higher rates.2

There are also significant health care costs for workers exposed to extreme heat. A study by the Center for American Progress found that extreme heat costs the United States more than $1 billion in excess health care costs each year.3 Employers could experience increased costs in worker compensation premiums as more workers experience heat-related injuries and illness and are out of work.

Employers would likely see a reduction in productivity due to worker absenteeism and turnover caused by heat injuries, illnesses, and even fatalities. The loss in productivity also has impacts on the U.S. economy as a whole. Researchers at Public Citizen and the Atlantic Council have estimated that lack of federal heat protections costs the U.S. economy nearly $100 billion each year.4 The Atlantic Council estimates these losses could double to $200 billion by 2030 if no meaningful action to mitigate against extreme heat is taken.5  

Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting a strong federal heat standard. While states have the ability to implement their own heat standards, very few have done so and they vary widely in strength and coverage. As of this hearing, there are only seven states with some version of a state-level heat standard. This means there are 43 states that have no such standards. Further, Texas and Florida—two of the hottest states in the U.S.— and Iowa have preempted their own cities and localities from implementing heat standards. Without a federal heat standard, workers across the United States will continue to experience a piecemeal approach in protections from extreme heat.

In closing, I strongly encourage OSHA to finalize this rulemaking and establish a federal heat standard. Research shows that the lack of a federal heat standard poses substantial costs to workers, employers, and the economy. This includes the U.S. economy losing $100 billion each year due to disruptions in worker productivity caused by extreme heat. Implementing a strong federal heat standard, such as the one outlined in the proposal, would not only protect millions of workers from extreme heat but also help increase productivity and spur innovation at the workplace.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Endnotes

1. Union of Concerned Scientists, Too Hot to Work: Assessing the Threats Climate Change Poses to Outdoor Workers, August 2021.

2. Jisung Park, Nora Pankratz, and Patrick Behrer, Temperature, Workplace Safety, and Labor Market Inequality, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, July 19, 2021.  

3. Steven Woolf et al., The Health Care Costs of Extreme Heat, Center for American Progress, June 2023.

4. Juley Fulcher, The Cost of Inaction, Public Citizen, October 2022 and Adrienne Arsht, Extreme Heat: The Economic and Social Consequences for the United States, The Atlantic Council, August 2021.

5. Adrienne Arsht, Extreme Heat: The Economic and Social Consequences for the United States, The Atlantic Council, August 2021.