It’s not often that a regulatory agency takes a look at a health problem and decides not to regulate.
That’s precisely what happened last month as the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health considered imposing indoor heat illness requirements on employers.
The drive for mandatory air conditioning or some sort of cooling has started and sputtered over the years. It received a big boost two years ago when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration rushed to enact outdoor heat regulations in the wake of a string of heat-related deaths, mostly among field hands in the Central Valley. At that time, the administration also said it would look at the issue of regulating indoor environments.
Employer groups opposed the regulation effort, saying variation in indoor workplaces was so broad that crafting a “one-size-fits-all” regulation would be cumbersome and ineffective. Worker advocates pressed their case as several workers at a Rite Aid Corp. warehouse in Lancaster trooped up to Sacramento to argue for tougher regulations on indoor heat.
Those workers said the temperature inside the warehouse,which had no air conditioning,regularly topped 100 degrees in the summer and argued that it led to heat exhaustion and one heat-related fatality. (A spokesman for Rite Aid said at the time that a coroner’s report indicated that the fatality was not heat related.)
The workers testified in favor of Assembly Bill 1045, sponsored by then-Assemblywoman (now U.S. Rep.) Laura Richardson, D- Long Beach. The bill requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to craft regulations to reduce indoor heat illness.
At the same time, division staff concluded the regulation wasn’t needed. Division chief Len Welsh told the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board at its August meeting that in 2006 the division only investigated six cases of indoor heat illness. With such a low level of cases, Welsh said the staff concluded the situation was best handled with more attention to existing worker training regulations as part of the 15-year-old Injury and Illness Prevention Program.
That news was greeted with relief from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which had argued that regulation was unnecessary and costly. The association said it was willing to work with the state to beef up training and prevention efforts.
But it was greeted with dismay from worker advocates.
“It’s unconscionable considering the situation we have in California with increased heat and more work locations in hot areas,” said Fran Schreiberg, a lawyer with WorkSafe.
Richardson’s bill recently passed the Legislature and was sent on to the governor’s office, but after the division’s ruling even Schreiberg acknowledged Schwarzenegger is almost certain to veto it.
Reducing Lead
Just as lead in toys made in China has become big news, California regulators are preparing to crack down on the makers and distributors of jewelry that contains lead.
Last year, the Legislature passed a law placing limitations on the lead content in jewelry, including a maximum lead concentration of 600 parts per million for most types of jewelry. It applies to anyone who makes, ships, sells or offers jewelry for sale.
The law currently targets jewelry sold to children under the age of 18,jewelry sold to adults must be compliant with the restrictions by March 1.
The state Department of Toxic Substances Control is in charge of enforcing this law. Officials said they have already begun stepping up enforcement, both responding to consumer or worker complaints and conducting “marketplace surveillance,” according to a posting on the agency’s Web site.
The department won’t be looking at dozens of companies that last year reached an agreement with then-attorney general Bill Lockyer to limit lead content in the jewelry they make or sell. Those include Saks Inc., Liz Clairborne Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., Target Corp. and Sears Holdings Corp. as well as manufacturer Arden Jewelry Manufacturing Co.
Compensation Reform
Employers in Orange County and throughout the nation that offer deferred compensation packages to their management employees have a whole new set of regulations to comply with by the end of the year.
In response to the explosion of deferred compensation packages offered to chief executives and other top managers,including huge and controversial bonuses and severance packages,the Internal Revenue Service issued the new regulations last April.
Among other things, the 400 pages of regulations require employers to define in advance when deferred compensation payouts must be made (to prevent manipulations such as backdating stock options) and, in some cases, delaying payouts in severance packages for six months. Penalties for not complying with the regulations can be steep and include acceleration of income tax and a 20% penalty.
As a first step, employers should inventory all plans, programs and agreements that they sponsor in which payment is deferred beyond the year in which it is earned, said Steve Friedman, chair of the employee benefits and executive compensation practice at employment law firm Littler Mendelson LLP.
For more information, visit treasury.gov/press/releases/hp345.htm.
Fine is a staff writer with the Los Angeles Business Journal.
