Below is a rough transcription of Florida Policy Institute's remarks during the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Informal Rulemaking Hearing for Heat Inury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. The virtual hearing was held on July 1, 2025.
I’m here today for two reasons. First, to briefly reiterate the need for uniform heat-illness protections, and that is bolstered by our analysis of the issue here in Florida…and two, to speak in favor of this proposed rule, albeit with some recommended changes.
Last year, we started assessing the scope of heat-related illness, or HRI, in Florida, and how it’s impacting the state. Obviously, Florida is just one state, but it’s notable on this issue.
We found that Florida leads the nation in heat-related illness, with the highest number — so over 31,000 — of ER visits and hospitalizations between 2018 and 2022 alone. We are in the process of updating that data, but that was as of last year, the latest data available.
These estimates are likely conservative, and it’s especially among working people who fear retaliation or lack of meaningful follow-through if they report HRI to their supervisors. We know this to be true of immigrants and temporary workers. But once someone experiences HRI once, we know their body’s ability to tolerate heat is often significantly reduced, and so that makes repeated HRI more likely.
So, this is not only an issue for employers, but it’s an issue for hospitals and nearby health facilities as well, and ultimately those costs end up falling on taxpayers if people cannot afford to pay for their own care out of pocket.
We also found that 5.8 million residents just here in Florida are highly vulnerable to extreme heat, and the reason for that is they have three or more components of social vulnerability, which is based on the Census Bureau’s Community Resilience Estimates for Heat.
Some examples of social vulnerability components would be having an income-to-poverty ratio of less than 130 percent; being in a limited English-speaking household; or having a significant disability, which impacts your activities and daily life.
In 20 of Florida’s 67 counties, more than a third of residents are highly vulnerable to extreme heat, so that’s significant.
Drilling down to the population we’re talking about here that OSHA is concerned with, working people, looking at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data we found that over 610,000 Floridians work in outdoor-heavy occupations, meaning more than 55 [percent] plus some as high as 95 percent of the time is working outside, and those industries are mostly construction, amusement and recreation, and landscaping.
Two of those top outdoor jobs are key drivers of the state economy — construction plus amusement and recreation. That’s true generally in larger parts of the U.S. as well, given that we are a very service-heavy economy.
Because of HRI, Florida loses an estimated $11 billion annually just here in the state in productivity, and because we are a large exporter of agriculture, that has profound impacts on the rest of the economy, too.
Yet… Florida has no local or state regulation protecting working people from heat-related illness. There’s a couple of reasons for that. The Florida Legislature has failed to pass legislation that would be proactively educating employers on the perils of heat-related illness, and that’s been true for several years now.
Worse, the state last year passed HB 433, which actually blocks local governments from requiring their local subcontractors to address the issue.
Finally, Florida doesn’t have an OSHA-approved state plan, so there’s already a gap in workers covered.
So, a federal rule would bridge a critical gap in protections for myriad working Americans; not just Floridians, but Americans in general.
I just want to finish touching on some of the ways that OSHA’s proposed rule could be improved slightly.
Now, this is an important first step and we appreciate that, so with some minor adjustments…
For one, I would like to see OSHA have the option for anonymized input from workers, including in multiple languages, so that immigrants don't have to fear being targeted by raids or other retaliation. Similarly, making these rules available in languages other than English and having designated interpreters on site for non-English speakers.
For indoor workspaces — and we're talking a lot about outdoor workspaces, but I'm happy to see the rule does not neglect indoor workers — there should be checks done at least hourly, and there we would like to see a trigger requirement at a certain temperature. For example, in California, that temperature is 82 degrees Fahrenheit; when it reaches that trigger, then these policies would go into effect, and these protective measures.
Also, we’d like to see water available within 0.25 miles of the work location. Colorado does this, for example, and that's for indoor and outdoor workers, because research shows if it's more than a three minute walk away to either a restroom or water, workers are less likely to access it and take the time.
The last thing I'll say is that we would like to see employers follow OSHA’s HRI and first aid measures to reduce an employee's body temperature before emergency medical services arrive. We'd like to see that in the rule.
Thank you for your consideration of Florida Policy Institute's testimony today.
