Yes, PPE should be the last resort. However, in many cases, PPE also happens to be a SFAIRP additional control measure. For the risk of an eye injury, however "low", the cost of basic eye-protection is insignificant. This was recognised in the chemical industry decades ago. Somehow, due to the safety culture in the construction industry, there appears to be resistance.

When the majority of persons who agree with the wearing of light eye protection (LEP), actually start to work on site,and I mean work, not walk around site saying how well are PPE works, then removing all the PPE to sit in the office, then say that it is worth it. You are supposed to remove the source that requires the wearing of PPE. So when you suppress the dust on site you do not require the light eye protection. If the dust is enough on site to require LEP, then what are you going to do about the lungs, or don't people breath on site. Enough dust to protect eyes but lungs. What now wear a dust mask as well.How are any of the PC going to prove that the lung conditions that people are suffering is not due to site dust conditions, if they keep with the reason for wearing LEP is down to dust conditions on site. As for it does not harm your eyes, I never needed to wear glasses to be able to focus, 2 years down the line of being forced by PC to wear mandatory eye protection now have to wear glasses all time . Maybe age, but may not be.

I think it is fair to comment that to what extent wearing LEP is a imposition depends largely on the tasks, environment, the quality and variety of glasses provided. For instance, when I have issued tinted glasses in sunny weather there is not much dissent from the troops. Therefore it may be a perception issue and perhaps people do get accustomed to them eventually. Notwithstanding that, it still does not disguise the fact that too many employers choose mandatory PPE and often for no good reason - that I suggest is the crux of the matter. Do we assess the need for PPE or not?