Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Reed21854  
#1 Posted : 29 July 2010 11:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Reed21854

Hello there

We have a real problem when working on construction sites with our electricians. Safety glasses are often specified as mandatory PPE across the site even if you are working in a control room or amp room. Guys on site have issues with glasses steaming up so they can't see what they are doing, they then take the glasses off and get into a big arguement with the Principal Contractor on site. How do others deal with this type of issue and can anyone recommend any particular safety glasses that don't steam up so quickly? We don't use the cheapest glasses now ......
Ciarán Delaney  
#2 Posted : 29 July 2010 11:19:23(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Why not contact your PPE supplier and specifically ask for anti mist safety glasses. Ask them for samples, get your colleagues to evaluate them.

If after conducting this exercise, there is still a problem, take the issue up with the main contractor and explain the steps you have taken and the fact that their control measures could actually contribute to an accident due to the increased stressors been put on your team
Mick Noonan  
#3 Posted : 29 July 2010 11:47:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Reed, I've been down this road before and you need to stand firm on PPE, do not conceed ground if you can help it or, before you know it, half the site will be taking their glasses off for the same reason.

Safety glasses steam up because of sweat condensing on the lense, just like your car windscreen. The solution is exactly the same in both cases, allow airflow over the lenses and the problem will clear up very quickly. Some people wear safety glasses too close to the eyes and face, so much so that the moisture (sweat) cannot escape. Educate them wrt this and advise that they can try a different type/style of safety eyewear or simply drop the glasses down the nose a little (only a little) so that natural airflow between the face and glasses can prevent condensation.

Only in an extreme case, where the contractor can show/prove a reasonable case for not wearing the safety glasses would I consider it. Even then only allow subject to a risk assessment and only allow for specific activities.

Ciarán, IMO "anti-mist" is nothing but a gimmick. ;-)
freelance safety  
#4 Posted : 29 July 2010 12:06:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

Firstly PPE should be the last line of defence. Having spent the majority of my working life in this industry I can say that mandatory eye protection enforcement is not all down to safety.

I can say this because I sat at both board level for a major PC and chaired various PC groups. We looked at our figures for eye injuries, which were very low anyway and adopted what many of the MCG members did and made eye protection mandatory.

In a ten year period before mandatory PPE was introduced and over the last few years we saw little in the way of improvement relating to the injury statistics. When raised at board level the CEO stated that this had nothing to do with safety, it was to show that we were as ’good’ as our rivals when it came to safety?

I’ve spoken to many senior health and safety professionals over the last few years who want us to go back to risk assessment because of the confusion over type of eye protection used for tasks i.e. wearing general protection for high-impact activities (these have actualy contributed to accidents). We have also seem numerous near misses and accidents in which the wearing of incorrect eye protection has been a factor.

The issue is very political however, many senior safety professionals want to go back to the risk assessment process, which is more enforceable, sensible and pragmatic.
bob youel  
#5 Posted : 29 July 2010 14:52:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

without doubt the wearing of any form of PPE especially eye protection should be enforced, justified etc via the risk assessment route and no other route e.g blanket rules should be followed just because that are there, as eyesight is to important to play games with

undertake a proper and suitable PPE risk assessment [see that flying pig?] and thereafter manage properly and stick to your guns with regards to your findings both with your staff as some peopel do not like wearing PPE and with your client /PC -If the PC etc is insistant then record it and get him to sign the record

The problems always arise where management do not manage they just issue blanket directives
freelance safety  
#6 Posted : 29 July 2010 15:01:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

I'd agree blanket rules can raise more issues than following a properly conducted risk assessment route.
frankc  
#7 Posted : 29 July 2010 15:06:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
frankc

Reed21854 wrote:
Hello there

We have a real problem when working on construction sites with our electricians. Safety glasses are often specified as mandatory PPE across the site even if you are working in a control room or amp room. Guys on site have issues with glasses steaming up so they can't see what they are doing, they then take the glasses off and get into a big arguement with the Principal Contractor on site. How do others deal with this type of issue and can anyone recommend any particular safety glasses that don't steam up so quickly? We don't use the cheapest glasses now ......


A lot of sites have safety glasses as mandatory but are the same risks prevalent outside (dust being blown about) as are indoors in a control room? Maybe a seperate R/A is required for the control room area and a common sense approach applied.
Dazzling Puddock  
#8 Posted : 29 July 2010 15:29:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dazzling Puddock

It is exactly this type of scenario that gives Health and Safety a bad name!
Issues such as blanket mandatory safety eye protection to be worn on construction sites undoes all the hard work done by safety officers in the last 20 years.

It has been a hard struggle to get safety into the heads of many construction workers over the years and stupid nonsensical blanket policies that can be justifiably ridiculed by workers sets us, as a profession back years IMHO!

What happened to sensible, risk based health and safety management?
Mick Noonan  
#9 Posted : 29 July 2010 17:19:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Dazzling, I've posted on this before and I'll do so now, again, because I feel strongly about it. I have spent my career working full-time on construction sites and there is simply no alternative to the use of "blanket" policies regarding PPE.

It may work on sites where the number are low (up to 100 people) but I have experience of sites as large as 3,000 people and in such cases it will not work to pick and choose where PPE will be used. the only option is to have one rule, the same rule, for everyone.

I'm open to debate on this and I'd very much be interested to know if anyone can claim to have successfully applied the "PPE by risk assessment only" rule on a large construction site?

Mick

User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#10 Posted : 29 July 2010 17:51:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

Mick

Perhaps I'm impressed that you believe in an evidence-based decision, but I'm unsure what your evidence is, or for that matter what your decision is......

"there is simply no alternative to the use of "blanket" policies [because you] feel strongly about it". That's a biggie to start with.

But then you go on to admit that "it [the selective policy] may work on sites where the number are low" but in other circumstances, your experience (?) assures us that "it will not work to pick and choose". Not sure about your evidence base, it may be nothing more than opinion, but I thought you believed that there was no alternative? After all, you go on to remind us again that "the only option is to have one rule, the same rule, for everyone".

Since you're "open to debate" I assume you are uncertain, or in the process of changing your mind.

You cover all of the bases, incredibly all of the at the same time, but do we believe that the average gadgee has enough brain to make their own decision? In my own laboratory environment, such blanket policies do exist, and are often justified as protection against collateral attack - you don't know what is happening next to you that is outside your own control but still in the line of fire - and as a good example for juniors who may not always be able to make the right decision every time.

Sadly, I've never seen these arguments applied to the building site scenario. Just a predictably bullish 'do it cos I say so and I know'.
RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 29 July 2010 22:16:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

The deabte goes on and on...I am against mandatory PPE such as light eye protection. It is in my view another version of the Emperor's new clothes. We do allow certain trades some discretion but otherwise it is mandatory as our gloves. Treating men like children does nothing to enhance health and safety in my view. It should be a case that you wear eye protection when use abrasive wheels, spraying, working with chemicals etc, but otherwise it is OTT.
Betta Spenden  
#12 Posted : 29 July 2010 23:03:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Betta Spenden

David H  
#13 Posted : 30 July 2010 07:59:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

Love it Betta - could just imagine the tool box talk before the job starts lol

David
Guru  
#14 Posted : 30 July 2010 08:03:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Guru

Love it...even better if u check the web site, fantastic range on offer lol

http://bespectacular.co.uk/

Mick Noonan  
#15 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:06:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Ian, I’m sorry for the confusion surrounding my post, I normally proof read them before sending but not on this occasion as I was afraid of being timed out (note to mods).

First let me explain that I’m over ten years working, full time, on construction projects (from small to very large) and so I feel that I’m well placed to consider my opinion “valid” when discussing site PPE. My opinion is that PPE on construction sites only works when it is applied in a “blanket” fashion as I said above (“one rule for everybody”).

I understand that this is not very selective and nor is it elegant, however, rigorous ‘design phase risk assessments’ are required plus a ‘design review’ (for safety) thus ensures that the decision is far from haphazard. This is not to mention construction phase safety plans which details much more than just the PPE.

I can understand other workplaces where selective “PPE by risk assessment” is the best way to go but the image being drawn of the construction industry here isn’t very pretty and I simply want to redress the balance a little. A construction site is an incredibly dynamic environment and there’s no way of knowing what’s around the next corner, so it’s vital that we have all of our bases covered wrt PPE.

People don’t like wearing PPE and especially safety glasses and this makes my job incredibly difficult as it’s a constant duty to maintain standards. I’ve heard every excuse in the book and I have an answer (a proper one) for each. I believe ‘safety’ is about education and communication and I teach that our PPE is a uniform to be worn out of respect for the hazards of our job, not a chore inflicted “just ‘cos I say so”.

Maybe you’re “against mandatory PPE” but, in the right hands, it works and there are circumstances where it’s the only show in town, you’ll just have to take my word for it. Or not.
Dazzling Puddock  
#16 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:37:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dazzling Puddock

Or Not!! LOL

Guys that do not like wearing eye protection are very often the guys who see no point in wearing it for the simple reason that the blanket policy forces them to wear it when the risk of eye damage is negligible.

I will not even touch on the suitability of a single form of eye protection to cover all jobs (which is what happens if guys are wearing safety specs).

Driving dumpers in the rain or forcing sparkies do finishings to wear eye protection does nothing to improve an organisations safety culture or reduce accidents.

Construction is not in another world, but it does require stronger/ different management skills than many industries due to the transient nature of projects and staff and mandatory policies maybe the easy way but IMHO it is the wrong way and undermines the bigger message.

Treating grown men like wee bairns is not the way forward and a simple issue like forcing someone to wear, and more importantly disciplining someone for not wearing eye protection for the simple reason that you say so, rather than on the grounds if risk means you could lose that mans co operation and buy in to the safety culture you have worked hard to install.
Talpidae  
#17 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:25:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Talpidae

With past experience of blanket eye protection policies and the stupidity of them I have battled both sides.

First of all the only reason eye protection is necessary is because all other means to control the risk(s) have failed. Not because it’s an easy default position, whereby risk management is simply making sure eye protection is worn at all times, everywhere.

Imagine my horror on discovering a man about to operate a reciprocal saw in a hot humid cramped atmosphere with misted safety glasses (because the safety man had turned up). The same argument goes for heavy rain, remember The PPE Regulations 1992 (As Amended) Reg 4 (3) (d) states on supplying PPE; so far as is practicable, it is effective to prevent or adequately control the risk or risks involved without increasing overall risk;
In other words if it creates an increased risk then think again!

I would suggest you undertake a risk assessment with Reg 4 in mind, forward it to the main contractor and ask if he is aware that he may be increasing the risk e.g. electrocution.

I have as stated I've taken on the main contractor over their eye policy. I identified the levels of risk for various areas of site, basically three zones and designated them: high risk = mandatory use, med risk = optional (but encouraged) low risk = unnecessary (after all why would you wear them to walk across the office car park) Furthermore where it is necessary as part of a CoSHH or power tool assessment then they were specified eye protection, similarly where it was raining and reducing visibility the decision to allow removal in mandatory areas was passed to the works managers. Finally it was communicated to all. It worked because people understood it, it was sensible on a risk based approach and the client said nothing, because other than impose a blanket policy that is what they had done, nothing.
bob youel  
#18 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:38:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

In reply to blanket rules

In my opinion it all depends on the senior site manager and the client as I have been on very small sites where blankets were in place yet not enforced and very large sites with many thousands of people [>3000; many different occupations and from different countries etc] where proper none blanket rules were in palce and all went well; so I again I say if you have a good client/manager you have a good site


Mick Noonan  
#19 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:42:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Dazzling, if I might repeat some words you have used to describe my industry…

“the blanket policy forces them to wear it”
“forcing sparkies”
“maybe the easy way”
“wrong way and undermines”
“Treating grown men like wee bairns”
“forcing someone to wear”
“disciplining someone for not wearing”
“for the simple reason that you say so”

The above examples, I can only imagine, represent your personal experiences of the construction industry. They also represent the lowest form of safety culture and one that I have spent a career (so far) trying to undo. My standards are higher than this. Please do not tar me and my efforts with the same brush. Accept the possibility that there are those of us working in construction safety who are capable, competent and don’t need to insult the intelligence of the workforce in order to implement a PPE protocol.

Long weekend almost here…

Mick
Billibob  
#20 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:00:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Billibob

Interesting discussion. A few thoughts:

To have a requirement (whether blanket or otherwise) for eye protection you will need to have undertaken a risk assessment. If not how can you demonstrate you have taken into account the hierarchy of control and the principles of best practice (as now in the COSHH requirements)? If the assessment indicates that the only "reasonably practicable" means of reducing the risk of eye injury is to whether suitable eye protection then a further assessment should be made to identify what is suitable and sufficient to afford the protection required.

The next concern is how to get people to wear the PPE as this is the last resort (as previously stated). It is at this point you are more likely to consider whether to make it a site rule or not and this could be down to previous incidents of getting staff and contractors to wear the required PPE. It is easier to enforce if it is a site rule than if there is a list of "exceptions" as there can be no excuse (although it won't stop a person trying to give one!!) for not wearing it. I have been involved in a similar argument to the wearing of hard hats. It is compulsory to wear it (especially on construction sites) but what about inside buildings etc where the risk is minimal (compared to outside)?

There are also other factors in the scenario giving. If the safety glasses are misting up then the PPE assessment needs to be reviewed and there are several (if not more) different types of safety glasses on the market and I have yet to find one type that doesn't meet what is required of it. My experience in this type case where this is given as a "reason" for not wearing it is that someone has decided that a particular type is the preferred option without proper trials (usually based on cost).

There frankly isn't a universal answer and a sense of reality should be taken into account when looking at PPE with proper trials and also regarding risks when outside buildings etc and risks inside areas.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.