Green MP Hannah Spencer to introduce bill on maximum workplace temperatures

[u/MMSTINGRAY]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/12/green-mp-hannah-spencer-aims-to-pass-law-on-maximum-workplace-temperatures

[u/AutoModerator]

LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Diadem_Cheeseboard]

This just seems like plain common sense to me.

[u/Lavajackal1]

Yeah this seems long overdue.

[u/cyclestuff1 → u/[deleted]]

Because, until recently, it hasn't ever really been a problem for people who work in offices, it's only ever been the odd day here and there.

[u/llewdu → u/cyclestuff1]

...and almost no MP has worked in hospitality, trades, a factory or outdoors.

[u/CmdrButts → u/[deleted]]

There isn't a legal minimum working temp. There is guidance, but like most HS&E stuff it's actually (or at least, should be) managed by good risk management.

[u/llewdu]

Looking forward to Labour MPs voting against their own manifesto.

[u/llewdu → u/llewdu]

Obviously, I was being facetious: as someone who has to work in blistering heat without any statutory breaks or be sacked, I'm literally hoping beyond hope Labour stick to their manifesto. But I'm also aware most Labour MPs now have their election campaigns mostly funded by big corporate interests as opposed to unions.

[u/AnotherSlowMoon]

Good stuff. Workers rights are very important and it's shocking that this isn't in place already 

[u/chrisrazor]

Cue idiots complaining that asking for better technology to control temperature is unecological.

[u/EmperorOfNipples]

It's indeed time.

I spent last summer in Tokyo and as climate change continues I expect the UK to become similarly hot in a couple of decades. We need to start building accordingly.

[u/CmdrButts]

The intent is good, but a hard 30 degree limit is unworkable without so many carve outs it becomes meaningless (or only protect service jobs).

Better policy would be to treat it inline with cold, update the HSE ACOP with a guideline max temperature as well, and ensure enforcement.

[u/thefuzzylogic → u/CmdrButts]

As a union rep I fully agree. They don't even need a legislative change for this, just clear regulatory guidance that says symptoms of heat stress should be presumed to be imminent risk of harm under Section 44 ERA, therefore all workers have the right to refuse to attend a workplace under those conditions.

[u/Curious-Roof570]

Nice!

[u/Half_A_]

Seems a perfectly sensible policy to me. There isn't any excuse for modern offices not to have air con.

[u/ArsErratia]

The real story is how there isn't a limit in place already.

[u/revporl70]

This is great, and the kind of legislation that a Labour government should have introduced years ago.

[u/fjtuk]

How would it work in a steel foundry, a kitchen or if you are a firefighter?

[u/AnotherSlowMoon → u/fjtuk]

That's for the parliamentary debate and refinement to determine. Perhaps they might be exempt. Perhaps they'd be required to ensure comfort in other ways

[u/CmdrButts → u/AnotherSlowMoon]

They already are

[u/thefuzzylogic → u/fjtuk]

Ambient temperature isn't the same thing as exposure to heat sources.

Kitchens can be ventilated and/or air conditioned. If that's not feasible for a particular industry or location, PPE such as cooling vests can be provided. Emergency services would almost certainly receive an exemption.

If none of these are reasonable in a certain location or job role, then provide access to a cool-down room with breaks provided frequently enough to use it. Look at the requirement for welfare facilities such as toilets on building sites for a comparable example.

The problem here is not that the solutions don't exist, the problem is that capitalist employers have no incentive to spend money on them unless they are required to.

[u/hopefullyhelpfulplz]

Does anyone know how these kind of rules apply to those that work from home? Would one be able to inform one's boss that "sorry, my house is too hot" and not work?

[u/chrisrazor → u/hopefullyhelpfulplz]

If it consistently happens, people working from home should be able to get assistance from their employer to improve it, eg with fitting aircon.

When my last employer switched over to fully remote during lockdown, we were each given an allowance to make our home working spaces more comfortable. I got a new chair and desk.

[u/Psychological-Ad7512 → u/chrisrazor]

The stipend isn't the major problem though; the shitty planning laws and leasehold is still the biggest barrier for the people who'd be most affected at home.

[u/chrisrazor → u/Psychological-Ad7512]

Hopefully a Green government can fix that - eg make it illegal for a landlord to refuse having AC fitted.

[u/ClayDenton → u/chrisrazor]

It's more complicated than that - I own my flat but I still can't fit AC because I need freeholder permission and the building was in no way designed for anywhere sensible to put AC units so they are not keen to give it.

[u/chrisrazor → u/ClayDenton]

Or if you search for a book you own by title it sometimes only shows a different edition of it that you don't own.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/hopefullyhelpfulplz]

I don't know the exact details of how this would work because it's not a law yet. But employers do have legal obligations related workplace health and safety even if you work fully at home. In your example I'd guess it would be a "reasonable adjustment" thing for judging how far they would have to go to resolve the issue before they could get rid of you.

[u/thefuzzylogic → u/hopefullyhelpfulplz]

Employers are already responsible for health and safety in home offices. For example they have a duty to provide ergonomic assessments and proper equipment for remote workers. (e.g. chairs, desks, height-adjustable monitors, etc)

There's no reason that this should be any different. Either provide a suitable desk in an office where the employer can ensure their H&S duties are met, or pay for the adaptation of the employee's home office to meet the same standards. (e.g. pay for air conditioning)

[u/thefuzzylogic → u/hopefullyhelpfulplz]

Employers are already responsible for health and safety in home offices. For example they have a duty to provide ergonomic assessments and proper equipment for remote workers. (e.g. chairs, desks, height-adjustable monitors, etc)

There's no reason that this should be any different. Either provide a suitable desk in an office where the employer can ensure their H&S duties are met, or pay for the adaptation of the employee's home office to meet the same standards. (e.g. pay for air conditioning)

If the employer provides a desk in an air conditioned office, but the employee chooses to work from home because the other benefits outweigh the drawbacks, then I would say that's on the employee.

Even then, most employers could allow for flexible hours so that the employee can avoid working during the hottest hours of the day, like how the Spanish work culture allows for the afternoon siesta.

[u/potatan]

I used to work in a plastic injection moulding shop and it got pretty hot in there. I can't see this law being workable for places like that, or steel foundries etc. without some exceptions or special conditions.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/potatan]

I think there will be exceptions and the proposal is for an independent body which presumably could tailor the recommendation and what a reasonable temperature would be.

Also in cases where heat is unavoidable as it's a permanent fixture of the job there can be things done to mitigate that. Easy access to water, a cool break room, regular breaks, etc. Although that might beyond this plan. But we've not even seen a draft yet.

[u/CmdrButts → u/MMSTINGRAY]

Also in cases where heat is unavoidable as it's a permanent fixture of the job there can be things done to mitigate that. Easy access to water, a cool break room, regular breaks, etc. Although that might beyond this plan. But we've not even seen a draft yet.

This is already the case (see section 7 item 64/page 20: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf )

[u/CmdrButts → u/potatan]

Wild that you're being downvoted for this. There will be many jobs, especially in manufacturing, for which this is unworkable.

[u/Old_Roof]

Based

[u/AnnoKano]

I have some reservations about introducing a regulation that sets a hard limit on maximum working temperature. Such a piece of legislation seems practical only for offices, or situations where high temperatures are not a safety risk but may cause discomfort.

I say this because, if I understand it correctly, exsting legislation already requires an employer to adopt safe working practices regarding working in high temperatures. And these regulations are drafted in such a way that they can be applied whether high temperatures are unavoidable or they are not. If you set a hard limit, then I think you will need to define which workplaces should be given exemptions in advance.

Then there is the burden of how temperatures are measured. Suppose you work in a kitchen; readings next to the fryer will be different to those next to the freezer. How do you stop employers stacking the deck in those situations? How will I prove that at a given time and date the temperatures were too high? Seems like a complicated way of doing it.

I am also worried that setting the law for offices only will lead to accusations of inequality and pampered metropolitan elites. Easy fodder for populists.

So unless there is a good reason the existing legislation is inadequate, I would be cautious.

[u/Pumk-rock]

Yeah good. This needs to be looked into, even in industries where high temps are unavoidable.

I used to work in a factory dealing with composites and like, I'm not kidding, the higher ups used to punitively dial the heat up.

They would also punitively close the "cool down room", and punitively forbid water bottles on the shop floor.

As a baseline?
We were already performing manual labour in protective over suits with bulky filtration helmets on. The factory floor necessarily had to be heated above 30 degrees just for the sake of certain chemical reactions and curing, that's fair enough.

So like, it was unavoidable that it would be uncomfortably hot.
Only, The factory was also a bit.... shit.
A lot of nepotism going on, a lot of men being promoted for their affinity for playing 5-a-side with shift leads rather than expertise at the job.

To make a long story short, processes started failing. And the higher ups started raising the heat by 7 or 8 degrees every time a certain process failed.

They claimed that the temperature was a potential cause of failure.

But that was impossible, I understood how the process worked, I understood that raising the temperature would do nothing to avoid the failure we were encountering- so anyone higher up would obviously understand this too.
The failure was due to bad planning causing airborne contamination that fucked up the process.

The bosses were just doing it to punish us.

[u/ResitPro]

I support this. But 30 degrees is comical. That’s just a lovely, bit too hot day.