Posted By clairel No jobsworth is gonna tell me I can't wear heels in a low risk or office environment. And we wonder why H&S has earned the repuatation of bonkers conkers.

Posted By William O'Donnell Hi Clare, I take it then that no jobsworth should tell people to wear harnesses when working at height, or hard hats on construction sites. But of course yours is a low risk office environment so you do not have any manual handling or slip/trip risks so flip flops, toeless/backless or high heel footwear is totally appropriate/suitable. Based upon my experience I have never come across a requirement to wear high heels, maybe I have lead a sheltered live and you can enlighten me.

Posted By MT Agree with Paul - the thrust of the campaign is to protect employees who are asked to wear heels as part of a uniform. I worked in a large office where the receptionists were not only required to stand all day, but to wear court shoes. This is totally different to wearing them through personal choice, and to sitting behind a desk.

Posted By John Richards You can check what is going-on on the congress website: http://www.congressvoices.org/ The various motions are on the left-hand side. Click on PROTECTING PEOPLE AT WORK. The motion you want is item 81 on the resulting list. There are also two comments. You will not read much about the others in the press: There is no way to get a laugh out of them. Then there's 78 - Asbestos Voices in the wilderness, the government has no interest in workers, nor work. How many HSE inspectors are looking for work now ?

Posted By John Richards Obviously I cannot print anything directly from the website. apparently I cannot even type anything that is word-for-word, because it may infringe copywrong. I'll just say that in the motion it says something like this: "Many employers in the retail sector force women workers to wear high heels as part of their dress code" You can read what may [or may not] be the rest by going to the site. It may be a bit serious at times. Not much levity. Not news.

Posted By ITK Claire I would argue that if the employers risk assessment for slips and trips deems it unsuitable to wear high heels in the workplace then you dont "have the right" to wear them. ITK

Posted By Jay Joshi I am aware of a reasearch & development activity site in USA that has the following footwear policy! Wear sensible footwear appropriate to the activity you will be engaged in while at work. Heels higher than 2.5 inches, open back shoes with heels higher than 1.5 inches, and strapless sandals are not permitted to be worn (Note:The shoe requirements for operating areas, such as equipment rooms, labs, and pilot areas, are more restrictive. See the PPE matrix for more details.) Colleagues are required to ensure their visitors to the site wear appropriate footwear consistent with the policy.

Posted By John Richards What can I say ? That's congress for you ! It's mainly a political regime with a bit of other stuff thrown in. A bit like the cbi conference but with beer instead of w[h]ine. However: there is another side to the tuc: http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm The Hazards magazine (side links) is excellent: http://www.hazards.org/ Oh look, the front page is all about the employers [allegedly] bankrolling an illegal data-handling operation. Whatever next ! Not excessively pro-union, I just recognise that it takes two to tango, and fair play is not achieved by doffing your cap each morning.

Posted By Nigel Bryson Having previously worked at a national level for the trade union movement I would like to respond to a few of the points raised. The TUC is a large organisation representing 60 individual unions, each of which is allowed to submit motions to the annual conference which help set TUC policy. The 60 unions have around 6.5 million members. These motions are from trade unions reflecting the concerns of their members on specific issues. Trade union officers and staff are employed via members’ subscriptions so, technically, these motions reflect the efforts of workers trying to protect themselves. One of these unions, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, has asked that where employers force [please note the use of the word 'force'] staff to wear high heels as part of their dress code, they should be asked to examine the hazards such staff face, ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out, and if the assessment shows the wearing of high heels a poses a risk of injury [my interpretation] they should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes. This seems quite reasonable to me. Quite naturally, the media interpreted this as ‘TUC to ban high heels’. Thus over the last few weeks we have had various worthies saying that no busy bodies are going to stop them wearing their high heeled shoes and so on. To me it just looks like a reasonable motion that continues the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists’s campaign to give women helpful information on how ‘working feet’ problems can be prevented. It also highlights the TUC guide published in 2008: Working Feet and Footwear. Just part of the extensive preventative work the unions do year in year out. With regards to Mark’s points most of the motions are continuing the action that has already been started, some of which was initiated many years ago. So consider the long running case of the ‘old chestnut’. As the National Health and Safety Officer of the Baker’s Food and Allied Worker’s Union – whose motion was on maximum temperatures – I, along with other union specialists, kept lobbying on behalf of members being baked in bakeries. There were guidelines, as there are in many sectors where high temperatures are an issue. We did get controls applied but not all employers agreed their implementation. I continued this work when I was at the GMB trade union. So that takes care of 22 years. No success in getting a maximum legal limit but we kept trying. I’m very glad my former colleagues kept going and expect that some action will eventually result. I understand the minister involved has asked the HSE to look at the issue. Good. A workable code on hot temperatures – including maximums – is practical because they already exist in different sectors. What has always been missing, to date, is the will to do something in Government. The motion from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers on asbestos relates to schools and asks that several specific things are done. I was not aware that the call for all asbestos to be removed from schools by 2015 was a re-hash of existing legal requirements. Nor was I aware that it was existing TUC policy. My understanding is these are new. Given the year on year increases in the deaths of teachers from mesothelioma in recent years their motion seems quite logical. With regard to protecting the musicians, there maybe higher priorities to other people but not to the Musician’s Union whose motion it is. Each year some professional musicians have to stop playing due to such conditions as work related upper limb disorders or damage to their hearing. This is often occupationally linked and either caused or made worse by the conditions in the workplaces where they work. It is a serious matter to them as they usually lose their livelihood. I would finish by making the observation that when any ridicule from the media or criticism made on various hazards is aimed at the TUC or trade unions, it is the workers they represent who are being ridiculed or criticised. In the HSE annual statistics, it is the workers who are the ones overwhelmingly represented in the work related deaths, maiming, diseases and disorders. In a compassionate world, their concerns would be treated with respect not ridicule. Cheers. Nigel

Posted By martinw Sphericals to that. Like comparing the police with vigilantes. Agreed, both are trying to ensure health and safety but one is partially politically motivated. Health and safety should transcent politics - and profit. Yes, I know that sounds naive, but I am not. It is not about 'better job'. IMHO. How on earth did this get so morbid from the original posting? I greatly respect unions and the work which they do, in case you are wondering. I am pro union as well as being pro HSE.

Posted By martinw And we are as a society getting chunkier ourselves, generally speaking. Will any requirement for high heels in itself require RA for the larger person? Jimmy Choo shoes with buttresses?

Posted By martinw No real arguments Nigel other than - the issue was originally about those being compelled to to wear high heels at work: the majority of those at work are not compelled to do so therefore the amount of time lost/injuries from high heel wearers at work would I suggest be negligible; most will be due to other factors, too many to mention. Lastly, and firmly tongue in cheek, were there any other union members who were allowed to use have their attack/defence plans on their clients 'supported' by the union leaders? ;-)

Posted By martinw Ah, Phil - a Rose by any other name.......