CA workers to get indoor heat protections

The long and winding road to indoor heat protections for California workers took another turn Thursday: Cal/OSHA officials announced that they plan to finish rules this summer, covering employees in industries such as warehouses and manufacturing.

But as CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang explains, there’s a big exception: State prisons. The heat rule for correctional staff will be on a separate track because the state says the cost is much more than initially anticipated.

That 11-hour hitch emerged the night before the safety board’s March 21 meeting, when it was set to adopt the indoor heat rule, five years past the deadline set by the Legislature. State finance officials withheld a required sign-off, raising concerns that it could cost the Corrections Department billions of dollars to comply.

With the carve out for correctional facilities, however, the rule can move forward, and employers will be expected to either cool down workplaces when indoor temperatures reach 87 degrees or lower the risk of workers getting sick from heat illnesses. After a 15-day public comment period and another vote by the safety board, the rule will likely take at least a few weeks to be approved.

So what happens to workers inside jails and prisons? Eric Berg, a Cal/OSHA deputy chief, said it will separately propose a new rule for them, which will be expected to require a separate cost analysis and public hearing. The process could last a few months to a few years. 

This has disappointed some workers’ advocates.

• AnaStacia Wright, an attorney at the advocacy group Worksafe: This leaves “not just guards but also nurses, janitors and many other prison workers across California unprotected from heat, not to mention all the incarcerated workers…”

Meanwhile, the Newsom administration has not provided a public explanation of its prison cost calculations — which far exceeded the safety board’s own estimate of $1 million in the first year — or why the costs were flagged so late.

Read more in Jeanne’s story.

The indoor heat rule isn’t the only policy that advocates for workers want:

• Jobless aid for undocumented: A coalition of workers and immigrant groups known as Safety Net for All marched in Sacramento Thursday to push for legislation that would extend unemployment benefits to undocumented immigrants. Describing it as “a matter of fairness,” one coalition member said in a statement that undocumented workers contribute to California’s economy and should be protected in “situations like a natural disaster or a pandemic.”

• Better working conditions for janitors: After rallying in support of a bill to curb overworking among janitorial staff, janitors from Sacramento and members of SEIU United Service Workers West voted Wednesday to authorize a strike. Other janitors from Los Angeles, Orange County, San Jose and San Diego are also expected to hold a vote strike on May 18 — laying the groundwork for a potential work stoppage of about 25,000 janitors statewide. Said the union: “For too long, immigrant janitors have been treated as commodities, not people.”

• Avoiding late-night boss calls: And a bill that would require employers to let workers ignore calls from their bosses’ outside work hours cleared its first hurdle Wednesday, advancing out of the Assembly’s labor committee. The measure’s author, Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco, said his proposal protects workers from burnout but is also pro-business: “California businesses will be more competitive for desperately needed workers as a result of this law.”

As the California Public Utilities Commission prepares to vote next month on whether to allow large utility companies to impose a “fixed charge,” environmental groups are split about the fee, writes CalMatters’ Ben Christopher.

Though most utility companies across the country already collect fixed charges, in California it would be new to customers of investor-owned utilities including Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric. They initially proposed a monthly fee based on income, charging higher-income households significantly more. 

But after bipartisan blowback from legislators and others, the proposal now before the utilities commission calls for a flat $24 monthly fee, with discounts for lower-income households. In exchange, customers would be charged lower usage rates.

Under this pricing structure, people who use less electricity will pay a bit more because of the monthly fee, while those who use more electricity will save some money thanks to the lower usage rates. Because this could discourage some people from conserving energy, major environmental groups are divided. 

Those that support it say it’s a meaningful first step toward electrification and cleaner energy. 

• Mohit Chhabra, Natural Resources Defense Council analyst: “Ten years ago, even, the grid was mostly powered by fossil fuels. The question now, as the grid gets cleaner, is ‘When should you use more?’”

But critics contend that the proposal strays from California’s tradition of encouraging energy conservation. 

• Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California, at a press conference: “It’s going to have this perverse impact of incentivizing wasting energy, encouraging people to buy the biggest car, the biggest house, leaving the lights on.”

For more about the debate, read Ben’s story.

California’s crowded November ballot for initiatives and referendums is starting to come into sharper focus.

Thursday, proponents of changing Proposition 47, the criminal justice measure approved by voters in 2014, announced they’re submitting 900,000 signatures, nearly double the 546,651 valid names required to make the ballot. The initiative would increase penalties for repeat offenders to deter retail theft and other crimes. Prop. 47 is being blamed for smash and grabs because it increased the threshold for felony charges to $950 in value, though the data is nowhere near conclusive.

Also Thursday, supporters of an initiative to require schools to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender were in court to fight over the ballot title. They wanted it to say “Protect Kids of California Act,” but Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office changed it to “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.” A ruling could come today.

And earlier this week, two other initiatives officially didn’t make the cut, failing to gather enough signatures in time. One would have banned new oil and gas wells near homes, hospitals and schools, while the other would have required more transparency in state government records.

That brings to an even dozen the number of measures that have failed to qualify for the Nov. 5 ballot, or have been withdrawn. Ten measures are on the Nov. 5 ballot for now, though there could be many more. 

It’s also possible measures currently on the ballot will fall off: On May 8, the state Supreme Court is set to hear a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators to block a business-backed measure that would make it more difficult for local and state governments to raise taxes. And the Legislature has until June 27 to make deals with proponents to withdraw measures. 

Keep up with all of CalMatters’ election coverage here.

Last July, CalMatters published an investigation by Byrhonda Lyons revealing how the California Department of Corrections had spent more than $600 million on a probation program but couldn’t say how it helped participants. Now, the department is responding. Find out how from investigative editor Andrew Donohue.