Posted By Timothy Capner
Dear Jon

You're going to have fun with this one!

It is entirely apropriate to insist upon a 'dress code' for the plant, particularly if exposed skin is at risk. Staff waring skirts should be offered the opportunity to change into a coverall that would cover their arms and legs and offer the protection your risk assessment would determine.

Also bear in mind ethnicity - a Scotish chap may prefer to wear a kilt whilst at work.

Och aye and bye for now

Tim C

Posted By Merv Newman
Jon,

Let's go back to your risk assessment. What kind and level of injuries were you assessing and what frequencies did you estimate ? What were your "worst cases" ?

Apart from slips, trips and falls and so forth which can occur in almost any workplace, the main risk I have seen from robot welding installations is the stream of sparks given off by worn or maladjusted electrodes. These can spray out 5 metres or more. I used to flinch when one came in my direction but found that by the time it reached you the sparks had mostly cooled off and it became an eye protection issue.

Operators are more directly exposed and I do see some with small burns on work clothing. But it is hardly the level of injury which would send them running to medical.

So, for your quality controller, I would expect that the level of injury is very low even though frequency of exposure could be high - each visit to the area.

Safety shoes, safety glasses, work overall, suitable gloves, head covering and maybe hearing protection in the press area are about all I would ask for.

The "worst case" I can see is a hole in her (or his - musn't be sexist) tights.

Posted By steve e ashton
Jon,

If the plant director has had problems in the past when workers in the assembly area have taken to wearing shorts whilst welding or attending the machines, then I can see why he may have concluded that a 'covered leg' policy is essential. If that policy now takes in the occasional visitors to the area - and it should - to ensure the people working there do not see the imposition of leg-covering as just another management bully boy tactic - then, you've got to support him. Yes, visitors to an area must comply with the PPE code appropriate to the area. If that means no skirts, then no skirts (or kilts...) is the rule!

And walkways - if your assembly area is anything like some I have seen, with a variety of different sized and shaped pieces being worked each day, then the 'walkways' largely become a matter of convenience and worker recognition of the need to leave space between jobs.. If you have clearly marked and enforced clear routes to and through - and if you are certain that there will be no injury or damage risk for those using the walkways - then you may have a case for relaxing the rules on the walkways. But.... As a previous respondent has observed, robot welders have a wide splash zone, so your walkways will need to be pretty far away from these machines to be clear of the hazard zone.

Back to first principles - why do non-welders need to pass through the assembly area? Would it be possible to rearrange the plant layout to avoid the need for traffic through the work area? (And at the same time reduce the 'other' risk of distraction for those working at safety critical tasks). Design out the risk, keep non-essential personnel out of the designated area. (But your auditor must comply with the rules).

Good luck in sorting this one - it has the potential to be very interesting!

Steve

Posted By Nick Higginson
Jon

Not really on the subject I know, but I always have a problem with "safety first" initiatives.

If safety really becomes the top priority above production and quality, there won't be a problem with skirts because the company will be bust within 12 months.

Regards

Nick

Posted By Merv Newman
Safety First

no, I'm not trying to hijack this thread. Just a comment on "putting safety first".

The only reason a company has for existing is to make money for the owners. So cutting costs and increasing profits allways come first in the minds of shareholders and senior management. Now, if we can do that safely, so much the better.

What does "safety first" mean ? It never ever means "stop working untill every little possibility of harm has been totally and finally eliminated". Does it ?

We do our risk assessments, set priorities and draw up the action plans. First we have to deal with the "significant" risks. The moderately significant or insignificant risks have to wait. We know they exist, but we tend to accept the little problems while sorting out the big ones. And we get criticised for doing it that way. Some of us try to do all three at once and we get criticised for doing it that way.

Anyone remember the video "take two" ? The message was : before you start the job, take two seconds, two minutes, two hours, whatever, to think first about the safety of what you are going to do. That is putting safety first. And it doesn't cost a lot.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Nick,

I am in agreement with the majority of what you say, but I don't think Merv was suggesting taking 2 hours at the start of every shift (or worse between every piece of work!) just to "think" about safety.

That would be stupid!

I interpreted him to mean that safety should be considered in business decisions at all levels and not tacked on as an afterthought.

Perhaps this is worthy of another thread.

Re: the original question, I would suggest that office staff should not visit the shop floor, but if they had to it would be reasonable to request them to wear suitable PPE for a welding shop (i.e. coveralls).

This should cover all office staff irrespective of gender.

Posted By Katie Hoyland
to be serious for a moment ( it seems that these threads always drift into stupididty), an obvious solution long term would be for your company to implement a positive discrimination policy with regards to recruitement aimed at employing a proportionaly high number of lesbians , therefore killing two birds with one stone in terms of minority employment and avoiding the risk of having a buiding full of skirt wearing ladies. This seems like a workable solution. Obviously recruitement advertisments etc would need obvious yet subtle re-wording.

Posted By Nick Higginson
Neil

I don't ever recall advocating putting productivity before safety. I simply said that safety should be of equal importance to production, quality etc.

You appear to infer that you wish I would go to court so that you could come along and laugh - hardly a helpful response to a thread.

Let me know when you are in the MD's office being handed your P45 for wasting company money, and I'll come and sell him some consultancy services that take note of the meaning of the phrase "reasonably practicable".

Regards

Nick

Posted By Hilary Charlton
I agree with Nick on this one - if Safety came absolutely first you would be running a safety consultancy and not a manufacturing plant or chemical plant, railway or anything else. We have health and safety very very high on our agenda - it is the second rule to which we prescribe. The first rule is "make a product and stay in business". If there is no product and no business then safety is somewhat academic isn't it?

Hilary

Posted By neil poyznts-powell
Nick,

1. Your whole inferance throught the thread has been that safety is not your first priority. In my mind a strange position for a 'health & safety proffesional' to take.

2. I would not be coming to court to laugh, but to see justice takes its course.

3. The reason I am with my current employer is because of ineffective service in the field of Health & Safety, from consultants. As a Health & Safety Officer my first conideration is the Health, Safety and Welfare of the company employees, if I was asked to make this not my main priority I would not need a P45 , I'd be gone. There again as a consulatnt I can see the pressure you have on you tell clients what they want to hear!

Also, I can not recall mentioning or infering the spending of money in my response. Good health and safety does not have to be costly to be effective. The only waste of money with regards to my function, was the hiring of consultants prior to my arrival.

With regards to helpful responses. Deriding a fellow proffesionals safety initiative, I would see as both unhelpful and unproffesional.

Finaly, 'Reasonably Practicable' is easy to use as a cop out, until scrutinised and picked apart by a court of law. Hindsight is great tool!

Regards,

Neil

Posted By Karen Todd
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/524820.stm

Posted By neil poyznts-powell
I agree with each of Merv's statements as they seem well thought out and based in common sense.

I believe that a distiction needs to be made between the priority of a health and safety professional and the priorities of a business.

The priority of the business is to make as much profit as possible. In my opinion the H&S proffesional involved with the business, should do all in their power to ensure that this is not achieved to the detrement of the employees health, safety and welfare.

Regards,

Neil

Posted By fats van den raad
Neil
Two points I feel I have to raise here.
1. Your description of what you see as the function of the H&S professional is as archaic and outdated as your previos description of your own job title as "Safety Officer" This description indicates an individual going round the bussiness fighting the proverbial safety fires (You can't do this, you cant do that). The profession have evolved from those early days and is now much more focussed on being proactive rather than just reacting to what has happened.
2. Your statement seems to indicate that safety is an "add-on" to the bussiness, something that has to be tolerated, but that inj essence is not really part of the bussiness. Funny enough, bussinesses where the argument about what is top priority, safety or production, still rage, are those that still have not managed to fully intergrate safety into the whole bussiness strategy. If you have achieved this, it will become clear that the important issue is not which one is top priority, but that in the end there can only be one aim and that aim is to maximise the bussiness in a way that does not adversely affect stakeholders, the environment or society in general. This is called sustainability and part of this is Corporate Social Responsibility.
It's not good enough to just strive for ultimate production, profit or safety. In todays world you have to strive to achieve ALL.

Posted By Nick Higginson
Fats

Amen.

Nick

PS Must go now, have to write a method statement for putting up Xmas decorations and prepare a COSHH assessment on silly string.

Posted By Stuart Nagle
People. Let's get back to basics here...

Jon is asking if and why and how...

As I recall there is a hierachy of procedures that need to be followed;

1) There is a risk of welding splatter from robotic welding machines - seen it often (as mentioned above)

2) There is a legal duty to protect employees from hazards such as this

3) Employees working in the area (e.g. on the shop floor) need to be protected from the hazard as well as from residual risk of injury from such processes as do other persons (employees or not) entering the area

4) PPE is not regarded as the first means of defence to protect from harm - engineering solutions are - therefore, if reasonably practicable such engineering solutions should be considered and implemeted first. This might for example be screens, curtains, barriers etc - or indeed safe routes that prevent contact with the Hazardous area or from emmisions from the hazardous area(guarded as necessary - if necessary).

5) If 'other persons' not engaged in the hazardous activity have to gain access to aa hazardous area, then they will be subject to the same safe systems of work and protection afforded to those who normally work in those areas.

6) In the case of welding and splatter this is likely to include overalls (fire proofed) that cover extemities (arms/legs etc) and other PPE such as eye/face/head protection, gloves, boots, hearing protection if noisy etc...etc...

This should apply to all staff/employees and visitors, and entry of personnel into these hazardous areas on an ad-hoc basis, if not wearing the correct PPE (regardless of their status) should be controlled and not be permitted unless properly controlled.

7) Signage (mandatory) complemented by training and tool-box talks will assist, and the procedures for operation in the areas concerned should be reviewed and updated as appropriate given the findings of risk assessments in light of the above matters.

8) To simply provide employees (or others) with PPE and permit access to hazardous areas is NOT suitable and sufficient

9) PPE assessments should also be carried out to ensure the PPE is suitable for the indiviual and compatable with other PPE employed. Training and demonstration of the PPE use and it maintenance and cleaning will also be required.

Regards...

Stuart

Posted By Lynchy


Blimey Jon - look what you've started!!!

If I might add a very minor but
neverthe less I feel very important point??

What if the ladies are wearing tights and were caught by sparks?? I think that this could result in a very nasty & painful burn even if very tiny. You know how that sort of material melts instantly and sticks to the skin!

I can remember once a long time ago a friend of my parents was very badly burned about her legs when her tights ignited during using a gas camping stove in bright sunlight - not the smae scenario I know but I do recalll that she was very badly injured and in very severe pain - so I think it is a serious question and I would always drop on the side of proper clothing - whether male or female is not really the issue is it??

Regards

Lynchy

Posted By Sue Powell
Don't wish to hop into a quagmire here but there seems to be two threads here now, one being the important question firstly raised and the other a discussion about where safety should fit into priorities. There have been plenty of helpful ideas to the original question so I don't feel the need to add to it.

But as to whether Safety First campaigns are valid - Of course they are.
My view is and always has been clear. My goal with all those I advise is to

a) get them to put Health and Safety as No.1 on the Management/Directors meeting agenda instead of just above/in AOB.
b) champion a company culture where health and safety isn't a separate issue but is a natural part of the thought process in any decision being made anywhere in the company, from the shopfloor to boardroom.

and that means getting Health and Safety uppermost in the corporate brain.

When we cross the road we don't think "separately" as we look both ways and look again - its all a natural learned experience of risk assessment.

For some companies it may now be second nature but to most putting safety first is the only way to kick-start the process!

Maybe this is old fashioned stuff and too black and white for the new age "out of the box" thinking people but in my experience it works friends!

Sue

Posted By John Murgatroyd
The worst possible case is that the clothing catches fire.
I can think of many cases where a small spark has caused a large fire.
Surely you cannot have a risk assessment where fire due to sparks is not considered ?
I've been a welder since 1973, and have had many burns caused by small sparks...and if the spot welding machine is badly adjusted, or damaged, then the sparks are far from small and it can even spit globules of molten metal a large distance.