Another spring, another Democrat lawmaker push for “extreme temperature” workplace rules

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

For the last couple (I think–don’t quote me on it being two) legislative sessions, some of the more progressive Democrats in the state legislature have been trying, and failing, to run a bill to offer “protection” to workers who do their job in extreme temperatures.

Such a bill is running again this year. It’s HB26-1272 which I link to first below.

Past efforts died due to (legitimate) concerns by businesses and industry over the effect rules about breaks, heating, and cooling would have on their ability to operate.

This year’s effort is at least passing its first initial hurdles, albeit in an altered form. Quoting from the Sum and Substance article about the bill linked second below (with link intact):

“House Bill 1272 has devolved from a very prescriptive set of rules in its original version last year to a bill that seeks now just to have the state collect data on heat- and cold-related workplace injuries and develop a model plan on how employers can protect against them. While cosponsoring Rep. Meg Froelich, D-Greenwood Village, told the House Health and Human Services Committee that supporters have “dreams we hope will happen” about the state eventually making rules to protect workers based on the information it collects, such rulemaking ability was stripped from the bill with a major amendment Wednesday.”

The amendments mentioned are fleshed out later in the piece:

“Wednesday’s amendment removed two key provisions from the bill. HB 1272 no longer requires workplaces to develop their own TRIIPs [temperature-related injury and illness prevention], and it no longer gives CDLE the authority to make future rules in this area.”

There is more context and the usual back-and-forth about the bill in the article which I will leave you to read.

There was one thing noteworthy enough about this whole thing to mention before wrapping up.

Take note of which state agency would have (prior to amending) been tasked with a whole lot of important rulemaking authority over Colorado business–the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. This is the same agency that I have repeatedly (and deservedly) referred to as a clown show for their lack of ability to run the state’s unemployment insurance program. For years now.

This is the group that Democrats want overseeing employers? The group they want making rules which exist on top of already-existing Federal OSHA regulations?

If you ever start to believe the rhetoric about TABOR and/or our state’s balanced budget amendment–that it prevents good governance, remember this: so much bad policy, economic activity killing policy, has been prevented, hampered, or softened due to a lack of money in our state’s budget in the past couple of years.

We should be thankful for the foresight to put policy limits on our state’s budget. That is one of the few things protecting us from some of the extremes of one party rule.

We should also make sure are watching and defending these limits.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hB26-1272

https://tsscolorado.com/bill-to-help-workers-in-extreme-temperatures-passes-its-first-committee/

---

Water use and zoning density

I had a reader send me something worth sharing, in particular because it would help you (as it did me) be aware of how some “funny math” gets done regarding housing density and water.

The first link below is to a list of grievances that the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District (GMWSD) sent to the City of Lakewood regarding Lakewood’s recent comprehensive plan (”Envision Lakewood 2040”–see the second link below).

As you might imagine, many of the problems GMWSD raises relate to water and sewer use under Lakewood’s plan. For convenience, I attached the list of concerns GMWSD has as screenshot 1.

I think it would be fair to say that, in summary, GMWSD thinks that the City of Lakewood acted hastily on their plan and had some magical thinking about water and sewer as they (the city) pursues their high-density housing dreams. If this is true, I think it is also fair to say the City of Lakewood was not forthright with its people about the reality of providing utilities to the residents of this now denser city.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.