When temperatures rise, so do the risks of hazardous heat exposure in the workplace. OSHA’s Pamela Barclay discusses what employers can do to safeguard workers in their warehouses and DCs.
David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
As the calendar turns to June and temperatures across North America start to climb, millions of U.S. workers face increasing risk of heat stress in the workplace. Warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing plants, and transload facilities often lack good climate control. In buildings without air conditioning, temperatures can easily top 100 degrees with high humidity—conditions that raise the risk of heat stroke and heat fatigue for those working inside. In addition to the safety risks, heat exposure has economic implications: Overall productivity can suffer when workers are stressed by high temperatures.
To learn more about how rising temperatures can affect the health and productivity of workers, we turned to Pamela Barclay, a health scientist with the Directorate of Standards and Guidance at OSHA. She focuses on safety and health programs at the agency and coordinates the Safe + Sound and Heat Illness Prevention campaigns.
Barclay graduated from the University of Michigan with a Master of Public Health degree in environmental health and risk analysis, and a Master of Science degree in behavior, education, and communication.
Q: Why are summer months more dangerous for workers in industrial settings?
A: It does not have to be extremely hot for a worker to develop heat illness. Performing physical labor in a warm environment can be enough to trigger heat illness. Heat exposure can happen indoors (in manufacturing plants, restaurants, bakeries, etc.) or outdoors (in agriculture, construction, and the like) and can occur during any season if the conditions are right, not only during heat waves.
A number of factors can contribute to heat stress in workers. They include high temperature and high relative humidity, which makes it difficult for the body to cool itself through sweating; radiant heat from sunlight; artificial heat sources such as furnaces; and poor air circulation. Some job-related risk factors include strenuous physical activity and heavy or non-breathable work clothes that reduce the body’s ability to dissipate excess heat.
Q: Why is it important to pay special attention to new and returning workers?
A: Research suggests that almost half of heat-related deaths occur on the worker’s first day on the job. While heat exposure can put any worker at risk, it’s important for employers to acclimatize new and returning workers to allow them to adjust to working in the heat. This can be done by gradually increasing workloads and allowing workers to take more frequent breaks during the first week as they build their tolerance.
Q: What are some of the signs that a person is being affected by heat stress?
A: Employers and workers should become familiar with the symptoms of heat illness. These symptoms include (but are not limited to) headaches, nausea, heavy sweating, hot dry skin, elevated body temperature, thirst, and decreased urine output. It’s especially critical that they be trained to recognize symptoms that indicate a medical emergency. These include abnormal thinking or behavior, slurred speech, seizures, and loss of consciousness.
Do not try to diagnose what type of heat illness is occurring (heat exhaustion, heat stroke, etc.). Diagnosing types of heat illness is often difficult because symptoms of multiple heat-related illnesses can occur together. Time is of the essence. These conditions can worsen quickly and result in fatalities. Cool the worker and call 911.
Q: You mention cooling the worker. What actions should be taken if heat illness is suspected?
A: When heat illness symptoms are present, employers and co-workers should promptly provide first aid. This includes actions like taking the worker to a cooler area, either with A/C or in the shade; immersing the worker in cold water or an ice bath; removing outer layers of clothing, especially heavy protective clothing; placing ice or cold wet towels on the head, neck, trunk, armpits, and groin; and using fans to circulate air around the worker.
Workers showing any signs of heat illness should never be left alone. When in doubt, call 911.
Q: What should employers do to mitigate the risk of heat stress within their facilities?
A: Under the OSH Act [the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970—the law that created OSHA], employers are responsible for protecting workers from known hazards, including heat. To mitigate the risk of hazardous heat, employers should plan ahead.
At a minimum, employers should have protocols in place to ensure the availability of water, rest breaks, and shade. This means providing cool drinking water, scheduling rest breaks, and providing a shaded or cool area for workers to recover from the heat when they take those breaks.
Q: You mentioned planning ahead. What should this entail?
A: Establishing a heat injury and illness prevention plan is vital to keeping workers safe. When developing a plan, there are various elements that employers should consider. These include determining who will provide insight on a daily basis, identifying steps [for acclimating] new and returning workers so they will gradually develop heat tolerance, and [developing strategies for protecting] people at the worksite who may be at increased risk.
Employers should also ensure that their protocols for responding to heat illness are effective. This should include implementing the appropriate controls to reduce heat exposure, outlining how to respond to a heat advisory or heat warning in the area, and having daily on-site monitoring of environmental conditions and signs of heat illness regardless of job shift.
Workers should also be trained to recognize the risks and signs of heat illness. This training is key to prevention and should underscore the importance of water, rest, shade, and first aid for heat illness.
Q: What can workers themselves do to minimize their risk of developing heat illness?
A: Heat illnesses can affect anyone, regardless of age or physical condition. However, some workers may handle heat stress less effectively than others. There are many factors that have a role in creating a heat-stress risk to workers. These include health conditions like heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. They also include physical characteristics, such as age, level of physical fitness, pregnancy, and how acclimatized an individual is to the heat.
In addition, some medications, like diuretics, may make workers more susceptible to heat illness. Furthermore, certain health behaviors such as low water intake and the use of alcohol or illicit drugs—like opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine—are risk factors for heat illness. When in doubt, workers should talk to their health-care provider about whether they can work safely in the heat.
Employers should recognize that not all workers tolerate heat the same way. When heat hazards are present, workers should receive training from their employers about personal factors that can make them more susceptible to heat-related illness, and employers should enact workplace controls that focus on making jobs safe for all of their workers.
Q: Are there OSHA regulations that cover workplace heat stress that companies should be aware of?
A: Under the OSH Act, employers are responsible for providing workplaces free of known safety and health hazards. In October 2021, OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. The ANPRM announced that OSHA is initiating the rulemaking process to consider a heat-specific workplace standard.
The next step in the rulemaking process will be to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, in accordance with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), to hear comments from small-entity representatives on the impacts of any heat-specific standard. Updates on the rulemaking process will be provided on OSHA’s heat rulemaking web page.
Some states have also promulgated their own standards covering heat stress. Currently, these states are California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. These regulations vary, so we encourage employers in these states to review their state’s regulation and reach out to their state or OSHA Region to ensure they are meeting the requirements for their respective standard.
Q: What are the penalties for failure to comply with OSHA regulations for assuring a safe work environment?
Q: How can employers stay up to date on OSHA’s occupational heat hazard-related efforts?
A: Check out OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign for resources that can help! Sign up for the monthly e-newsletter, “The Heat Source,” to stay up to date on new materials and ways to prevent heat illness at work. Your readers can find this information and more on OSHA’s website.
Our newest opportunity for stakeholders to engage is by participating in OSHA’s “Beat the Heat” contest, which is designed to raise awareness about the hazards of heat exposure in indoor and outdoor workplaces. The contest is open to stakeholders (businesses, unions, educational institutions, government entities, and individuals) nationwide. Participants must create an awareness tool, such as an infographic, training curriculum, poster, or logo, for workplaces to increase heat hazard recognition among employers and workers. The contest is open now! To learn more about the competition, visit the OSHA website. The deadline for entries is June 9.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.