As state regulators work on drafting a workplace violence prevention standard, the California Chamber of Commerce remains a leading voice for making the rule clear and workable for employers of all sizes.
Legislation signed in 2023, SB 553 (Cortese; D-San Jose), requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to develop the standard. The regulation will implement changes SB 553 made by adding Section 6401.9 to the Labor Code.
Throughout the development of SB 553, CalChamber led coalition efforts to ensure the workplace safety obligations created by the bill would be feasible for both small businesses and large employers.
The latest draft standard, released on July 22, 2026, includes adjustments welcomed by CalChamber and new causes for concern.
Ongoing Concerns
Among concerns CalChamber raised in comments on four previous drafts of the standard are the following:
• The standard should be clear and feasible for the businesses it covers, including small businesses.
• “Staffing levels” should not be part of the proposed rule.
• Trauma counseling obligations must be clarified.
• Interactive training obligations should be feasible for covered businesses, including small businesses.
New Concerns
• New language in the July 22 draft regulation adds ambiguity to employers’ obligations and is unnecessary. The CalChamber-led coalition said in its August 17 letter to Cal/OSHA that the language appears to create a right of appeal for employees who believe their report of a workplace violence incident or hazard was not “adequately addressed” by a direct supervisor.
The letter pointed out that the employer already is required to have an effective procedure to communicate with employees, including an effective method for employees to report concerns without fear of reprisal, and an effective method of reviewing and responding to such concerns.
Before the language added in the July 22 revised draft, it was clear that a Cal/OSHA inspector would ensure the employer had in place effective procedures to receive, review, and address concerns about workplace violence hazards. The employees’ role was to report the concerns, the letter noted.
The CalChamber coalition asked that the new language be removed.
• Interactive training: response time for questions. The CalChamber coalition asked that the response time for the required interactive training (one business day in the July 22 draft) be adjusted to be similar to other labor law trainings. For example, the letter said, sexual harassment prevention training requires responses “within a reasonable period of time after the employee asks the question, but no more than two business days after the question is asked.”
• Recordkeeping: security. Language in the July 22 draft rule seems to implicitly entitle any employee to request documents about revisions to an employer’s workplace safety practices, even the broader audience may endanger more workers. For example, the coalition said, an employer’s plan in response to an on-site shooter may be to add security cameras and a silent alarm triggered by these new cameras. “Informing all employees that this is how a risk will be identified by management may enable a prospective shooter to avoid this very system,” the coalition said. The coalition suggested that either the language of the draft regulation be edited or that Cal/OSHA convene an advisory committee to draft a “workable, safety-based exemption” to the employer’s obligation to produce all workplace safety documents.
• Recordkeeping: privacy. The July 22 draft language enables any employee to request information about others’ complaints and the responses to them. Even if an employee’s name is redacted, the coalition warned, the contents of the report may put the complaining employee at risk. As with the safety concerns, the coalition suggested edits to the language of the draft regulation or that Cal/OSHA oversee a detailed advisory committee discussion on the privacy concerns raised by employers.
What’s Next
SB 553 requires the Cal/OSHA Standards Board to adopt a workplace violence prevention standard by the end of 2026. The agency began considering some form of a standard years before the Legislature passed SB 553.
