Editor’s note: This story is republished from CalMatters, a public interest news outlet covering the important issues affecting all of California.
Do you have an experience with heat waves at work that you’d like to share? Get in touch with us at [email protected]. We’ve also included more information about how to stay safe during heat waves at the bottom of this article.
With more heat waves expected this summer, California officials are trying to assess the long-term economic impact on workers and businesses — and what more can be done to protect workers bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures.
Although California is one of the few states with heat standards protecting outdoor workers, advocates and workers say enforcement is still a struggle. Meanwhile the state has been trying for years to create indoor workplace heat rules.
A 2021 study of California worker compensation data by a left-leaning economic research nonprofit shows hot days lead to increased workplace accidents across California. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth study estimates hot temperatures have caused at least 360,000 workplace injuries in California from 2001 to 2018, or about 20,000 injuries a year.
The welfare impacts associated with heat-related workplace injuries may be on the order of $525 million to $875 million per year in California.
Researchers examined California workers compensation data and tracked daily temperatures down to the zip code. They compared the number of worker injuries and illnesses on 85-to-105-degree days to days when temperatures hovered around 60 degrees.
A new state advisory committee is set to use this data as a roadmap to tackle hot workplace issues. The group of state agency staffers and scholars will examine persistent problems with underreported heat-related illness and injuries, as well as gaps in data collection and the financial toll on workers and businesses when temperatures rise and production falls.
Young workers at risk
A day above 100 degrees can lead to a 10-15% increase in same-day injuries on the job, the study says, with injuries hitting low-wage workers hardest. And recovering from a heat-related injury or illness costs the average worker $35,000, including health care and long-term wage impact.
“This implies that the welfare impacts associated with heat-related workplace injuries may be on the order of $525 million to $875 million per year in California alone,” the study authors wrote.
The study says workplace injuries include incidents not usually linked to heat, such as falling from heights, getting struck by a vehicle or mishandling dangerous machinery. Research links high temperatures to reduced cognitive performance and decision-making.
The lead author of the study, University of Pennsylvania professor R. Jisung Park, is a member of the advisor committee. He and his coauthors found that low-wage workers, especially young men, face the greatest risks of heat injuries, even in mostly-indoor workplaces like restaurants or warehouses.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GKazD/3/
The state’s advisory committee met for the first time at the end of June. Its mandate is part of a package of heat-related legislation passed last year.
Gov. Gavin Newsom in September signed several bills creating the first extreme heat warning and ranking system in the nation, directing the California Department of Public Health to study the impact of extreme heat on pregnant workers and encouraging local governments to invest in protections against extreme heat and other climate effects.
“There are certain sectors that are going to be heavily influenced of course, including food production,” said Daniel Sumner, an advisory committee member who is an agricultural and labor economist at UC Davis. “I think we’d be remiss not to try to think through impacts that directly affect workers’ lower productivity, raise danger for workers, and as a consequence raise food prices.”
Are California workers protected from heat?
California is one of a few states with laws that mandate employers provide water breaks, shade and rest for outdoor workers once temperatures reach certain levels.
The state implemented its outdoor heat standard in 2005, after several farmworkers – three in Kern County and one in Fresno County – died due to heat exposure. After the 2008 death of a pregnant teen working in a Central Valley vineyard drew national outrage, state officials frantically tried to strengthen and enforce the heat protections.
The Washington Center study found occupational heat-related injuries in California declined by about 30 percent since the standards took effect in 2005.
There still are no heat-related federal workplace protections, even for outdoor workers, although the Occupational Health and Safety Administration announced two years ago it was developing heat rules for outdoor and indoor workers.
There’s currently little relief for California’s indoor workers. The state has been considering proposals for heat rules for employees in indoor settings like restaurants or warehouses for nearly seven years, missing a 2019 deadline the Legislature set.
Last summer, a 24-year-old United Parcel Service driver died after collapsing from the heat during deliveries in Pasadena.
The 340,000-strong union representing the UPS workers has been seeking heat rules that would cover its California members. The union reached a “historic” contract agreement with the company July 25 after threatening a strike, securing a deal with higher wages and more heat protections.
Jassy Grewal, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and a member of the state’s heat advisory committee, said workers in high-intensity environments, or those who don’t have a cool place at home, are especially vulnerable without indoor heat rules.
“What type of pressures from employers, like work quotas, contribute to heat-related illness,” Grewal asked during the first committee meeting. “And how does the intensity of work and how physically demanding it is relate to the impact of heat exposure while at work and while not at work?”
Gaps in job protections
Unions and worker advocates have sued the state in the past to enforce heat-related regulations, and they say the state needs to hold employers accountable.
Advocacy groups warn that despite progress, the greatest risk to workers lies with the state’s troubled enforcement record.
Some experts say it’s as simple as better outreach, informing workers about heat risks and their rights.
“It’s all implementation and ensuring that these workers actually get the benefits of these laws,” said Michael Méndez, environmental policy professor at UC Irvine, “and having a culturally and linguistically appropriate messaging on the risk and severity of these heat waves.
“I think for any population it’s confusing to understand how our climate is changing and how much risk they could have. So ensuring that we have trusted messengers and doing it in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way matters.”
“We expect state agencies to be out in full strength across California to make sure employers are being compliant with the state heat rules. Heat is still a deadly hazard.”ANTONIO DE LOERA-BRUST, UFW SPOKESPERSON
The United Farm Workers sued the Cal/OSHA in 2012 to compel the state to enforce heat rules for farmworkers. In 2015 the state settled a suit the union brought on behalf of five farmworkers who alleged CalOSHA was systematically neglecting its duty to enforce the 2005 law.
UFW spokesperson Antonio de Loera-Brust told CalMatters “people died to win” California’s enforcement standards.
“We expect state agencies to be out in full strength across California to make sure employers are being compliant with the state heat rules,” De Loera-Brust said. “Heat is still a deadly hazard.”
Farmworker health
A February study on California farmworker health and safety by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found that only a third of farm laborers could recognize the symptoms of a heat-related illness.
Only half of the roughly 1,500 farmworkers surveyed said their employers always provide shade mandated by California law when it hits 80 degrees, while a quarter said their employers never or rarely provide the required shade.
The study, which surveyed farmworkers in six languages, also found:
- About 22% of farmworkers said their employer “never” monitors for heat illness. A slightly higher percentage in the Imperial Valley, where scorching temperatures are common, said the same.
- 82% of farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley said they have received heat related illness training.
- About 43% of farmworkers statewide, including two-thirds of Central Coast farmworkers, said their employers never had a written heat illness protection plan.
Some farm employers still don’t comply with state rules about providing water, shade and rest, the survey shows.
- 55% of farmworkers across the state said their employers always monitored the temperature on hot days — 76% said it in the Imperial Valley, but 46% did in Napa Valley and Sonoma areas.
- 75% of farmworkers said their employers provide clean drinking water every time.
- Barely half of farmworkers reported their employers always provide a 10-minute cool down rest, while 21% said their employers “never” did.
Alice Berliner, worker health and safety program director at the community and labor center, said it’s clear employers some workers aren’t getting safety information or training in Spanish when they need it.
“We know heat-related deaths are going up,” she said. “If we want to prevent future deaths from happening, we really need to ensure workers are protected at work.”
State officials taking preventive measures, such as conducting heat sweeps ahead of heat waves, has helped, she added.
What will the state committee do?
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who authored legislation creating the advisory committee last year, called the panel of 13 a “solid first step.” He said he will work with the Legislature to do more for workers.
“Climate change is accelerating, and extreme heat and heat-related illnesses are on the rise,” the Salinas Democrat said in a statement. “California is committed to protecting workers’ health and quality of life during extreme heat waves.”
Despite near-universal consensus among state officials and advocates that heat reform work is urgent, and despite recent record shattering temperatures, the committee has been given a 2026 deadline to report results to the Legislature.
The committee is set to meet quarterly. The next session is September 19. Members indicated they’ll likely commission a study to guide the committee’s work.
“I have no doubt the work this committee will do will save lives,” said Cal/OSHA chief Jeff Killip at the meeting.
Tips from the National Weather Service about heat waves:
Outdoor Activities
- Slow down. Reduce, eliminate or reschedule strenuous activities until the coolest time of the day. Those particularly vulnerable to heat such as children, infants, older adults (especially those who have preexisting diseases, take certain medications, living alone or with limited mobility), those with chronic medical conditions, and pregnant women should stay in the coolest available place, not necessarily indoors.
- Dress for summer. Wear lightweight, loose fitting, light-colored clothing to reflect heat and sunlight.
- Minimize direct exposure to the sun. Sunburn reduces your body’s ability to dissipate heat.
Eating and Drinking
- Eat light, cool, easy-to-digest foods such as fruit or salads. If you pack food, put it in a cooler or carry an ice pack. Don’t leave it sitting in the sun. Meats and dairy products can spoil quickly in hot weather.
- Drink plenty of water (not very cold), non-alcoholic and decaffeinated fluids, even if you don’t feel thirsty. If you are on a fluid-restricted diet or have a problem with fluid retention, consult a physician before increasing consumption of fluids.
- Do not take salt tablets unless specified by a physician.
Cooling Down
- Use air conditioners or spend time in air-conditioned locations such as malls and libraries.
- Use portable electric fans to exhaust hot air from rooms or draw in cooler air.
- Do not direct the flow of portable electric fans toward yourself when room temperature is hotter than 90°F. The dry blowing air will dehydrate you faster, endangering your health.
- Take a cool bath or shower.
Check on Others
- Check on older, sick, or frail people who may need help responding to the heat. Each year, dozens of children and untold numbers of pets left in parked vehicles die from hyperthermia. Keep your children, disabled adults, and pets safe during tumultuous heat waves.
- Don’t leave valuable electronic equipment, such as cell phones and GPS units, sitting in hot cars.
- Make sure rooms are well vented if you are using volatile chemicals.
Heat Safety in Vehicles
- Even on mild days in the 70s, studies have shown that the temperature inside a parked vehicle can rapidly rise to a dangerous level for children, pets and even adults. Leaving the windows slightly open does not significantly decrease the heating rate. A dark dashboard or car seat can quickly reach temperatures in the range of 180°F to over 200°F. These objects heat the adjacent air by conduction and convection and also give off long wave radiation, which then heats the air trapped inside a vehicle. Touch a child’s safety seat and safety belt before using it to ensure it’s not too hot before securing a child
- Never leave a child unattended in a vehicle, even with the windows down, even for just a minute
- Teach children not to play in, on, or around cars. They could accidentally trap themselves in a hot vehicle.
- Always lock car doors and trunks–even at home–and keep keys out of children’s reach.
- Always make sure children have left the car when you reach your destination. Don’t leave sleeping infants in the car.
- Click here to learn more and follow these tips to ensure childrens’ safety.
Heat stroke and exhaustion symptoms
| Symptoms | What to do | |
|---|---|---|
| Heat Exhaustion | – Heavy sweating – Cold, pale, clammy skin – Fast, weak pulse – Nausea or vomiting – Muscle cramps – Tiredness or weakness – Dizziness – Headache – Fainting | – Move to a cool place – Loosen your clothes – Put cool, wet clothes on your body or take a cool bath – Sip water Get medical help right away if: – You are throwing up – Your symptoms get worse – Your symptoms last longer than one hour |
| Heat Stroke | – High body temperature (103℉ or higher) – Hot, red, dry, or damp skin – Fast, strong pulse – Headache – Dizziness – Nausea – Confusion – Fainting | – Call 911 immediately – Move person to a cooler place – Help lower temperature with cool cloths or a cool bath – Do NOT give the person anything to drink |
To read more about how this issue is affecting Mendocino County residents, read our previous article, “As California fire insurance costs skyrocket, residents ask themselves, ‘should I stay?” here, and let us know how this has impacted you at [email protected].
Lea este artículo en español.
In hard-hit Napa Valley, which has burned multiple times this last decade, successful winemakers and longtime residents are weighing their options to rebuild or move out entirely simply by looking at their property insurance policies.
“They just can’t get insurance,” said Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd, whose district spans the region’s celebrated vineyards. “Or the insurance is so expensive that there is no way they could ever afford that kind of coverage.”
Such a refrain is eerily familiar throughout Santa Rosa, Paradise, Ventura and other communities that have been ravaged by recent wildfires. As if a second dry winter and historic heat wave were just the opening acts, California homeowners are girding themselves for another destructive fire season that could raise their wildfire insurance rates to unaffordable levels.
The problem is catching. California’s streak of infernos has already created record liability for insurers: Insurance companies lost a total of $20 billion in 2017 and 2018, twice the industry’s profits since 1991, according to a white paper by Milliman, a financial consulting firm.
Insurers are betting climate change isn’t going away and that’s why they’re now pushing the state to allow them to factor in future flooding, mudslides and forest fires into customer premiums. If they don’t get their way, they say they’re just going to continue to drop more homeowners from coverage in a state where one out of three homes have been built in or near dense vegetation.
Who pays for wildfire costs?
That tees up a contentious debate in the Legislature over who should be responsible for the costs caused by natural disasters to homes built in the wildland-urban interface — homeowners, insurance companies or government entities that allowed them to build in the first place. Others argue that construction should be banned entirely in fire-prone areas in spite of a statewide housing shortage.
“There are no villains here,” said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents State Farm, Liberty Mutual, Farmers and other major insurers. “We are dealing with the way we used to do things, which doesn’t fit with our new reality. So that’s what’s causing the market to be out of whack.”
Draft recommendations from the Climate Insurance Working Group, established to advise state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, suggest allowing a contentious move to let insurance companies adjust premiums based on projections from natural catastrophe models. The shift, they say, will more adequately allow insurance companies to charge rates based on extreme fire risk. Supporters believe it could discourage building and rebuilding in high-fire zones. If adopted, it would be a dramatic change from the current structure, which is determined by historic rates.
So far, lawmakers appear receptive but Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t tipped the scales. “The administration strongly supports land use planning requirements and building codes to bolster wildfire resilience in our communities,” said Gopika Mavalankar of the governor’s office.
The insurance commissioner’s office declined to comment until the final report is released in a few weeks.
A catastrophe model
Insurance companies argue the move is necessary to keep private insurers in the marketplace. They point out earthquake insurance is already allowed to factor in future risk. California allows insurers to use market-based models to project premiums for earthquakes, but those models are owned and created by third-party businesses that don’t divulge their reasoning, citing proprietary information.
To others, though, the recommendation to allow insurance companies to use new models is worrisome.
Consumer Watchdog, a taxpayer advocacy group, argues that moving to a catastrophe model would not only increase insurance rates, but also eliminate transparency for how those rates were calculated.
Hard to get insured
For fire survivors like Patrick McCallum, whose home burned down in the 2017 Tubbs Fire, there’s suspicion that insurance companies could potentially manipulate data to increase premiums on homeowners.
“It’s an extremely difficult process to go through and complicated, and, I felt, not fair,” said the Santa Rosa resident. “They are profit-making companies. Still, with all of these disasters, (they) are still making profits.”
Due to cost and coverage, McCallum and his wife ultimately decided against rebuilding. They moved to another neighborhood within the city. Even so, they had difficulty getting homeowners insurance because of their past claim. McCallum said they got coverage on the 10th company they tried.
The working group’s recommendations also suggested that insurance rates could be used to disincentivize new building in fire-prone areas, adding that new development should be actively discouraged to limit state spending on infrastructure there. The arguments come at a precarious time for California as the state heads into fire season with an ongoing housing crisis. In 2020, California experienced five of the six largest wildfires in recorded history and nearly 11.2 million people live in the state’s wildland-urban interface.
Conversation for lawmakers
Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, argues that insurance shouldn’t be used as the stick to keep residents from building in fire zones when government policies otherwise allow it.
“We need a conversation about incentivizing rebuilding in a place that burned down three times, but the insurance industry should not be making that decision based on its own private profit motive,” Balber said. “That’s a conversation for the government…It should not be the insurance industry’s job to decide where we build our homes.”
She adds it’s unfair to place the burden of paying for increased wildfires solely on residents who live near fire lines.
“We’ve told people they can build in the (booneys) and wilderness for decades and only now is it catching up to us,” Barber said. “It most definitely falls to the state to invest more seriously in mitigating climate risk—no individual homeowner is responsible for fire increases. But we shouldn’t be encouraging people to build in fire-risk areas. The problem is a political struggle.”
More houses, more fires
A recent study released by researchers at the UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation and think tank Next 10 found that state and local land use policies and a statewide push to build more housing is increasing the economic and human cost of wildfires by pushing more building into high-risk fire areas. The report argues that state and local policies are primarily responsible for emphasizing rebuilding and retrofitting homes in high-fire areas, rather than offering incentives for homeowners to relocate after fires.
“We should be making this harder and we are not,” said Rob Olshansky, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an author of the study. “Just having people in the wildfire areas increases the chance of fire igniting. The main cause of fires is people doing stuff like using barbecues and spark plugs.”
The study also found that strict building codes and design standards for new homes across the state have propelled increased building in the open spaces on fire lines — rather than infilling in existing towns and city centers.
Lawmakers open to factoring in future risk
Lawmakers who represent communities devastated by fires are receptive to the idea of raising rates some — if it means their residents can continue to stay on their property.
Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican whose district includes Paradise, said his constituents’ biggest concern is access to coverage. They want to avoid the California FAIR Plan, which is the state’s insurer of last resort that comes with a hefty premium and only covers fire damage. Critics add that the plan was never created to be a permanent solution for California homeowners seeking fire insurance.
“I think that most of my constituents acknowledge that they live in high-risk areas and we are willing to pay,” Gallagher said. “But it has to be a reasonable premium, and I don’t think the government is going to be able to provide that on its own. You need the private insurance market to be part of that solution.”
The Yuba City lawmaker disagreed that the government should take responsibility for telling people where they can and cannot build. He said the state failed residents by allowing a backlog of tree clearing and thinning to accumulate.
Dodd said he supports allowing private insurers to factor in future disasters if it means residents in his districts can avoid exorbitant pricing offered by the FAIR plan.
“So many people right now are going naked with no insurance or paying seven or eight times the annual premium they did before,” the senator said. “If they raised the rates 50%, that would be a blessing.”
