Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ski Area Cold Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ski‑area worker and industry group say H.348’s cold provisions are impractical for mountain operations
Summary
A ski‑lift operator described injuries and a still‑open VOSHA complaint after single‑operator shifts; Ski Vermont warned the bill’s 60°F cold trigger, mandatory breaks and site‑monitoring provisions would be overly prescriptive and operationally difficult for mountain employers.
Casey Jennings, who worked as a lift operator at Okemo and other outdoor jobs, testified May 8 that changes at a ski area trimmed staffing so that some lifts ran with a single operator and fewer breaks. Jennings said that working alone on a fixed‑grip lift requires being outside “the whole time,” and recalled an incident where a rider fell and a team lead stopped the lift just 5–6 feet off the ground.
“I filed a VOSHA complaint. The investigation opened Jan. 9 and is still open, not closed yet, 4 months later,” Jennings said, describing follow‑up he has received from inspectors. Jennings told the committee he suffered a repetitive‑motion back injury and has ongoing workers’‑compensation and physical‑therapy matters; he named the insurer Sedgwick in his testimony.
Molly Mahar, president of the Vermont Ski Areas Association (Ski Vermont), told the committee that ski areas have a “strong culture of safety” but that H.348’s cold‑temperature trigger — a minimum of 60 degrees Fahrenheit for certain provisions — is unrealistic for Vermont operations. “The cold trigger of 60 degrees Fahrenheit is not practical for Vermont,” she said, noting many jobs on a mountain are mobile, staff cover large vertical ranges, and weather varies by elevation.
Mahar said ski areas already follow federal and state safety frameworks, including the ANSI B77 standard for passenger tramways and a Vermont Tramway Board addendum administered by the Vermont Department of Labor; tramway inspectors conduct year‑round inspections and can require shutdowns when needed.
Both witnesses said the bill’s minimum break and monitoring requirements would be difficult to apply across dispersed, mobile worksites. Jennings proposed amending 21 V.S.A. §304 (the statute on toilet and meal breaks) to add a requirement that employers provide opportunities for workers to warm up during cold outdoor work; he provided draft language to the committee.
There was no vote or formal committee action; committee members asked questions about enforcement, tramway standards, and how employers currently handle breaks and staffing. The testimony will be part of the committee record as members consider potential changes to the draft bill.
