Posted By Jim Walker I used to be "anti" but now I'm "pro". After a while you get used to it - just like helmets really.

Posted By Neil R We've had it for about 8 months now, it is very hard to enforce! I don't think its a good idea personally, but from a company perspective its understandable, all the major construction companies have a zero RIDDOR reportable accidents by 2000 whatever policy or equivelant, now if you've got over 250 construction sites going at any one time how can you be certain correct measures are always being taken? and since an eye injury is a reportable injury in most cases then...

Posted By Adam Worth I have just left the Chemical industry after to years on Top Tier COMAH sites and 5 years in a lab. I feel naked on my new (not so chemical but still a bit) plant with out eye protection!!It's odd. It just shows what habit can do (I also hold every hand rail now - (Silly, not when you slip on a set of wet car park stairs) When I cycle - I protect my eyes, I have seen nasty injuries to the eye from mud!!! I protect my eyes with decent sun glasses when running / walking - I spent a day not being able to see after sand blew into my eye!! How hard is it too wear safety specs? I agree it's all down to risk assessment. If there is no safety improvement don't do it. If you do do it make sure you get it right - As pointed out above light eye protection offers little protection from dust or chemical splashes (Remember the Simpson's episode, my eyes these goggles they do nothing??) My longest post ever :) My point: Bonkers health and safety is best avoided, but where's the line. If one persons sight is saved because they forced to wear eye protection then that's good! However poor eye protection can introduce hazards! Steamed up specs, or focal shift? I'm no expert. As always the answer is never as easy as it would appear :)

Posted By Nell The company I work for implements a mandatory eye protection policy. But we also state that for job specific tasks/work conditions that do not require the use of eye protection then it can be risk assessed out, i.e. if wearing eye protection poses a greater/increased risk of injury to the employee. Such as if you're banking a vehicle and its raining which would obscure his vision. But on a whole our reportable injuries have dropped since the mandatory requirement which shows a positive response. Also the use of a good quality eye protection with options such as tinted lenses help win round the workforce, rather than the big horrible science lab ones you used to get!

Posted By Ian Futcher In my company (medical devices manufacture with sharps), we have a mandatory specs policy, and there was some opposition to begin with. Now when anyone inadvertently enter the area not wearing specs, they are pulled up immediately by those self-same operators who were prickly about the introduction. As posted above, some very specific tasks (close visual inspection, microscope use) have been given dispensation to remove safety specs, but they have been surrounded by other controls to ensure the task is as safe as possible to the eyes without specs, and specs are replaced as soon as the operator moves away from that specific task. I also worked in the chemical industry before safety, and I feel naked without them in a busy workplace. Ian

Posted By Casanova Mandatory rules = Management failures/weakness! Management failures/weakness = Competent implementation of mandatory rules? Casanova X

Posted By Sean Fraser Good thread - covers a point that is a specific bugbear in our organisation, and in the one I worked previously. I'm not a fan of the mandatory imposition either, but I justify it like so: Scenario 1 - employees are required to wear protective eyewear at all times (ignore specialist kit, this is standard impact resistant with splash guard). Assuming that the pack delights in pointing out the foibles of others and non-compliance is quickly noted and corrected, worst outcome? Someone pushes it to the point of dismissal - a personnel issue and they can find somewhere less risk averse to work in and continue to take their chances with possible injury. For everyone else - in any incident, the eyes are more likely than not to be protected. Sight saved. Scenario 2 - employees only wear them for specific tasks, which are infrequent or erratic, sometimes out of general view and in a busy workplace where supervision is also busy doing own work. Most people forget to carry the eye protection, or forget it is being worn as a tiara as it is so cumbersome to put it on, so it is seldom over the eyes even when it is necessary or even essential. After all, I've done this for over 15 years and I've never had . . . you can fill in the rest. Incident happens. Eyes unprotected. Employee has lost sight in one or both eyes. HSE prosecution - costs + fine. Compensation follows ('cos Lord knows, the employee wouldn't be accountable for not following the rules, it was the supervisors / managers fault). But worse, employee prospects for work now diminished, quality of life reduced, potential earnings lost, perhaps even loss of driving licence . . .. It is sometimes increadibly difficult to get people to use the "what if?" principle to project ahead, to understand the "why" and not just the "what". But in the end, everyone loses. With the growing perception of "elf 'n' safety innit" being an unnecessary blight on all our lives, the managers are finding it less likely that all employees can be responsible enough to be ASSURED that eye (or any other) protection WILL be worn IF there were ever an incident. Hence the default to mandatory use. If we were in a more safety conscious world, we would eschew the use of PPE altogether, or use it only in very limited circumstances. It is easy to criticise the management aspect in this, but consider the reality of many workplaces and lets all continue to strive towards the ideal, but not berate those who agree with the concept but are still working to get there.

Posted By graeme12345 Imposing mandatory rules is not a management failure or weakness,but it is when an employee loses an eye at work. we are safety people we should want less injuries, so if you are happy with the way things are carry on as you are. If you want to see a change, try something different, you could try one site at a time to gauge reaction, but initially it will require a lot of monitoring, mandatory does not mean forever or "set in stone"

Posted By justgossip I am in construction and work on a few P.C. sites. As normal, huge concentration on PPE and not so much on the real hazards. Blanket application of glasses is not required on a construction site. when you need them put them on, quite simple. And for the operatives who fail to put them on when they should. Sack em, works a treat, you only have to sack one and from there on in it is not a problem. In the attempt to eliminate risk completely, H&S on site is becoming very difficult to comply with. maybe we will one day return to the fact that life is not about no risk zero it is about sensible management of risk. this means, sometimes people get hurt. Most of us drive, it is risky, but we do not worry about it and if we have a prang, well thats life. i shall now return to complete all the H&S paperwork that the P.C.'s get you to fill out on a regular basis. If I was not doing forms I could go out on site and supervise, train, coach, sell safety and maybe stop an accident. H&S is a good idea but the fanatics as normal have got hold of it and it will develop into a real pain that will reduce the quality of everyones life. it is not doing a bad job already hows that, feeling grump garry

Posted By riskybizz As an after thought, does anyone have any information regarding the use of eye protection for persons already wearing glasses?

Posted By Dave Wilson Management failure - claptrap!!!!!! psychological safety is good in the right context - doing what is right and the best thing to do is another thing. We have introduced this for all our site based guys!! WHY? Because we had an incident where one of our people nearly lost the sight in one eye from an everyday task, which was totally unforseen. We trialed different types and the site staff picked the ones they would wear and cost approx £3.50 a head to introduce, ongoing approx £100 a year. You never know, particularily on construction sites when this may happen and you are sometimes being exposed by other trades on site. This is a good thing and very cheap to introduce and if it saves the eye of one person it is worth it!!

Posted By garyh I read with incredulity some of the comments stating that mandatory eye protection = weak management and the like. In my experience, this type of statement just shows lack of breadth of experience and judgement. I have worked on sites managed by some big organisations with fabulous safety management systems, where LEP is compulsory (eg DuPont, ICI, BP and more). Poor safety management? I think not. "Sweeping statements are always wrong"

Posted By John J i'm currently reviewing use of hard hats in one of our areas. I've done it alongside our union reps and we've identified a number of areas where the mandatory rule may not fit well. The challange I've thrown out is 'are you comfortable with reducing this level of protection and can you accept that there may be instances where people choose not to wear the gear as its not to hand'? Any rep or manager worth their salt knows a mandatory policy is easier to enforce and maintain. The weakness in management comes in two parts: - are we challenging enough to try and engineer the problem out or is this the cheap option - if this is a good idea are you willing to enforce it My experience is from a mixed construction/engineering/chemical background so I can see pros and cons in all areas. Personally - mandatory and eliminate most of your problems. LEP comes in all shapes and sizes, tints and corrections so theirs something for all.