Committee advances Colorado Worker Safety Act after hours of testimony and amendments

Representative Rittenel opened the committee discussion of House Bill 26‑10‑54, calling the proposal "the Colorado Worker Safety Act" and arguing it is necessary because federal enforcement of workplace protections has declined. "92 Colorado workers died on the job in 2024," he said, citing recent state data and adding that the bill would anchor Colorado law to the OSHA general duty clause as interpreted before federal rollbacks. "If the federal government is walking away from Colorado workers, then Colorado is going to step up and protect our neighbors," Rittenel said.

Co-sponsor Representative Elizabeth Velasco framed the bill as a response to federal rollbacks and a tool for families and vulnerable workers, describing the bill’s mechanisms: a state-level right to a safe workplace, authority for the Attorney General to bring enforcement actions, a private right to seek equitable relief and injunctions, and a workplace health and safety fund funded by penalties. She emphasized that the bill does not create a state OSHA plan and said amendments would narrow rulemaking triggers and define stakeholder roles.

Supporters from labor and advocacy organizations described recent declines in OSHA enforcement and rising workplace harms during public testimony. Nina DeSalvo of Towards Justice urged the committee to adopt state-level enforcement tools, and union and trade witnesses recounted on-the-job deaths and injuries, arguing private enforcement can serve as a backstop when federal agencies lack resources. Some witnesses cited statistical analyses presented during testimony showing a sharp drop in federal OSHA cases and penalties in 2025 compared with historical averages.

Opponents — representing construction contractors, insurance providers, mining, aviation and business groups — argued the bill would create duplicate or conflicting standards, increase litigation exposure for employers, and could run afoul of federal preemption in highly regulated sectors. Michael Gifford of the Associated General Contractors urged the committee to oppose the bill and instead pursue a full state OSHA plan developed over time and with funding. Alenka Hahn of Pinnacle Assurance warned of conflicts with the workers’ compensation system’s exclusive-remedy provisions.

Committee amendments narrowed rulemaking authority and removed an immediate CDLE enforcement role, placing public enforcement authority with the Attorney General and preserving private enforcement options for worker organizations and labor groups; sponsors said those changes were intended to address fiscal and implementation concerns. After amendment votes, the committee moved HB 26‑10‑54, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations with a recorded vote of 7–6.

Next steps: The bill, as amended, will be considered by the Appropriations Committee. The amendments substantially altered enforcement mechanics — removing a full CDLE enforcement obligation and restricting CDLE rulemaking triggers — a key change for implementation and fiscal analysis.