Gloves for cement burns, goggles for grinding operations and other dust generating processes, e.g. dropping off materials.

The number of claims we receive for these injury types - where PPE has been provided and not worn is staggering. The principal contractor, in a bid to reduce the civil claims and insurance costs have therefore implemented a blanket rule to make enforcement easier.

Personally I have no problem with it. Gloves will give some protection against jagged edges on scaffold rails, materials and equipment, thereby reducing minor injuries as well.

Totally agree with Ray and ChrisP. I asked for the RA on a site in Ireland and was told to go forth and multiply when a similar protocol was unveiled. When the person recovered from the shock of not risk assessing what my reaction was to his "polite" response, I was told that it was indeed a direction from the board.

The HSA never ever queried (to my knowledge) during their visits to site the rationale behind this move. When I did ask an Inspector, he thought it was great.

To follow up on Rays point on gloves, the gloves that my colleagues were using on site were useless so I went through several different types until I had agreement from them that they were not only fit for purpose but comfortable. They worked with glass.

The lads respected and wore the PPE because they were consulted and saw the benefits of wearing the PPE, not because it was a blanket instruction.

Fully understand your comment about visitors being required to wear gloves and goggles. I wear glasses and surprising the number of site managers who fail to consider this fact when insisting I wear safety glasses. As for the gloves! It's the blanket approach which means it's the easy and lazy option. By all means ensure that where necessary such equipment is provided and its use managed.

Mick, I agree with you on the glove wearing issue on site but surely you would also agree that the gloves selected must be fit for purpose and not just the cheapest option available.

Mick

I have no strong view on mandatory PPE use, though we have that situation in healthcare and accept it.

However, what you describe as making you angry is not a 'safety' issue at all - if your view is that "PPE needs to be mandatory and also applied in a “one rule for one, one rule for all” blanket policy, otherwise it breaks down" then you are dealing with a management performance issue.

It's probably the same management performance issue that you accept when keeping a worker in a hot climate properly hydrated etc.

If one can be managed properly, then so can the other unless your management performance is inadequate. You can't have it both ways, unless you are considering the cost of that management intervention that is just too high. In that case, a blanket approach may be entirely justifiable but it is a managemnent issue and shouldn't be dressed up as a primarily safety consideration.

Your experience serves to echo the sentiments of others perhaps. Does an organisation engaged in the blanket issue of "PPE" also properly concern itself the H&S culture which caused or permitted that length of re-bar to protrude - i.e. addressing risk at source.
Of course there are a good many construction companies out there who do both well.

Ron, you are suggesting that "an organisation engaged in the blanket issue of PPE" will proceed to ignore other elements of good safety practice. I assure you that's not the case. I could write for a long time on the assessment of risk (design & construction phase) wrt the projects I have worked on. Again, let me point out that my experience has taken me primarily to projects where safety is valued by the client and PC alike. Not all construction work is like that, however.

As for the case of eye v rebar, it was more to do with my poking my head somewhere it didn’t really need to be, but that occurs a lot in construction anyway.

I’m off now, have a good weekend all.

Promenade

Agreed. However, you state: "Do the right thing". My position is that simply providing a standard glove is not doing the right thing, since that glove can never provide adequate control of the variety of hazards that can be encountered on a construction site. In fact, a glove intended for protection against physical hazards can actually increase the exposure to chemical hazards by absorbing and retaining these in contact with skin.

"Do the right thing" means assessing the hazard and risk and, if personal protective equipment, in our case gloves, is to be worn, ensuring that the right glove is being used and worn such that it does actually provide the level of protection needed.

For chemical protection this is not as simple as many assume, particularly where mixtures are encountered. For example one particular glove shows a permeation breakthrough time in excess of 240 minutes for acetone and also for petrol. However, mix these 1:1 and the permeation breakthrough time drops to just 3 minutes!

I often find it necessary to test gloves under actual conditions of use to ensure that I can advise how often the gloves have to be changed.

It just isn't that simple!

Chris

Chris,

Regarding glove selection, totally agree with you and I consulted my colleagues who were doing the work on site during the selection process. They had selected the gloves after been given various different types to try out. Then, we were told about this brilliant new glove and the rep brought it down to site.

One guy, who has been in the game for a while, was given a glove with kevlar in it. He listened to the spiel that the sales rep. He handed the glove back about five seconds later, with a substantial tear in it.

Hence, the crew on site always road tested the PPE for me and I ended up with 100% compliance because I listened, engaged and respected their views.

Chris,

Thanks for the info. My colleagues were primarily involved in curtain walling installation and replacement of glass.

The book referred to is of interest to me so will have to source it.

Very Informative posts.

Chrisp

‘Britain is becoming a personal protective equipment 1st, find the hazards 2nd state.’

I’m not sure about the evidence base for Britain but construction is a moot point.

Most companies on construction sites I’ve seen go out of their way to actually advertise that out of the legally identified nine point prevention hierarchy, they can do no better than the second bottom – the wearing of PPE. The HSE does, after all, state that PPE is the ‘last resort’ in preventing injury.

On these numerous brightly coloured boards, I have never seen a reference to the companies involved stating:

‘Working to eliminate hazards, the best form of protecting our valued workers.’

‘Making our sites safer by design.’

‘Below are photographs of how we have eliminated hazards, adequately controlled risks and reduced the need for last resort PPE.’

‘Providing less PPE on this site by actually implementing the general principles of prevention.’

While there are unique challenges associated with trying to ensure construction sites are safe, this may be used to condone adopting the least protective practices and failure to apply the most effective protective measures in the general principles of prevention. And yes there will be instances of PPE needed to be worn. However, shoving some gloves on workers is easier than ‘avoiding’ the risk.

There is plenty of evidence about from construction companies who have applied preventative measures that reduced the need for PPE. There isn't too much evidence about that the construction industry as a whole, wants to apply it.

Blanket use of PPE indicates that considering risk assessments, linked to the application of the general principles of prevent, is just too much bother for some.

Cheers.

Nigel

Nigel - on the subject of general principles of prevention.

What about the following :-
a) avoiding risks; - Heavier risks are designed out during the planning phase.

(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided; - Full risk assessments and method statements.

(c) combating the risks at source; - Built in edge protection systems on tables, barriers around excavations.

(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health;
- Use of mechanised plant for concrete pouring, earth moving, lifting etc.

(e) adapting to technical progress; - New kit is constantly coming into use on construction sites, e.g. rebar cutters, Brock demolition plant.

(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; - Safety nets for roofers.

(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees. - Construction is one of the best in this field, with daily toolbox talks, site inductions and method statement discussions being the norm.

As for blanket use of PPE, we all accept now that hard hats, safety boots (not rigger) and hi-vis are the accepted norm nowadays. Going back 10-15 yrs, that was certainly not the case with hi-vis.

Glasses - doesn't really matter what you are doing on a site, you will have some exposure (apart from the office / welfare blocks). Dust and ejected materials do not make detours around the safe walkways laid out on site.

This leaves gloves. The basic gloves in use on site offer a basic level of protection from cement burns and sharp edges and I'm happy to see their use enforced.

Do not forget, a principal can be in charge of a site with over 30 trades / subs working at any one time. They all work to different RA and MS. If you challenge a member of staff without gloves, they will cite their RA, stating gloves not required for their particular trade. Other trades will see this relaxation and then challenge the rules as well.

Far better to have a minimum standard (basic protection) with usage enforced across the site. Welders, steel erectors and persons working with chemicals will have their own RA / MS that calls for a glove better suited to their job and this would be used in place of the basic glove.

Construction has come a long way and I've met many dedicated H&S officers within the industry. To suggest they are ignoring the principles of prevention and going straight to PPE everytime is a bit of a disservice to them.

hello , i come from a construction/scaffolding back ground and worked all industries except for nuclear and off shore for over 20 years , many times have i come across little incidents where a site visitor injured him/herself because of being not familiar with the industry that they are visiting so I can very wel imagine a site policy where visitors wear PPE even if it means wearing a body armor as for the weather conditions being hot ? wel how about more rest breaks ? I am quite astounded to read that so many of you are critising PPE whilst being a H/S professional ,if there is so much wrong with it all then instead of winging about it spend your time doing something positive and constructive about it , in my role personally I speak with the work force and also with the management and so far I have found that trough communication we have sorted problems re PPE and improved work related matters. good luck .

Rene

Just in case you are referring to my comments re PPE please note that I am in no way critising PPE, in this case gloves. These are extremely valuable, but only if the correct PPE is selected and used correctly. It is the incorrect use, e.g. through a blanket approach that one type of glove fits all, that I do not agree with.

dsb - incorrect selection and use of PPE leading to damage to health can also lead to being sued. Just think of the NHS approach to single use gloves. The decision to select (cheap) high free protein, powdered single use natural rubber latex gloves (despite the evidence that these could lead to allergy) led to the 'latex allergy epidemic' with the record for a single case reaching in excess of £300,000. (There is virtually no risk at all from industrial type natural rubber latex gloves, nor from the low free protein, unpowdered single use ones.)

I would not wish to have to defend an employer who, having gone for the blanket, one type fits all, approach to PPE is then subject to a claim where it can be shown (easily) that the wrong glove actually contributed to the damage to the chemical contact with the hands.

Chris

Stevie40

I'm suggesting that the progress made in meeting the general principles of prevention is not across the industry. On virtually every HSE 'intensive inspection' - used to be called blitzes - around 20 - 25% of sites visited were issued with prohibition notices. I have taken this to mean that 'serious and imminent danger' existed at the time of the Inspector's visit.

Construction remains a leading sector in injuring people, as it has done for all of my working life. Perhaps if as much energy and expenditure on PPE had been directed into making sure the measures you describe were actually applied on all relevant sites, the record of the industry could have improved a lot quicker.

I'm aware of some great preventative measures done by construction companies. Unfortunately quite often they get no further than the fence around the respective site on which they are used.

The Quarry Sector have set up www.safequarry.com. On it there are literally hundreds of best practice case studies on a range of health and safety issues, specific to the quarrying sector. It is freely available to anybody who registers on site. Companies also provide their tool box talk materials and they have a safety alert system.

Why can't the construction sector set up a similar website and put on the worked examples of the measures you raise?

Cheers.

Nigel