The U.S. Labor Department is taking public comment on a proposed rule the Biden administration says could protect 36 million workers nationwide from the effects of extreme heat. Under the proposal, employers would need to implement plans for rest breaks, water breaks and shade when temperatures reach a certain threshold, among other provisions.
Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Julie Su was in the Valley on Thursday to talk about this. The Show caught up with her and asked what, to her, are the key aspects of this proposed rule.
Full conversation
JULIE SU: So let's just be clear, right? Heat is for working people in particular not just an inconvenience or a discomfort, right? It is actually an occupational hazard and heat is the leading cause of death among all weather-related phenomena in the United States, more than tornadoes, hurricanes and floods combined.
Yet there has never been a national standard that protects workers from the dangers of heat in the workplace until now. So our proposal would ensure that the threat of extreme heat doesn't kill workers, right? That no job is a death sentence, whether that's a farm worker or a letter carrier or a construction worker.
But also we know that indoor heat is a problem, right. About one in five heat-related fatalities happen in indoor settings. So that could be a cook in a restaurant. It could be someone who works in a factory or a warehouse.
So this standard would, when there are certain temperatures that are reached, trigger certain protections, employers would have to make sure that workers have shade, have cool drinking water, have the ability to rest and recover again, very fundamental common sense things that just clarify what the standard should be. And it would require that employers put in place a heat plan so that, you know, there's anticipation of what could happen and a way to avoid the something disastrous from happening before it does.
MARK BRODIE: What kind of enforcement mechanism do you think these kinds of rules need to make sure that employers are following them?
SU: Yes. So two things, one is that one thing we have seen and this is because the vast majority of employers in the country want to comply with the law. And so when we put in place a standard that helps to shape behavior, right, that helps to lift the floor under, you know, that protects working people.
But the other is we also know we have to have enforcement, right? When we don't, there are still employers who unfortunately have decided that it's cheaper to break the law. The chance of getting caught are slim and the consequences even if they do get caught or minimal.
So we engage in enforcement. We put every resource we have at being strategic and smart about it. We just do not have capacity to investigate every single workplace, but that's OK. We also don't want to, right. If employers are playing by the rules, they're complying with the law, they shouldn't have to be investigated by the Department of Labor. But for those who are not, we focus on enforcement, resources on making sure that violations are not just the cost of doing business.
So we can come on to the employer's work site, we can interview the employer and the employees. Some of our work is complaint-based, but we also know that many of the most vulnerable workers don't complain, they don't know that they can complain, they may be afraid of retaliation. And so we do proactive investigations also and then we can issue citations, we can demand that employers stop certain practices and we can make it costly for employers who break the law.
BRODIE: Is it your expectation that if these rules go into effect that certain products or services might get more expensive? For example, like if workers who are building homes take more breaks and it maybe takes longer to, to build a house, might that house, for example, get more expensive? Might there be other sort of economic factors along the way as well?
SU: I mean, no, and part of the reason for that is, you know, we are really looking at saving lives. And so one of the things that is true about all worker protections is when workers do well, employers are also more secure and our communities are stronger.
The cost when there is a disruption to the work, right, let's say again, a worker faints on the job, you know, a worker tragically dies on the job that also has a cost, right? It stops the operations. You know, like just from a cost perspective, we believe that many of these, the protections we put in place like this one actually help to make sure that we avoid the cost of doing nothing, right?
And then the other part of it is that we have to keep in mind that when workers get injured, that there is a cost to that, too, right? The cost in human sacrifice, in human lives and that's factored in as well.
BRODIE: Is this the kind of thing that is better done in your mind on a national level as opposed to a state by state level?
SU: So it is both. The thing about worker protections is the federal standard is really a floor, right? The federal standard says to everybody across the country, you are protected by the federal law, regardless of where you work and where you live, this has become even more important because as we see in some states governors have actually said to local local elected leaders, mayors, city councils, county counties that they're not allowed to put in place heat protections for workers. That's just unconscionable.
So we need a federal standard to make sure that there's a floor beneath which nobody should have to work and live. But of course, there are states and cities who have put in place protections higher than the federal standard. That's true about the minimum wage, that's also true here in talking about heat. And we always welcome that as well, right, because we know that local leaders understand the needs of their communities better than anybody else. And we always support that, but once our state becomes final, it will become the floor, meaning nobody can adopt a standard that is lower than ours.
BRODIE: So let me ask you about the possibility of this rule taking effect because obviously there's a procedure that, that has to go through with the federal register and all and that takes a little bit of time as well. We of course, have an election coming up in November and one way or another, there's going to be a new president in the White House come January. Is it fair to assume that depending on how that election goes, even if this rule takes effect before, then it could just go away since it's not law, it's, it's an executive rule.
SU: I mean, yes, so, so, you know, at this point, the urgency is, you know, Phoenix saw maximum temperatures that averaged 112 degrees last month and you know, every day there was temperatures that reached at least 109 degrees and two days where it was 118 degrees. That's just in Phoenix alone, right. Across the country we are seeing just record heat, you know, sometime in the last month, it was the highest temperature ever in the history of the world. So the urgency is there and the need to save lives is there.
But you are absolutely right that in an administration that cares about working people, in administration like President Biden's and Vice President Harris, where we've said very clearly that we are going to put workers at the center of everything we do, that if we can't protect working people, if we can't build a strong economy that works for workers, then we have not built a strong economy.
President Biden has been very clear that we are going to continue to sprint for as long as we have and do everything we can. But in a rule like this, as you, as you noted, Mark, what happens is right now there's an open comment period. So we take comments, we expect to get a lot for a rule like this and then we take into account those comments, we respond to them, we figure out if the rule needs to change because of them.
So the process is meant to be an inclusive one in which people are heard. And so it will take some time to finalize this rule and it will take past November to do so.
