OPINION: Talk of the Town

Heat protection rule is necessary measure

Kudos to the Journal for the “Workplace heat protection decision put off until 2026” article by Megan Gleason. With hundreds of public comments submitted regarding the proposed worker heat safety rule, the issue certainly has “caught the spotlight.”

The comments include many from employers who perceive the cost of implementing this rule in wildly different ways. Some points are valid. However, several New Mexico senators note some comments include unscientific claims understating the risks of heat on the human body. The rule is based on scientific and medical evidence, so revisions must maintain reasonable protections for workers.

Rio Rancho, Albuquerque and Las Cruces are seeing the largest increase in high heat days of any cities in the United States, reports USA Today. In fact, the heat index exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Albuquerque on 77 days in 2024, “up from 66 days in 2023 and 52 in 2022.”

Communications Workers of America, United Steelworkers, Laborer’s International Union, both education employee unions (AFT and NEA), the BlueGreen Alliance, Olé New Mexico, the Coalition of Agriculture Workers and Advocates and other worker-based organizations support the rule since it will “protect workers in the state from heat-related illnesses and death… Heat-related illnesses and death are preventable,” says CWA Local 7076. Of course, Healthy Climate New Mexico is strongly for the proposal.

While the article quoted some employers, others note “the proposed rule can benefit employers by mitigating the productivity losses seen when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress.”

Some in opposition say existing federal and union protections protect workers. But United Steelworkers disagree, commenting: “General duty clause citations have proven insufficient in protecting workers from preventable heat-related injury, illness, and death.”

Nearly 250,000 New Mexicans are at risk. The time to act on heat safety is now.

Charles Goodmacher

Rio Rancho

Federal land transfers would lead to mineral extraction

William DeBuys’ excellent column (Sunday Journal, June 15) struck the right chord for the potential danger to our national parks and monuments by saying passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” would put our national parks on the chopping block.

And it’s more than just the threat coming from federal land transfers. While it is asserted in the bill that such transfers will be used to develop housing, one should be skeptical. These transfers must be seen in context of President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order that directed all executive departments and agencies to identify and use all existing emergency authorities to facilitate the extraction, production and distribution of domestic energy resources.

While federal land transfers must go through Congress, these actions still require review under federal law for assessing the potential effects on archaeological sites and Indigenous sacred areas. However, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s directive to the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management goes well beyond just land transfers. They are to review the National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 process which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects on historical resources.

In fact, the declaration of an “energy emergency,” is, in itself, a canard given the country’s pre-eminent position in global oil and gas production. Burgum’s directive will result in the streamlining and possible circumventing of normal archaeological reviews. In effect, Section 106 is also on the chopping block.

Any oil, gas or mineral extraction project could be called an emergency and greenlighted for “expedited review” that downplays or ignores adverse findings. This should concern all New Mexicans who care about our historical past and archaeological preservation, because, once those sites are destroyed, they are gone forever. The archaeology in New Mexico is rich, let’s keep it that way.

Jeffery Hanson

Albuquerque

New Mexico must improve child well-being, education

Once again New Mexico has the distinct dishonor of being rated as the worst state in the union for child well-being. That’s the title we get from the latest Kids Count ratings. The ratings are based on education, health, family and community factors. Well, as the saying goes, “here we go again.” New Mexico ranks a not so illustrious 50th in education, 49th in economic well-being, and 46th in quality of health.

I really wish I could say, “that’s a surprise.” Unfortunately, I can’t. I have to say, “not a surprise.” Nonprofit New Mexico Voices for Children apparently thinks we should not be compared to other states with a different set of demographics. Hogwash. That is either a denial or a deflection.

New Mexico has had the dishonor of ranking last, or close to last, in education for years. We all have our own perceptions of why that is so. I can make a case for a couple. First, our kids aren’t in school enough. The number of classroom days in the year is woefully low. Kids do not learn when they are home because of vacation days and teacher training days. One supportive move is to give every public-school teacher a $5,000 raise and add ten classroom days to the calendar.

All the rating factors are related and impact each other. Though our health has the most profound impact on the others. Improving the health of our children can help raise our ranking, our image and well-being. We must work to ensure that our children have medical care and health education to meet the goals. Preserve Medicaid, train doctors, staff school nurses, lower prescription costs, encourage preventive care and make health education part of the school curriculum.

Jeffrey Paul

Albuquerque

Building strong community is a defense against misfortune

I’m a native of Albuquerque. However, as a military spouse I’ve lived overseas twice: Oxford in the United Kingdom and Roppongi, a neighborhood in Tokyo. Both of these places have an abundance of community boards. In Roppongi, virtually every neighborhood has a community board with announcements.

In Albuquerque, where are our community boards? What ways do we have to communicate with each other? Social media is too impersonal.

I recently attended our neighborhood meeting. Few people attended. However, I met a woman who took it upon herself to upgrade the playground equipment at our park. My own kids are so blessed to have someone like this going the distance for the wellbeing of others.

I want to urge you, my fellow neighbors in Albuquerque, to go the distance for each other in real everyday life. Here are some ideas:

• Attend a neighborhood meeting. If there are none, start one.
• Volunteer with a youth organization.
• Check in with a neighbor you already know.
• Meet a neighbor you don’t already know.
• Organize a community clean-up event.
• Pay attention to local community events.
• Join an inter-faith organization that is working toward a good cause.
• Join or start a mutual aid society.
• Watch out for the safety of kids playing outside.
• Try to understand the underlying causes of the problems we are experiencing.
• Drive across town and try to figure what issues are affecting people there.
• Pray for or send warm thoughts to the people you run into.

A strong community is a defense against all kinds of misfortune. Not to mention, it adds so much to quality of life. Let us go the distance for each other.

Laura Serna

Albuquerque

We need to rediscover our philosophical roots

I think Americans (and, more broadly modern humans) have largely lost touch with our cultural roots — the philosophical foundations that built our current societies. One way to alleviate this issue is to start asking ourselves difficult questions regarding what we believe and why we believe that.

From what I see from what we call the “modern” world or “modern” societies is that people are largely encouraged to look at the past with disdain rather than curiosity. We are encouraged to assume that we are better than our ancestors without inquiring into how and why that may be true, which leads to the logical fallacy of presentism (judging the past based on current standards). Presentism ignores the reality of evolving langauges and ideas — the fact that languages change with time, which by extensiom changes ideas and evolves thinking patterns over longer periods of time.

Dylan Crabb

Questa