Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I started questioning myself. So I see this amendment. I'm I'm just gonna speak for myself. As I've said earlier, when I look at what other committees do, I ask myself, is the spirit and guts of what we've done in LIVE or not? And I think the answer for this is clearly yes. What I'm seeing is, it sort of goes, but if you're thinking, well, who as a landlord, does this help me, or as a tenant, does this help me? It sort of goes both ways. It gives a little more time, although more time on the end, in the sense of ninety days rather than sixty, to set a hearing, but it starts a little earlier with the filing of the case, but at the same time, it just takes the whole confidentiality thing out for the moment. It's just gone. So there's no confidentiality protection for the moment. And I think those are really and everything else to me is kind of technical. In other words, it substitutes one show cause, it substitutes one process for another to deal with the dangerous tenant, but what matters is that there's something because that's what we keep hearing, this is a real problem and we've got to do something about it. It does contain, I think, tweak, which is nice, in that it makes sure this has got to be a serious situation. It can't just be an advent and one time thing. But otherwise, I personally feel fine with this, and I'm just wondering how do other people feel.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yes? Again, just wanted to reiterate for everyone, for the chair of judiciary, for you and the ranking member for just your work on this, and I'm good with it.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Mary? For the writ of possession

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Because in current law, if you're going for nonpayment of rent, I thought the rent of possession was like seven days.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Was a For non payment of rent, it's

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: seven days. Seven days. Yeah. But they're not addressing that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in this That doesn't change. No.

[Unidentified speaker (staff or member)]: It's for rent into court.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, rent into court, the escrow, yeah.

[Unidentified speaker (staff or member)]: Refuses to pay rent into court, so it has nothing to do with nonpayment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, right, okay, yes, you're right. I don't need to say that. So, where are people?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So,

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I think that the amendment balances out the bill a lot better than before, so I would vote yes. Thomas? Oh yes.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie, how do you feel? It sounds like it's the best that we can do under

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: civil procedure, is that what it's called? Very politely said, Deborah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: That is a good way to put it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well,

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: was waiting for her to speak and then I was going to make the, find it favorable.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, it's this is all

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: For the strut hole to make the kind of say I'd like to find the strut but I was waiting if anyone else had. Anyone online or Elizabeth? Elizabeth has her hand up. Hey, Hi. I one are are we on live right now?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Mhmm.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay. I'm in favor of this amendment. Thanks.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. So, at this point, what I'm going to do though is hold it open.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah. We

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can do that. So, that way I can see if I can get Saudia and Joe

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: to marry Leonora. Please, Leonora,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: if they get a chance. In other words, really this is an informal process. It doesn't have the same formality to it. It's an informal process, so we're trying to get a sense of the committee. So for the moment, I'm gonna hold it open, but I'm Yeah. It's okay.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Well, I hope to find this amendment favorable on a straw poll vote. I don't know if that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You got it. That's it. Right. And and I'm gonna count one, two, three, four.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Seven.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Seven. So is it seven?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And then Elizabeth. Yeah. That's seven. Great.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So that's seven, zero and then we'll see

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: how many how many We have four out right now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: But that's good.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Alright.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you, chair.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you so much.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Cameron. Well, you, Cameron.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thanks everyone. Thank you. For the housing stuff. Cameron, you get to leave us. Well, now.

[Unidentified speaker (staff or member)]: Count your chickens. Yeah, because probe still has a bug in that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, he knows.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Oh, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Details.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Details. Did he say something about chicken? Yes, did. That's not a Hodgkins thing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright, so

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: now let's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: go back.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Here. Do know it's the weather out there? Yeah. I'd like to get home. It's absolutely stunning. But we're supposed to get

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: five inches narrow. It's someplace.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah. Stop it. It's a wintery mix they call it. For

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we're

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: me?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wow. Alright, so our next item, everyone, is we're coming back to S230. This And needs a little explanation to set the tone for everyone. So S230 has in it three, as I remember Sophie, is that right? It has three major elements. One of the things that we're doing is asking ourselves whether we, in addition to whatever we do, each of those three elements, we want to add things into this bill. One of the things, for example, that we've considered is whether we wanna tackle extreme temperature as part of this bill. We and I wanna say for both the members of the committee and for the public, just the fact that we inquire about it doesn't mean we're gonna do it. And in fact, we wanna avoid Christmas treeing this project with too many ornaments. So And it

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: goes? Oh.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. And then it falls. But now, Sophie, am I right that this in this round, are you talking about the original any of the original three elements, or are you talking about what the draft that you created concerning the new revised version of extreme temperatures?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Counsel, I had three things. So one was I have a strike all amendment from based on when I was in Hillas, which adds the report from the Department of Labor. So I have that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It adds, I'm sorry, what reports?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The report from the Department of Labor on the lodging allowance.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's a section. New version.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Which by the way was a new piece for 02/30.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so the original S230 had three pieces, now it has a fourth piece in the current draft. Right. And then I was asked about adding flexible work arrangements and extreme temperature.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So, in other again, by asking our council to draft something and for us taking testimony on it does not mean that we're gonna do it. It means we're looking into it. Alright? Okay. And Sophie, take it away.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what would you like me to do? Do want me to go through the draft that I prepared, the draft update and strike all amendment?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure, I think that's a way of walking us through everything.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is based on the last time we discussed s two thirty. So no change to the first section. The second section has a change, which I just highlighted under self attestation. It removes that extra language. I don't see it In in addition to, so you already passed section two in bill eight eighty seven, so this is now consistent with what you already passed in eight eighty seven and then this adds in that new section section 3A, which is requiring the report prepared by the Commissioner of Labor in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, and then it adds in the Secretary of Commerce and Community Development, and then it also adds in that the report will come to the House Committee on Agriculture, this committee, and also to House Commerce and Economic Development, and then it didn't change, but it would go to the Senate Committees on Agriculture and Economic Development. And then there was a small change on this, so the report shall address, it removed the legislative recommendations and under subdivision two, it adds whether the current methodology for calculating lodging rates should be updated and the starting lodging rate to be adjusted. So in other words, they may change the formula, but if you're starting at a very low place, that may not ultimately result in a more accurate method. So that was added in. So that was the change. So this is the current version 1.1 of a strike on amendment for the committee. So any other changes would be joined into this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So that's the base version. That's our base version of two thirty. You know what I mean, everybody? Okay. You know, this is before we started adding ornaments.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Okay. Right. And we did also just refresh, change the we put the eight eighty seven language to get rid of the perjury part two.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. That's Gina.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Oh, sorry.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You were on the phone.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You know?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: You told her to be on the phone.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's true, she Sorry, ruined

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thank you. So maybe the next one that would be the quickest to do would be to talk about the flexible work arrangements.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is your current bill that you have on the wall, H726, and this is the same language that was originally in S230 when it started in Senate Economic Development. This is a small change, but a significant change. So under current law, Vermont allows employees to request flexible work arrangements from their employers, and they can ask a couple of times a year. And essentially, what the current board does is it protects employees who request a flexible work schedule from being retaliated against by their employer. But it is a flexible statute here. So right now, this is the current language, is the employer shall consider the employee's request for a flexible work arrangement and whether the request could be granted in a manner that's not inconsistent with its business operations. And then it goes on and defines inconsistent with business operations. What this bill is proposing to do is to shift the balance there. So instead of the employer making the decision as to whether or not they want to grant the flexible work arrangement, it essentially requires the employer to grant the request unless it's inconsistent with their business operations.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Which is still the employer determination, they would just have to defend it. Yes. It kind of shifts the burden. Yes. I wanna say to the committee, it's hard to know how great a change this is, and this is one of the things we have to take testimony on. We couldn't just do it, in my view. We'll have to hear from representatives, not only in unions, but also employers if we do this.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Was this something that you suggested?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't even remember where it came from. It was on our wall.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: No, no, I didn't.

[Unidentified speaker (staff or member)]: It was on our

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: wall, and we heard it, and I thought there was sort of an interest in it, so I might have put that on it. We can take it out.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not in yet. I was just running through.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah, I only knew about the temperature.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, alright. Alright, and then the last one.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are you going to extreme temperature? Yes. Okay, so I want to be transparent as to what is happening here. Alright? But polite. Let's see if I can do that. We were interested in the issue of extreme tension. Shall I say we were seduced into interest by just the fact that who wouldn't want

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Something else in your pocket?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How would it is really frightening. Because who wouldn't want workers to be safe from extreme temperatures? So, we asked Sophie using the federal model to give us something, and she gave us a very complete bill, which caused the committee to feel like we thought we were interested, but this is too much. We can't do this. And the two problems were the temperatures seemed to be the kind of what was considered too hot and too cold particularly didn't match our experience in Vermont. And the second was the amount of paperwork involved in terms of generating reports, plans, etcetera, was inconsistent with the reality that the great majority of the employers in Vermont are very small. We're not dealing with huge employers. So, I have had I was approached by various representatives of labor over time in the last months, and I simply reported on the reaction of the committee and said, I think if this is even has a chance of moving, it has to be much simpler with temperatures that are appropriate. Recently, I was given a draft by a representative of one of the unions of a possibility, and so what I did was, and without arguing that it is goes far enough or is right, I simply gave it to counsel to just put out there as a draft that is there so we have something. And in fact, I think to go any further, we would have to take substantial testimony and find out what's going on out there in the real world and make sure that we are not overregulating, underregulating, etcetera. So Sophie's about to present that, but you should understand what that draft is and isn't. It's just a start. Sophie.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanted to just do a quick bit of background here. So Vermont operates what's called an OSHA approved state plan. So OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Act at the federal level. And then since the early 1970s, Vermont has a plan that's approved by OSHA. What essentially that means is that Vermont will apply any federal OSHA standards, they will be a floor. So Vermont could go above those in terms of protection, but they are subject to OSHA, they can't pick and choose what they want to do from OSHA. They have to be at least as effective as the OSHA provisions. And then, VOCHA, so the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health, covers private sector workers, state government workers and local government workers here in Vermont. They do not cover federal government workers such as postal workers. They don't cover family members, immediate family members of a farm employer. They don't cover farms with 10 or fewer non family members, and they don't cover self employed individuals.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Could you go back over and look for the first part of that? What don't they cover?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What they don't cover? Yeah. So OSHA does not cover federal government workers, including their postal service. They don't cover immediate family members of farm employers. Should I interrupt super quick?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Federal, no, but OSHA. Right, They

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't cover farms with 10 or fewer non family members. So if they've got 10 non family members working for them. And they do not cover self employed individuals. They also don't cover things like mining and nuclear, things that are very heavily regulated at the federal level.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Self employed mean? The individual.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, the individual is a, supposing that somebody says that we're gonna just hire you as a consultant, then they're not covered.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, like ten ninety nine. If you're self employed, but if that self employed person hires someone else, then

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: yes, So then they're

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again, I think just to reiterate what the chair said, so we had a very long bill, think it was on the eighteenth pages that were really based on what had been proposed by the Biden administration for extreme heat temperatures. So it essentially took that and then working with NIOSH, which is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, they had some guidance regarding cold temperatures. So that was the draft bill that you had looked at that we went through last session. So what I'm going show you now is the revised version, which essentially takes that bill but really cuts it down. So again, there may be things that need to be worked out on it, but it essentially is the same language from before, but with a lot of deletions. And it also includes, it has a couple of other, there was another proposal and I have that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in here as well. So

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again, this is all pretty familiar, it's just going to be a lot shorter. So again, the title, this would be creating a new subchapter under Title 21, under Chapter three. Chapter three is the safety provisions that we have in Vermont statute. The same purpose as before, so that's just a reiteration of the same things, this screenlines the number of definitions. One change from the draft that I was given was this retains the definitions of employee and employer. These are the definitions that are already in state statute under the OSHA provisions, but I think it's easier if people see them rather than just a reference sometimes. Extreme temperature means temperatures at or above 80 degrees Fahrenheit as measured by a wet bulb globe thermometer or below 35 degrees Fahrenheit. Wet bulb globe thermometer does a good job of measuring on a heat end, less so on a cold end, so that's why it's separated that way. It retains the definitions of indoors and outdoors and defines the wet bulb globe temperature. And then, again, application. This is just the same language, but just really parred down. There's lot of information that's not included in this. So the application, it would apply to all employers, employees, and employment, interactive workplace. Am I right? I just

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: wanna again, members of the committee, I'm just throwing out ideas for consideration. I have not advocated. If we wanted to make this only apply to larger employers, we'd put it there, right?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I mean, it's yes. This does not contain any language

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that We is could say it only applies to employers with more than 50 employees or whatever if we wanted to.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I just the the the only portion piece I would have is that the version rules do apply to all the, regardless of size.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We have to be careful there. Right. Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And again, I can touch on this in a minute, but there is right now, is, We had talked last year that the Biden administration's proposed rules, which the original bill was based on, was pulled back by the Trump administration. But there is something called a National Emphasis Program on Outdoor and Inhore heat related hazards that is currently in effect. It's in effect until 04/08/2026. So essentially OSHA is really focusing on heat right now. They've conducted way more in person inspections, etcetera. So I just flagged that because you could be a small employer in Vermont, you would still be covered by that national emphasis program right now that's being administered at the federal level, so just as a flag. All right, so this just goes through the application, 80 degrees, 35 degrees, the axillary's on my little end. Can

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I ask where 35 degrees came from? This was what

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was asked to prepare this came from.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Would love to understand where 35 degrees came from.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, tell you tell us your name for the record and help.

[JB Isabelle, Executive Director, Vermont AFL-CIO]: Sorry, but we're not formal here. JB Isabelle, executive director with Mont AFL CIO. I was so I don't this came from the Teamsters. This the original bill came from the Teamsters. I was working with them on it as a labor representative, and I worked with the chair and others, and I was told that 40 was not workable. So I went to 35.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But if the committee wants to know, could it be 30? Yes. Could it be zero? It it's up to the committee.

[JB Isabelle, Executive Director, Vermont AFL-CIO]: Yes. And what I would say is that there was I the reason that this this draft was so late in coming is that there was consternation around dropping Right. That temperature.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Okay.

[JB Isabelle, Executive Director, Vermont AFL-CIO]: And so this was the this was my attempt at a compromise.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Thank you. Well, that's good. It's always good to attempt to compromise. All right.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. So this retains the extreme temperature prevention plan. So employers must deflate a wet bulb globe thermometer at each indoor and outdoor work site, including Well, that doesn't make sense. Anyway I may have over deleted. Well, tried to. So, there was a lot of deletion. Let's have a look. I just want to make sure to see what was in here. Oh, should be work vehicles. So that's the missing word, work vehicles. Employers must develop a written extreme temperature injury and illness prevention plan with work specific information. The plan must include information about the factors that can increase the likelihood of injury or illness, policies and procedures necessary to comply with the requirements of this subfactor, but those requirements aren't in here any longer, so again that's the language that probably needs to be gained. Information on education and training and emergency procedures and contact information. I have a question about that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Every time I go into a workplace, or I manage one, there is some closet door somewhere, where people have stuck on the door always notices. Is this just one more notice that gets stuck on the closets or

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you can bear with me one second, I will

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's a start, because people should know about it. Yeah, they should know about it, but I guess that's part one of my question and part two of my question perhaps, is doesn't OSHA or somebody publish that kind of stuff? I mean, would an employer, who's got three employees, have to reinvent the wheel? Hold on one second,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's pulling it up right now.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And do they come and inspect every two or three years or anything like that? This is Vermont, of course not. Oh.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this is the current mandatory poster, the OSHA one. So you have the right to request a brochure inspection. So again, it's very complaint driven here in Vermont. So, if you have concerns, can request and file a complaint again if you're discriminated against. So anyway, this is the current poster. And they do have, there are available posters as well, resources available regarding heat as well, they're available on the OSHA website.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Can I ask a question? Please. Wet bulbs? Yeah, that's fine. So, can

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: be upwards of $3,000 Really? Yeah. And so, I'm sorry, but

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's really important to know. Is that true?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did look that up last year when we were looking at this, and I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: think if you have a data driven, it's gonna hold information. And I personally think if I'm, if we're gonna do this and I'm an employer and I have to have them in every place and someone can come and audit and I would want it holding all the data it can to save my butt, I It's just another,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you know,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I have concerns about the fact that it's a wet bulb and how many places I just didn't know if we had any specifications on the quality of wet bulbs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, meters typically range from $15 to over $300 depending on accuracy. That's something to explore, because we're not going to create a situation, well, I'm speaking for myself, we're not going to create a bill that requires one or two people or three people, employers, to spend $300 on a thermometer.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But again, it's missing the word vehicle on the ATM. This would also include white vehicle, right?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask another question that's related to this? Say I don't have a work vehicle, I use my own vehicle and get the IRS reimbursed for miles, and I have a hunk of junk. With this language, is that going to cover my vehicle? I would have

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to go back and look at that. I did look at it last time and I just don't remember. I mean, it was so much information, don't remember at all. But generally a work vehicle, I think the goal here would be, if you're driving a truck, you're driving something for work, like field delivery carrier, for example. So I think it's thinking more of that rather than the personal vehicles, if you're being provided by a vehicle, but I would want to note something to check.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, because I know my postal worker uses their own vehicle. Nothing better. Well, think it's a good example of, you know, we have people who are going on the job for contractors for building, they don't, they're small, sorry. Yeah.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have lots of feelings about this bill. Alright, and then You gotta fix them up. Give this bill does not include anything specifically on cold, it does have the heat injury and illness prevention, so section 240T. So then this would apply to the wet bulb, low temperature, exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit. So the employer must provide an effective means of communication so that employees can contact the supervisor when necessary to address concerns about heat they must be provided with.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wait a second, we've got a question.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie? Well, I want to just briefly go back to who you said it does not cover. What about the flaggers? Are they covered under this? First of all, one of

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the things we'd have to look this is up to us. In other words, one of the things that isn't in here is excluded. We can exclude professions, we want to, if

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: they do. It just doesn't work, right? Well, just feel like they're standing on hot ass. I know. I mean, I don't know how they do it.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They should exclude all building trades. I mean, they

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: might have little fans in their suit, like the guidance room.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry. It's okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so this is talking about heat injury illness and prevention, so means of communication with a supervisor, public access to potable water, readily accessible, an area where employees can take a break in sufficient numbers based on conditions, and the employees must provide work vehicles with functioning air conditioning and heating that control for temperatures. So that's it. So that's a much more pared down version. There was one other set of language that was provided that I believe is coming more from the concerns from the ski industry, and this would be a change to a different part of the statute, and this right now, we currently have language that provides an employer, that'll provide an employee with usable opportunities during work periods to eat and to use toilet facilities, and this would just add in and to warm up in heated spaces when working outdoors in cold temperatures to protect the health and hygiene of the employee. That was some proposed language that also was provided.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so there's a base piece to work on. And I'm just to kinda bring us all onto the same page. One option for us is forget it. Another option for us is to forget it and work on it next year. Another option for us is to refine it, change it, and change the potential changes are for the simplification, changing temperatures, omitting, making it only apply to certain employers of a certain size or certain professions. Those are our issues, and we are arranged for the beginning of testimony next week from people who would be subject to this to try to tell us more about what do they do. In other words, what is a good practice? It seems to me that if we were going to do this, what we want to do is look at the people who are doing the right thing and ask ourselves whether we can craft this such it reflects that kind of activity, so that people who are doing the right thing don't have to do anything more, and it's just the people who are the bad actors who are brought in the deep. The question is, can we do that? Is it worth it? And I don't know yet, but I'm saying to the committee, I think I'm gonna subject you to a little more testimony before we make up our mind whether to go ahead or forget it. Any questions of Sophie? Well, this point, Miriam, when at this point are we scheduled to start on Tuesday? At 1PM after the court. Okay, so Tuesday the floor is at ten and then we'll start at one. And at this point, anything else people want to say before we go offline?