Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S230 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers review S.230: lodging report added; flexible work and pared-down extreme-temperature protections debated
Summary
Committee review of S.230 introduced a lodging-allowance report requirement, considered adding flexible-work protections that would shift the burden to employers, and debated a simplified extreme-temperature workplace proposal (heat threshold 80°F wet-bulb; cold 35°F) with cost and scope concerns; testimony was scheduled next week.
The committee reviewed a revised S.230 that now includes a lodging-allowance report, discussed adding flexible-work protections, and debated a much narrower extreme-temperature workplace proposal — while scheduling testimony from stakeholders to inform next steps.
Sophie Sedatani of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the panel she prepared a ‘‘strike-all’’ amendment that adds a new section requiring a report from the commissioner of labor, in consultation with the secretaries of agriculture and of commerce and community development, to be delivered to House and Senate committees. Sedatani said the new lodging section aligns the bill with previously passed language in Bill 887 and may update the methodology and starting lodging rate used for reimbursement calculations.
On flexible work, the committee reviewed language drawn from H.726 that would shift the balance so employers must grant a flexible-work request unless they can show it is inconsistent with business operations; members said they would seek testimony from both unions and employers before considering adoption.
The panel spent substantial time on ‘‘extreme temperature’’ provisions. Sedatani said the original draft — modeled on a comprehensive federal proposal and guidance from NIOSH — was pared down for Vermont. The revised draft defines extreme temperature as a wet-bulb globe temperature of 80°F or above for heat and 35°F or below for cold. Labor representative JB Isabelle described 35°F as a compromise, saying, ‘‘I was told that 40 was not workable so I went to 35.’’
Members raised practical concerns: the availability and cost of wet-bulb globe thermometers (discussed as ranging from about $15 to several hundred dollars or higher depending on accuracy), the paperwork burden on small employers, whether the rule should apply only to larger employers or particular professions (for example, flaggers or building trades), and whether employer-provided work vehicles should be covered.
Sedatani described the pared-down duties the draft would require — a written prevention plan with work-specific information; means of communication with supervisors; access to potable water; break areas proportionate to conditions; and functioning heating/AC in employer-provided vehicles — while noting that some of the regulatory specifics from the longer federal-style draft were removed.
The committee did not vote on S.230. The chair summarized options — abandon, defer, or refine the bill — and said the committee had arranged testimony from affected parties for the following week to inform whether a streamlined version could target noncompliant employers without unduly burdening those already following best practices.
