Posted By Jim Walker Yuk! what an horrible idea. As the host of a monster verruca that I've been trying to get rid of for nearly a year, I find the idea of wearing someone elses shoes quite repulsive. Do you really need to resort to PPE (low in the hierachy) to control this risk? If yes then easier to ban visitors (elimination) who have no PPE of their own.

Posted By Merv Newman Malcolm, I have worked with two companies which had your problem. They both supplied disinfected safety shoes, which were returned at the end of the visit and new socks, not disposables, printed with the company logo, which were offered as a gift to the visitor. (check how many visitors your have and what sort of budget would be needed over, say, 12 months - you might have to buy a few hundred pairs to get a decent price) In reply to your other respondant, disinfected safety shoes are a fairly common solution to protecting temporary/agency workers. Best regards Merv Newman

Posted By George Wedgwood I agree with the last Chatter - if the risks are so high, visitors should not be present in the operational area. On the odd occasion when a 'special' visitor visited one of my last company's sites, I remember them buying a pre-sized pair for him and then giving them afterwards. Most others are told that they require the PPE if they wish to visit or else they are denied access to the high risk areas. I imagine the type of risks could be sole penetration or greasy surfaces which are not nice to ordinary shoes. But afterall, should walking areas not be queaky clean anyway? For most visitors, eye protection and high visibility clothing will be the most important.

Posted By sylvia I agree with the points made by others about whether there is an actual (rather than perceived) risk to visitors, and why that condition should exist. However, if you must, why not get down to the local market and just buy a batch of cheap socks which can then be discarded / kept by the wearer. Simple.