Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 15 July 2005 10:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MichaelM I saw this in the Daily Record today. Shorts again. What is this new H&S Legislation? The Not Allowed To Wear Shorts On A Hot Day Regulations 2005? "SHORTS BAN IS RUBBISH Jul 15 2005 Binmen's boycott threat By Jade Beecroft A GROUP of binmen are threatening to boycott rubbish collection after they were banned from wearing shorts in this week's heatwave. Refuse collectors called a union meeting this week after two workers were rapped for wearing shorts on the job. And another man was formally disciplined for defacing council property after he cut the sleeves off his shirt to keep cool. Hundreds of bins could be left full in Dunfermline, Fife, after all 86 union members voted to work-to-rule. A spokesman for the Dunfermline Refuse Workers' union said: 'We've worn shorts in the summer for 15 years without a problem. 'Now the council won't budge because of new health and safety laws, so we begin a work-to-rule policy from Tuesday. 'This means we'll be lifting one bin at a time, not filling the lorries to the brim and not working overtime. 'We'll only empty bins with handles turned out on to the street, so hundreds will be left full.' Binmen claim they were told they would be sacked for gross misconduct for wearing shorts despite the 30C (86F) temperatures earlier this week. The dispute also involves 26 temporary workers who are reportedly being paid less than permanent staff. Fife Council's head of environmental services, Fraser Thomson, said refuse collectors were not allowed to wear shorts to work for health and safety reasons. He said: 'It was confirmed at a meeting that short trousers wouldn't be appropriate. Scrapes 'Staff working on bin lorries run a risk of getting cuts and scrapes, insect bites and sun damage, which could lead to serious problems such as skin cancer. 'Suitable protective clothing, which includes long trousers, can protect against these risks. 'Fife Council will continue to work with unions to ensure a safe working environment but we can't comment on individual cases" It would be interesting to get the real story! Where are my conkers, has anyone seen them? Michael
Admin  
#2 Posted : 15 July 2005 11:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Oliver If you look at the underlying issue here, its probably the last straw for those employees who are currently underpaid. But as per usual its the H&S nazis that are to blame in the press. What happens if you do cut yourself whilst at work and end with waste entering the wound. Well, a suitbale claim started by an ambulance chaser will appear, only to be borne by the council tax payer. I suppose you would have to see if there had been any previous litigation in this area before making a decision. The sunburn argument doesn't really hold much water and is used all the time when arguing the toss between workers and managers I agree that shorts should be worn at work for the majority of trades, but for some trades its not practicable.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 15 July 2005 11:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight It's all very well banning shorts to protect their legs, but what about the rest of their bodies? I'm in favour of total cover, personally, using portable air to limit PM10s of course, oh, and everything has to be made of kevlar or (preferably) Nivachrom steel, John
Admin  
#4 Posted : 15 July 2005 12:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter I am one of the Health & Safety Advisers for the "offending" Council. I refuse to rise to yet another example of sensationalist, inaccurate & nonsensical "conkers bonkers" journalism. We have already been 'told' by the HSE that our operatives should be wearing ballistic trousers as opposed to overalls when lifting black bags. Risk Assessment/safe systems of work/employer duty/employee duty - enough said?
Admin  
#5 Posted : 15 July 2005 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MichaelM Thanks Ron I knew there would be a more reasoned side to the paper's story, that's why I posted it with: "It would be interesting to get the real story! Where are my conkers, has anyone seen them?" I too work for a LA H&S team and thought it was best to blast the conkers from the trees with the truth. Michael
Admin  
#6 Posted : 15 July 2005 13:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Watson Michael, you miss the point of our beloved press. Rons version, ie the truth of it, is just not interesting is it? Therefore lets just make the rest up so we have a news story. It might sound harsh but if you dont like the rules Mr Binman, get another job.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 15 July 2005 13:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MichaelM John That it, if you can't beat them join them! I am off to apply for the position of H&S adviser for newspaper. There were not enough references to conkers in the piece. There must be some decent stories of boy scouts / girl guides / bronwies / boys brigade etc. not trained to help old ladies cross the road who may have caused an accident after the old lady fell down after slipping on a conker! The said conker should have been cleaned up by the bin persons (allegedly)! Let's name and shame them all.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 15 July 2005 13:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MichaelM Ron Just a thought. Do they need ballistic trousers for wheelie bins? I can see the need for special trousers etc. for PPE if they are lifting binbags / green waste bags . Even then are ballistic trousers not for chainsaw operators who may be pretty static when compared to the binmen? Michael
Admin  
#9 Posted : 15 July 2005 13:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Taking the story on face value (which of course we cannot). If long trousers are a risk control control, then they are PPE; therefore the council should provide. Ditto shirts with sleeves. Most binmen I see do not seem to have overalls provided. I can't see how the employers can enforce this, UNLESS they already provide suitable workwear.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 15 July 2005 14:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Michael, The HSE Inspectors are now quoting the recommendations of what was a rather hefty contract research report on refuse collection & the waste industry, which recommended the use of 'kevlar' reinforced trousers by refuse collectors. Obviously overkill for wheelie bins, but many of our "beats" have a mix of bags, bins and special uplifts. So not the ballistic trousers used by chain saw operatives but, nevertheless, that wording was issued to us by a local HSE inspector.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 15 July 2005 14:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Renny Thomson Michael, Like Ron I have an interest in this situation (not only are Ron and I in the same office, but my bin gets emptied by the Dunfermline crews!) If the crews only lifted wheelie bins then it may be possible to risk assess that balistic trousers are not necessary. However they also lift waste in bags at the kerbside, special uplifts etc. Interestingly the "Work to Rule" means that they will now follow the rules that say only to move one full bin at a time. As a result we should see a reduction in musculo-skeletal injuries for next week. Our Fleet Services and VOSA will also be happy to know that there is no risk of vehicles being overloaded. All I've got to do is make sure I remember to put the handles of my bin facing the kerb!
Admin  
#12 Posted : 15 July 2005 14:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Ron, I did not "take in" your post before I had my two penny worth, sorry. Michael, FYI Chainsaw trousers are not the same as anti puncture trousers. They work by clogging the saw with a mass of fibres, before it hits the flesh.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 15 July 2005 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MichaelM Jim / Ron / Renny H&S is never easy is it. At least as I don't live in Dunfermline, I can put my bin out any way I want and if I'm lucky, it isn't taken away to the next street on the back of the bin lorry. It may sound ridiculous but it has happened and that was before I moved to the LA and my H&S credentials were known. We are such bad people trying to stop people injuring or killing themselves or others. Ron / Renny Can you give me a reference for this HSE report please. Although not responsible for H&S in this area, I think the information could be very useful. Cheers Michael
Admin  
#14 Posted : 15 July 2005 14:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Renny Thomson The report was carried out by HSL http://www.hse.gov.uk/re...sl_pdf/2002/hsl02-21.pdf will lead you to it.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 17 July 2005 12:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JohnMacCarthy25 I've worked within the waste injury and although I can sympathise for the people wearing PPE/pants for rubbish collection it is a requirement to protect/reduce the risk of cuts from sharps. The pants are generally ballistics and are a great protector although I believe some Kevlar options are also available. What would you think if someone said it is too warm to wear a hard hat? Personally from the amount of sharps related injuries within this field, mainly due to bin bags being dark and not transparent, it is impossible to judge what is in the bags and therefore they should wear them and stop moaning. If they think they have it bad then try and wear a chainsaw protective trousers and see if they still moan. What is the world coming too, you protect them they complain, you don't protect them they sue you, fact.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 18 July 2005 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Zoe Barnett I know that this has been blown out of all proportion by the press. But I wonder exactly how this whole issue was communicated to the binmen? Was it "you will wear this kit or else" ? Or was it "listen, guys, I know this stuff might be hot, and you've always worn shorts till now, but did you know about sharps/infections/weil's disease etc etc etc? And that this gear will protect you? And that it will mean your families aren't put through hell when you are hurt or diseased?" I think I can predict which approach would get the best response. No disrespect to those colleagues from the LA concerned by the way. I think we can all guess that you guys suggested the better way and were not listened to!
Admin  
#17 Posted : 18 July 2005 13:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Hi Ron, I see in the sunday times yesterday that "our Jeremy" described you as a H&S nazi.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 18 July 2005 13:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Oliver ah, good old jezza. He probably only wanted to have a fag while he was filing his car up at the petrol station whilst talking on his mobile wearing SHORTS, and some H&S stooge proabably tried to show him the error of his ways. On wearing Shorts, that is. :p
Admin  
#19 Posted : 18 July 2005 16:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Apologies for the flippant nature of my first post, I was being a bit ironic. However, being serious, there is an issue which isn't really being addressed here, which is about balancing risk. Yes, I can see the need for ballistic trousers, because unlike most journos (including dear old jezzah) I have had to work for a living in my time. However, in this weather surely the risk of heat exhaustion is a real factor to consider. HSE have just got their shiny new research report and are peddling it for all they're worth, and its a fair point that where they propose we dispose; however, are they underplaying the risks associated with physical work in hot weather? And isn't it up to us, as employers, to balance one set of risks against another? John
Admin  
#20 Posted : 18 July 2005 17:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By el nino John Over the top PPE requirements is a big issue for me. It seems to be a growing / common trend for employers to cover their people head-to-toe in PPE in the belief that its the only way to protect themselves from claims. They may be loosing site of the fact that PPE is the last line of defence and not the first. Can't find any case law - but what would happen if someone fainted due to the heat and blamed the OTT PPE? Must go......off to play conkers in my shorts. El Nino
Admin  
#21 Posted : 19 July 2005 09:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight El Nino should be aware that shorts are fine for conkers provided padded kevlar gauntlets and eye protection are worn; in this weather eye protection also needs to be effective against UV, John
Admin  
#22 Posted : 19 July 2005 10:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Renny Thomson Zoe, you may have a very good point!
Admin  
#23 Posted : 19 July 2005 10:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Is "playing conkers in your shorts" in any way similar to the very popular game 'pocket billiards'? :p
Admin  
#24 Posted : 19 July 2005 10:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter To Jim Walker: Just saw your post re Jeremy Clarkson. I can live with Jezza's barbs - the guy can be quite amusing. There's a good article on the Sunday Times website which describes how he smugly 'started' the bidding at a charity auction with a bid of £25,000 "to get things moving". Yep, you guessed, his was the only bid!
Admin  
#25 Posted : 19 July 2005 19:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By angela westwood I'ts a funny old world innit? my old man is a lorry driver and has done various contract jobs for various waste removal firms/local authorities. you name it, he's carried out but one thing he does do is obey the local rules...........so if he has to drive and help the bin men he wears kevlar trousers (and his fellow bin men are quite happy to wear them too) if he has to transport hazardous waste - he follows the procedures - he's an ex soldier with a few years experience fighting for his country so you might expect - I'm tough I don't need to wear it. If a bullet hasn't killed me a little bit of dirt isn't going to harm me. You might think that I'm going off the point here but what I'm trying to say is in his case before he went even near a piece of corrugated asbestos or domestic waste (and before he came into contact with an army issue rifle) he was given training which included a very thorough explanation of the hazardous repercussions for not wearing the "kit" or obeying the procedures. In the end it's all down to the 4 Cs Angela
Admin  
#26 Posted : 19 July 2005 19:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By clegg Just a thought. But does this not prove that if a work to rule means doing the job as health and safety and managemnt specify then these guys are doing no wrong. This poses the question as to why managemnt allow the obvious flouting of rules and regulations so as the work gets done quicker and more volume. this surely is posing more of a risk?
Admin  
#27 Posted : 20 July 2005 07:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman It would be very interesting to see the accident stats before, during and after the work to rule : Rule 1. Wear provided PPE Rule 2. only lift one bin at a time Rule 3. only handle properly positioned bins (handle out) Rule 4. Do not excede load limits ...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.