Posted By Mike Waters We are having a problem getting a construction client's workers to wear safety helmets on-site........nothing new! We have issued Construction Info Sheet 50 and explained the reasons in, what we consider, a reasonable manner. Does anyone have any photographs of head injuries that we could laminate and place in the site hut!! If so please email to: mike@safetyuk.co.uk Thanks

Posted By Mike Waters Bob thank you for your comments, I do share your feelings at times however I do not consider that they are pro-active in dealing with the problem. Although the use of discipline seems to make sense it is negative and, if not evenly applied, can be unfair. Increased use of discipline only emphasises how not to perform an operation rather than emphasising the correct wya. The result is often that it only has a limited efefct as employees react against the apparent unfairness. This can lead to immense problems on site where deadlines have to be met and where work has to be coordinated with sub-contractors and utility companies. We take the individual needs of our clients' organisations into account and, in this context, have shown that positive reinforcement is much more effective. I am aware that the display of a poster that depicts head injuries seems an easy way to raise awareness but that once they have been on display for a while they become nothing more than wallpaper and have little long-term effect as a result. However, as an initial shock tactic as part of a longer term strategy (that includes disciplinary action) they have a positive effect. Mike Waters

Posted By Laurie I agree with Bob, and I made recommendations to this very effect on Friday. Those who will not comply with H&S requirements have no business on any site, let alone a lone a construction one Laurie

Posted By Robert K Lewis The definition for Construction Work is within both CDM regs and CHSW regs. Strictly if your business is supplying portakabins for hire to any hiring party it is not a construction work area. If however you are part of a construction company and hiring to the construction industry solely then you are likely to be so classed. But don't get knotted up about it the regs effectively say that head protection must be worn where there is a risk of head injury. This is not really any different to the MHS regs. Many employers prefer to make a fixed rule as it is easier to enforce and removes much confusion. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Glancing blows can also be lethal Bob

Posted By David Mains Bob, maybe my point was a bit pedantic. It is just that if a porta cabin is going to fall or topple onto you from height it seems a bit pointless to be wearing a 'safety' hat. Surely, it would be better to minimise the risk of the portacabin, or parts thereof, falling. I was trying to emphasis the point that too often PPE of this kind is introduced and enforced blindly without a proper assessment. My previous employer had a large warehouse that had pallets racked to around 30 ft and the hard had rule was vigourously enforced by management. On one occasion a director appeared in the warehouse and demanded that I wear my hat even though she was not wearing one. When I pointed out that if anything was to fall from a pallet the hat would be of little benefit and that she was more at risk of injury from wandering around a warehouse wearing sandals. I understand that the safety manager is still trying to change from hard hats to bump caps but senior management are opposing as 'it is a warehouse, you must wear a hard hat'.