Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By steve hall
It is becoming increasingly common for building site principle contractors to enforce a gloves at all times rule on site with no regard to cost, ergonomics, practicality or even selection. They just state these are the rules no glove no jobs (same as the hard hat rule). Is it me or is this health and safety gone mad i am currently 2 thirds of the way through my diploma and as far as i can tell PPE is a LAST resort not the only. Surely if cuts to hand are such a big problem then shouldn't they be looking at different process that would reduce the likely hood of getting cuts and abrasions. I have even challenged the gloves rule as we use a highly torqued pipe threading machine that takes approx 3 1/2 revolutions once the power has been terminated to stop, the HVCA generic risk assessments advice the use of gloves with these types of machines are not recommended as it could become trapped in the machine and a nasty accident would obviously ensue. When i approached the site Foreman he basically said that they should remove there gloves when using the machine and the put them on when finished clearly showing that his one day health and safety management training has worked.
The main reason for me posting this is I'm wondering if I'm the only safety practitioner that believes this is just ludicrous as there is no thought gone into the reasoning just use more PPE soon all site operative will need to be walking round in full RPE, PPE and possibly a hazmat suit just in case any comments are more than welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I H
Interesting thread as you complain that "they" should look for other solutions but "you" use machinary.
PPE is the last line of defence, but it is also a secondary line of defence as well. Hand injuries account for half of my site stats.
Same as eye protection and other site rules. Respect the client, if its an issue, produce your risk assessment.
Hope your not talking about my site as we have had some "discipline" today!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Woodage
Steve,
I agree with you that PPE should always be the last resort, but after having a mandatory gloves policy now for in excess of three years I would have a riot if I tried to separate my guys from there gloves. Strange you may think and yes we went through all the reasons sane and insane why not to wear them but now they have accepted them and seen the benefits to there hands and general hygiene and appearance they are accepted. I understand your point about threading machines, but I question the use of a generic HVCA risk assessment as what about the mineral oil hazards of cutting fluid and dermatitis. Also should you not consider the hazard of drawing in with regard to sleeves of boiler suits etc. most of the lightweight nit-rile gloves that are on the market have very little mechanical strength and tend to rip when entangled or drawn in.
I sound like a real PPE bore but I too have seen the benefit of wearing gloves and remember it's not always about preventing cuts, the condition and hygiene of the skin after a cut can lead to less infection and faster healing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Steve,
You are not alone. Read the article "science of compliance" by Rob Slater in the latest issue of SHP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Bradbury
Forgive me but I’m new to the IOSH forum but I agree with Steve that this blanket approach is just ludicrous in my opinion..
Taken to it’s extreme, one day in the near future we’ll all end up wrapped in PPE, just in case were involved in an accident ..
Steve I’ve posted on another simluar thread today about EYE PROTECTION.
One of our contractors has issued an instruction for the mandatory wearing of light eye protection at all times for everybody working on a construction site!.
I work in an architects office and when I visit a construction site I have no problem about wearing a pair of safety boots, a fluorescent jacket (or vest) and a hard hat..
But I’m don’t understand why I’ve got to wear a pair of safety glasses?
It’s not as if the safety glasses will protect my eyes against dust or particles, and I’m certainly not going to go near any operative cutting or wielding on site!!
So whats the point of the contractor forcing me to wear a pair of safety glasses during a site inspection!!?
In answer to your post Steve I agree the wearing of gloves at all times rule is just another example of health & safety gone mad.
Have you got any feedback on my thread about eye protection?
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
If the health and safety culture of the construction industry was extremely mature, it may be possibe to avoid such a blanket approach. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
One of the reasons that "professionals" visiting the site are asked to abide the rules is that it is simpler not to have exceptions and also, it sends the right message that the site rules apply to all, not only the operatives etc.
I personally feel that there are very few, if any where an operative carrying out construction work does not require gloves. The question here is the type of gloves.
As a client for a major new build R & D Labs & Offices in early 2004, we has made it mandatory for the Principal Contractor to insist on the following PPE as a minimum requirement,and of higher spec if required by risk assessment:-
Safety Shoes
Safety Hat
High Vis vest
Safety Specs
Hand Gloves
Arms Covered
Shorts not allowed
Having said all this, we had included in the project cost a full time Site HSE advisor by the Principal Contractor!
For safety spectacles, the principal contractor provided a cleaning station.
Another reason is that we use the OSHA recording criteria and often a "cut", when medical treatment is given becomes an OSHA Recordable as it includes application of prescrription medicine-anything beyond first aid.
This has also to do with passing on of some of the "best practices" from the Oil & Gas and Chemical inductry to the Construction industry.
Last, but not least, the aim for all of us should be that all employees, contractors, self employed to return to their homes unhurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
I have always believed that improvement through imposition carries more risks than sensible small steps based on assessment, co-operation and understanding.
The holy grail has to be that each employee knows and respects the ppe requirements for each part of their task activities. That employers can rely upon them, in a cultural not legal sense, to select the correct ppe for the task based on their skills, instructions with regard to local rules and site assessment. Blanket rules that require inappropriate and/or incorrect protection actually work against this goal.
Wherever a conflict arises, it must be resolved through assessment based discussion between the parties and not just rely upon the old "get on with it, it is the site rule" response. Such a response is lazy, expedient management of H&S that increases risks and can easily undermine the culture gains in the "contractor" organisation.
My final thought on simple blanket rules and how they can lead in the wrong direction. Are there any construction sites that have a blanket rule for hearing protection I wonder? You see cuts might be appearing on your stats because they are well sort of acute stuff. Hearing damage wouldn't appear in quite the same way but from my limited visits to sites these days, I do see an awful lot of people working with or in close proximity to extremely high noise zones. Safety helmet, yes; gloves yes; boots yes; hi vis, just about yes through the stains, tears and scuff marks; eye protection sometimes but often the wrong sort; hearing protection, what??? No mate, not a site rule here, don't need it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken C
Steve
A few years ago I was faced with the same issue that you currently have. To be honest, I took the same view that you have and on eye protection, I still do. However, I have to concur with the poster that has said he would be lynched if he took the gloves away.
In my experience, many of the gloves that are currently worn to satisfy the site rule on gloves will not prevent a serious cut. They do however, prevent the many minor nicks that the guys regularly suffer.
From this imposition I did find that I became an expert on the different types of gloves on the market!
I'm afraid the light eye protection rule, in my opinion, failed miserably. I fully understand that this came from the Petroleum industry where it has worked very successfully, but their sites differ from a common construction site. They don't churn up as much mud that immediately turns to dust as soon as the sun shines!
Management of the glasses issue was poor, being honest here, from all parties. The cleaning stations were never enough as the dust or rain, frequently needed cleaning off the lenses. Many of the guys took to wiping the lenses on their overalls in frustration from having to break off what they were doing and go to the cleaning station. The resulting scratches were then a hazard in their own right as the glasses no longer gave clear vision.
The only time that I can honestly say we had no problem with the glasses was when the sun shone and they were allowed to wear the darker lens ones! Oh the fun we had when the building construction moved on and areas became darker!!!
We also had the problem of the risk assessment stating the need for goggles and the guys wearing the glasses. Much management time was spent in efforts to educate everyone on why this was wrong.
To conclude, the gloves have worked, and worked well. The glasses I'm afraid never really did meet the expectation (based on company statistics over a four year period) and in certain circumstances were more of a problem.
Regards
Ken C. (CMIOSH)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve hall
You have all made some good points and no this is not because of a disciplinary on site. I too would have a hard time taking gloves away from our lads and i do agree with the reduction of skin contact with the oil. I just get fed up because as i read through the new CDM regs and there saying about designing around Heath and Safety yet they don't allow for safer product to be used. Using press fit systems rather than screwed will greatly reduce risks but trying to get it passed of is just pointless. I have always felt that the construction industry is behind with the times as getting the job done in shorter and shorter programmes. Blanketing gloves argument is more because they just throw PPE at everything in the hope it goes away i mean when did a hi-viz jacket protect you from a reversing dumper truck, or hard hats on a roof to protect against falling planes.
At the end of the day its a culture that needs to be changed, the general fitters on site are the last of a long line and i suppose looking at it from your remarks using gloves on all sites is pretty much all we can do as the design cannot be altered by the time it gets to us all we can do is suggest. The only real way forward is to start spending more time on the installation methods of every aspect during the initial design phase by looking at the technologies available then by the time it gets to the fitters the gloves, specs etc will actual be a last line of a defence
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.