Stu

I don't know how old your workforce is but it might be worth considering this report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10156367.stm

LB

The conclusion from the article is:-
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/c...=&fulltext=varifocal*&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

"These findings suggest that, with appropriate assessment and counselling, the provision of single lens glasses for older people who take part in regular outdoor activities is a simple and effective falls prevention strategy. However, given that our study and the trial by Cumming et al showed increases in outdoor falls in some participants, clinicians should be conservative in eyewear prescription, particularly in frail older people who do not often leave their homes"

It refer to single lens glasses, which bifocals (your prefered option) are not.

You have an issue of discrimination, and your legal duties are in that context, as opposed to H&S Law. Requirement in law (or otherwise) to provide prescription safety glasses is irrelevant. You cannot disadvantage one group of employees in this way. Speak to your HR people if you have them.

There has never been a duty to provide prescription safety glasses, so if your employees can't manage with what you do provide, you are perfectly entitled to get them to wear a visor or overspecs instead.

We had this problem in British Leyland back in 1977, and came up with a scheme where employees contributed towards the prescription cost. Our motto was "we pay for protection, you pay for correction". This was done with the full participation of the TU at the time ("Red Robbo" etc you may recall) and fully informing the HSE. There's nothing to stop you asking the employee to pay the difference.

As a varifocal wearer, I can fully vouch for the sense of imbalance it can give me and would concur with research that it can lead to more slips and falls, although I don't think this is sufficient to ban them at work.

Simon: I don't think that varifocal contact lenses would actually be any better than glasses. I've never worn contacts but the problem I've experienced is because of using my peripheral vision as part of my sight. Sometimes you can get disorientated. I've come to live with it and be more cautious about moving around, but after 8 years it still catches me out sometimes.

There is of course no law requiring the supply of contact lenses.

I have to comment on this one!
Sorry, for this and the essay to follow, but, I hope it will be constructive!

I was a naughty boy many years ago and suffered an eye injury, one reason I began to "think" H&S.

I had a piece of steel in my left eye; it went in through the lens and hit the retina.
No substantial damage to the retina, however, the lens was punctured and thus went into what is called a shock cataract situation, I was 22/23.
I had the steel removed along with the lens, I was too young to have a lens implant, thus for years I had to wear a contact lens in my eye for corrected vision, however, think of this as a fixed focus camera, I could only see clearly at a single distance point, to see at any other distance I had to wear glasses, these glasses had to have prescriptions for the different distances.
Thus IF I was working close up, say half arms length one pair, full arms length another pair etc. etc.
For all to understand if you have no lens in your eye it cannot focus.
After a few years the hospital was willing to put a lens in my eye to make life easier. By this time I was doing my degree part time, so even though I had one good eye, it was better for me to have binocular focussed vision to reduce eye strain, headaches etc. so I went for reading distance.
This did not remove the requirement for loads of pairs of glasses, but, it did mean no contact lens to look after.
It was at this time my optician, recommended by the hospital suggested varifocals.
These glasses would offer me the variation in focal length that my damaged eye would require to give suitable vision at different focus distances.
Also, due to the damage to my eye I have Glaucoma & Astigmatism, but that is another story.
When I went to my then employer nearly 20 years ago and tried to explain this, in my request for script safety glasses no joy. I was told to wear overspecs, I went back to my optician with the problems I was getting, glare, false images, reduced clarity of vision, etc. and he agreed that I should not wear overspecs due to the peculiarity of my visual defect.
I reported this to my employer and at first no joy, then there was an incident. Something small, no loss, no injury as I recall, but they sat up and took notice. They were really quite good, but just did not know how to deal with my particular situation.
They did enter discussions then I left for more money!
At my next employer the work did not necessitate such broad wearing of "safety glasses", so this was not an issue.
Fast forward to my last position before running my own co. started at the turn of the Century.
Big global player, good H&S record, good attitude. However, no extravagant spend.
Requested bi-focal safety glasses no bother. Several months later, I developed a cataract in my other eye! This came on very quickly and had a significant impact on my vision due to the original injury. No reason could be identified. I had a very quick removal and lens implant.
However, this then left me with two fixed focus eyes!
I left there about 5 years ago to give you an idea of timescale.
The company begun to implement rigorous eye protection policies as had our customers, I spent a lot of time at customer premises.
Thus, I spent a lot of time wearing overspecs.
I experienced the same issues, ghosting, glare, double vision, cleanliness issues affecting vision, scratching of my prescription eyewear by the overspecs and others.
Bearing in mind for me to have “correct” vision my optician had by this time prescribed on medical grounds varifocals with anti glare coating; I am also quite photophobic due to the surgery and injury.
These are not cheap!
I approached my employer with the issues I had – HR dept. I had the stock answer, and a good optician. They said no, optician said your call, but you should provide VF for the following reasons…
The employer had their own “pet” optician service by this time.
I “guess” they passed the issue on.
I was told within days to go to my opticians, get a pair of VF safety glasses to suit my needs and put the bill on my expenses.
Best decision they ever made! It changed my working life overnight!

I was an “on the tools engineer” by then. I had my degree and had begun the road to professional recognition. However we worked with complex equipment in high volume complex manufacturing facilities, thus I was still required to wield hand tools as well as undertake design analysis and applications engineering, programming of computing systems both at the desktop (read laptop) and at the production line.

I was a glorified machinery service engineer; my visual demands were quite unique and also quite demanding.

In this position, just to give you an idea, at various times I used to undertake the hands on work of maintenance fitters, and electricians, on production machinery, I had responsibility for site H&S for groups of guys, including subbies, RA’s & MS’s, running contracts, reporting, design of control and drive systems, mech and elect, applications engineering of control & drive systems mech & elect, and programming of control systems, back office and on site, whilst covering the whole Country from South Wales (West). Most of this work was at customer’s premises, and included by necessity as it was against the laws of physics (Captain) to do the work any other way, live electrical work. It is impractical to measure a voltage on an electrical supply to an item unless the power is on!

My then employers HR dept gave in to the varifocals, I don’t consider myself disable, but I do have some visual problems that I have learned to live with, how, in the words of the advert, “simples” varifocals.

Read into this what you will, it is a single case study and no more, however, it has been written from quite a unique perspective perhaps.


Paul