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

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.

I'd agree blanket rules can raise more issues than following a properly conducted risk assessment route.

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 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'.

Love it...even better if u check the web site, fantastic range on offer lol http://bespectacular.co.uk/

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.

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

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.