Agency counsel and educators warn proposed extreme-temperature workplace law could create heavy costs and practical problems for farms and school worksites

Steve Collier, general counsel for the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, told the House Committee on General and Housing on March 31 that the stated goals of S.230 — preventing heat- and cold-related harm to workers — are appropriate, but the draft bill’s compliance burden could be large for small employers, seasonal farms and education programs that send students to varied off‑site worksites.

Collier summarized what he read as the bill’s operational requirements: employers would need wet‑bulb globe temperature (WBGT) measuring devices for every outdoor and indoor work location and every vehicle used for work; employers would have to prepare detailed, work‑site–specific written plans that document risk factors, training, emergency response procedures and contact information; and employers would need to provide a way for employees to communicate with supervisors, access potable water and allow shaded or air‑conditioned rest areas when the WBGT exceeds 80°F.

“Those objectives are obviously sound,” Collier said. “No one wants anybody subjected to deprivations based on anything and that includes heat and cold.” But he added that how the bill achieves those objectives matters: “I think…the question is whether or not you legislate them and whether or not you can legislate them in a broad‑based law compared to in a work‑site specific environment.”

Collier raised multiple practical questions for agriculture: would every field, barn, and vehicle need its own WBGT device; who would maintain and log readings for devices; would tractors and open‑air equipment be treated the same as enclosed vehicles; and who would pay to retrofit older trucks with air conditioning? He also noted a drafting anomaly that the bill appears to require heating in vehicles when temperatures exceed 80°F, which he called an apparent error.

On communications and rural coverage, Collier said the bill’s requirement for an “effective means of communication” is sensible in principle but difficult to enforce in remote locations where cell service is unreliable. He urged the committee to account for places where radios or phones cannot function.

Collier also urged the committee to weigh the scale of documented incidents against potential costs. He referenced testimony figures that included “1,732 complaints to the Vermont Department of Labor from 2020 through 2026,” and said only a small fraction had been investigated, arguing that a robust cost‑benefit analysis should inform any broad legal mandate.

Members asked follow‑up questions about standard break policies and workers’ compensation for farm employees; Collier said farm employees pay into workers’ compensation but he could not cite a single, universal statutory break requirement and noted breaks are often determined by employer policy or collective bargaining.

Nancy Whis, director of the Windham Regional Career Center and representative of VATED (Vermont Career and Technical Education Directors), testified that career‑technical education (CTE) programs routinely send students to many different off‑site work locations and usually follow Vermont Principals Association (VPA) athletic guidelines for physical exertion rather than carrying WBGT devices. She said CTE programs tend to use a conversion table for wind and temperature because portable WBGT devices “tend not to have it working when we need it to be working,” and that requiring a written plan for every site would be administratively prohibitive and could reduce student learning opportunities.

Whis said many worksites provide shared tools and a locked job trailer rather than having students carry equipment to each task. She worried that S.230’s site‑by‑site plan requirement would force career centers either to simplify or to stop using specialized community sites, potentially diminishing hands‑on education.

Neither witness urged the committee to reject protections for workers; both supported common‑sense requirements the committee believes everyone can meet (for example, access to potable water in extreme heat). But they recommended the committee refine the bill’s drafting, consider exemptions or scaled requirements for small and seasonal employers, and pursue a cost‑benefit review and clearer operational language before advancing a broad, prescriptive statute.

The committee paused for a scheduled break and later proceeded to a separate presentation on S.328, a Senate housing package.