House Panel Questions Labor Secretary on Proposed OSHA Heat Rule

The U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce convened on June 5 to examine the policies and priorities of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and to hear testimony from Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. One topic that came up repeatedly was a possible national heat injury and illness prevention standard.  

Last year, under the Biden administration, the DOL released a proposed rule that would require employers to implement an injury and illness plan to control workplace heat hazards. This would involve employers evaluating heat risks, instituting rest and water breaks, and providing training on recognizing signs of heat illness. Under the Trump administration, the rule has yet to be finalized. 

“Made final in its current form, the proposed Biden-Harris heat standard would negatively impact many businesses, both medium and small,” said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill. She emphasized the impact this would have in the agricultural sector, where workers primarily work outdoors.  

When Miller asked Chavez-DeRemer whether the proposed rule would go into effect, the secretary did not offer a clear-cut answer. “Commonsense regulations are the key to growing the economy,” she said.  

Rep. Mark Messmer, R-Ind., said the proposed rule is “an onerous, one-size-fits-all program that fails to take [into account] geographic variability, exertion levels required on the job, and indoor versus outdoor environments that people work in.” He asked whether a one-size-fits-all heat rule would indeed be considered unworkable.  

“Absolutely,” Chavez-DeRemer agreed. However, she did not reject the idea of heat protections in general. “OSHA’s goal is to uphold those standards. We want to keep our workers safe,” she said.

While the Republican members of the committee raised questions concerning the universality of the proposed rule, Democrats were more concerned about the future level of enforcement. “I hope you wouldn’t allow the big business lobby to come here in public and say that actually, they’re OK with having a requirement for there to be water breaks,” only to privately “push for a toothless rule that results in no requirements,” said Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas.  

Casar pressed Chavez-DeRemer to explain what would qualify as a dangerous temperature to work in. Specifically, he asked whether workers should get a break after working for hours in 90-degree heat. She declined to comment.  

The discussion then turned to the operations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as the would-be enforcer of a national heat standard, along with other workplace safety rules. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., wanted to know whether the DOL will commit to protecting workers who file complaints of workplace safety from employer retaliation.

“It is a core mission of the Department of Labor to first and foremost protect the American worker and make sure they’re safe,” Chavez-DeRemer said, “and that includes any whistleblower complaints, and we will fully enforce the law.”  

When Ansari asked whether OSHA would be dismantled, the secretary was firm in her reply: “OSHA is fundamentally instrumental to the Department of Labor.”

Shortly thereafter, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., raised concerns that OSHA would not be capable of enforcing workplace safety standards, such as the proposed heat protection rule. American workers will feel the impact of staffing cuts to OSHA, she said. At one point, the Department of Government Efficiency was set to close 11 OSHA offices, and the department currently plans to cut OSHA inspectors by 12%, “even though currently it would take 185 years to inspect every workplace just once,” she said. 

Omar wondered how such cuts would result in effective safety enforcement. “Having fewer investigators and inspectors will not protect workers from wage theft, misclassification, and dangerous working conditions,” she said. “So how are you going to operate with less, even though we didn’t even have enough to begin with?”

Chavez-DeRemer replied that American workers can expect the DOL to protect their interests.  

Other topics discussed at Thursday’s hearing included the DOL’s suspension of Job Corps operations, fears over AI displacement, employer-sponsored health insurance, and child labor.  

Notably, at the conclusion of the hearing, ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va., asked about the status of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The proposed DOL budget would dismantle the office.  

Chavez-DeRemer said the DOL will “enforce all anti-discrimination laws on the books,” but “will wind down OFCCP.” She added, however, that “it’s in litigation, [so] we’ll have to see about that.”