House panel advances idea to write law protecting workers from extreme heat and cold

House General & Housing Committee members heard detailed testimony Tuesday on H.348, a proposal to give Vermont the authority to set workplace protections for extreme heat and cold.

Labor representatives told the panel that rising temperature extremes are harming workers in warehouses, on delivery routes and at outdoor worksites and said a statute that sets temperature triggers, rest breaks and minimum equipment standards is needed. "People should be able to go to work and not have their water bottles freeze while they're there on a shift," said Curtis Clef, president of Teamsters Local 597.

Why it matters: Witnesses said changes in employer structure and climate-driven weather swings have reduced opportunities for acclimatization and local adjustments at worksites. Committee counsel noted that other states and federal agencies are already moving on temperature rules, giving Vermont several models to consider.

Curtis Clef, president of Teamsters Local 597, described cold and heat hazards from his years in warehouse and delivery work, including frozen eyewash stations and employees unable to warm up during shifts. "We had to go and look around for things like emergency eyewash fountains that would freeze," Clef said. He and other witnesses told the committee that some employers no longer issue basic protective clothing and that out‑of‑state management can be disconnected from on‑site conditions.

Bridget Quinn, legislative director for Joint Council 10, Teamsters, urged the committee to write minimum protections into statute so employers must provide paid rest breaks, shade or cooling/warming stations and training for supervisors to recognize temperature‑related illness. "We really feel that this legislation really shines a light on the need to protect employees, both union and nonunion, from extreme heat and cold in the workplaces," Quinn said.

Committee counsel Sophie (Office of Legislative Council) summarized rulemaking and administrative standards elsewhere as context for drafting: she said the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has an ongoing rulemaking that proposed a heat trigger of "temperatures over 80 degrees Fahrenheit for more than 15 minutes in any 60‑minute period," and that several states have administrative rules with explicit indoor and outdoor triggers. She outlined examples: California has indoor and outdoor heat standards with requirements for cool water, shade and training; Colorado has an agricultural heat rule effective May 2022 that applies when temperatures reach or are forecast above 80°F; Minnesota uses different indoor thresholds by work intensity (for example, 77°F for heavy indoor work); Oregon and Washington also have heat‑related rules for indoor and/or outdoor worksites.

Members pressed witnesses on scope and implementation details. Representative Emily Krasnow thanked witnesses and said she supported protections and further language work. Representative Tom asked for data to set specific temperature triggers and mitigation strategies. Counsel and witnesses agreed the draft short form would become a long form statute if the committee authorized it.

Committee action: Chair Mark Mahali moved to take H.348 "off the wall" and authorize legislative counsel to draft a long form bill; members seconded and the committee approved by a show of hands to further develop the proposal. The transcript records a motion and informal approval; no roll‑call vote was recorded in the hearing text.

Next steps: Counsel indicated a long form draft exists on the Senate side and said counsel will prepare a House long form if the committee wants it. Witnesses and counsel asked the committee to consider specific temperature thresholds, acclimatization rules for new employees and whether some provisions should be delegated to administrative agencies for technical rulemaking.

The committee then moved on to housing matters.