In brief
As David Keeling prepares for potential confirmation as OSHA’s new head, concerns arise over his past inaction on heat safety issues at UPS, particularly affecting delivery drivers needing better conditions amidst rising temperatures.
David Keeling, President Trump's pick to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), poses a significant challenge for worker safety advocates as he steps into this pivotal role during a time when the agency is contemplating crucial rules aimed at safeguarding workers from extreme heat. Having previously served as a health and safety executive at UPS, Keeling is scrutinized for his past efforts—or lack thereof—regarding heat-related safety measures for the company's delivery drivers, particularly their requests for air conditioning in delivery vans.For years, UPS truck drivers have voiced their concerns about the absence of air-conditioning units in vehicles, which exacerbates heat-related illnesses like heatstroke, particularly in soaring temperatures. Critics argue that Keeling's former employer’s resistance to heat regulations highlights a troubling pattern of neglect towards employee safety and well-being.Currently residing in a crucial role, Keeling's appointment is under debate within labor unions. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters supports him, citing his extensive background in health and safety as commendable. However, a split remains within the labor community, with many advocates stating that Keeling’s history at UPS does not align with the urgency of the health crisis posed by extreme heat.The impending announcement from OSHA is anticipated to affect an estimated 36 million workers in various high-risk industries, such as agriculture and construction. These rules would mandate access to water breaks and rest when temperatures exceed set limits, marking a significant shift towards worker-centric policies focusing on vulnerability to heat-related health issues.As the Senate committee prepares to review Keeling’s nomination, many are left questioning whether his leadership will indeed push forward necessary reforms or repeat previous failures in prioritizing safety in favor of corporate interests.
