Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Rob W
I visited a site yesterday ( renovation activity ), I noticed 2 serious problems one concerning electrical work and other a very poor standard of housekeeping. The operative was also wearing shorts - it was a very hot day and the operative was clearly feeling the heat. I admit there was a minor risk of him suffering minor cuts to his lower legs as a result of not wearing long trousers.
I did consider pulling the op regarding the shorts but was concerned that he would simply consider me an interfering H&S bod who does not understand the real world, I chose to ignore the shorts and instead focused on the significant risks ( electrocution & slips and trips ). The op agreed with my concerns about the electrical work and the poor housekeeping and improvements were made, the site was far safer by the time I left, I doubt I would have received the same positive reaction if I had attempted to prohibit the shorts.
My opinion is that although we may prevent some rare injuries that could have been prevented by long trousers we run the danger of being considered divorced from the real world thereby making it far harder for us to contribute to the reduction of far more significant risks.
Unless there is a real risk of significant injury resulting from the wearing of shorts the choice should be the worker working in the hot weather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Lee
A very well put and balanced response if I say so myself. I do agree that these matters are not always as simple as at first it would seem. That said, manufacturers and also the regulators do tend to err on the side of safety in their guidance. Some would argue far too much on occasions. When looking for issues on a construction site it is amazing how the important stuff gets overlooked for the trivial - deck chairs on the Titanic!
Perhaps I am from the school of KIS (Keep it Simple) and I see these matters differently than others. When I was a safety rep I would find that those who poured scorn on health and safety were also the first in the cue when it suited their purpose. Therefore we should not be driven by those who make spurious claims, in any case, very few of these actually go to court or are successful.
A good debate with not a swear word in sight...yet.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
So, if you decide that there are risks that need control and that part of the control is suitable clothing, does that make those items PPE?
If so you have to provide it at no cost and ensure its proper use. Now tell me again what are these risks and where in your RA does it identify them and the use of long trousers etc.
Either this is clearly a H&S matter or it is not.
If it is not something established by RA then we come to the acceptability of people working in very little clothing. Personally I find the sweat-stained vest with large armholes, just a glimpse of underbelly and baggy shorts with the required droop at the back quite offensive and I would not allow it in my company on the grounds of decency not H&S. On the other hand, a decent pair of working shorts and a polo shirt or similar can allow just as comfortable a working environment.
Or maybe I am just jealous that I would never be allowed to turn up in the office in a vest and shorts even though it is swelteringly hot!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Spot on Rob W (and Pete48).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Murdy
It´s interesting to see folk working at airports in the US wearing shorts to work around the planes.
It´s a practical solution in many respects, but it isn´t acceptable in construction sites.
Risks and controls are different in different situations.
If it is a question of style then issue a uniform but don´t complain about the cost!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.