This subject is now getting out of hand. Lazy Health & Safety is creeping in. Rules for rules sake….. permits to use step-ladders (when in fact the method statement says that they are to be used) …… permit required to wear Wellingtons (I kid you not) …. Hop-ups banned when carrying out construction work in a supermarket when the shelf stackers in the next isle are using the same ‘contraband equipment’. Has the identification of SIGNIFICANT risk become a skill that is being overwhelmed by the ‘posterium protectus’ dictate.

In my own humble opinion the use of blanket bans, or the imposition of blanket site requirements is lazy health and safety designed to ease the need to responsibly assess risk.

The requirement to wear light eye protection on site ….. just because someone thought it was a good idea and made it a site rule.
The banning of hop-ups because the Work at Height regulations say that where there is a risk of injury from a fall then this risk must be avoided.

These are just two examples of situations where it is all too easy to implement rules because it saves ‘thinking’ about the operations being carried out and is just lazy health and safety.

When carrying out a risk assessment are we not permitted (nay required) to take into account cost, time, environment, training … in fact everything involved in that operation. The aim is to control and manage significant risks not exaggerate minor hazards to the status of Olympian proportions.

Should ‘those up stairs’ be permitted to implement rules (such as the requirement to wear light eye protection) because it is easy and covers more than just their eyes without justified identification of significant risk. Is there a greater risk of getting dust in the eyes when walking around a substantially completed construction site, or is the risk the same to passing pedestrians - should we therefore make passing pedestrians wear the same light eye protection and if not where is the logic? Is it perchance risk assessment?

Are we, as health & safety professionals, letting the inmates take over the asylum?

Maybe if we had specifics rather than generalised statements like the above, then we would be able to say something as individuals. IOSH will only respond to specific high profile issues, or so I would hope?

Has anyone actually asked why the PTW for Wellington boots?

A little strange I have to agree. I had the pleasure some time ago working for interior fit out clients with the 'blanket rule' for stepladders etc, even after scrupulous reading of the RA & M/S, another case of 'it's the rule' to work on this site!

It's very close to the other common problem of being risk averse as opposed to manage risks effectively or is that not allowed in this day & age?

PTW should be used to control high risk activities when a normal a normal SSW doesn't suffice.

Wellies- high risk??

On power station its a PTW for sweeping up, blanket PTW takes away the importance and primary use of the PTW system, but it's keeping somebody in a job!!

I was employed as an adviser on one site where the fork lift truck drivers had fully enclosed cabs, one particulalrly "knowledgeable" manager decided he wanted the FLT operators to wear eye protection whilst driving around. He instigated and implemented this policy even after a trial period which the operators claimed that wearing the eye protection within the enclosed cabs caused the protective glasses to steam/mist up which caused problems with vision and actually therefore increased the risk.

(Not really picking on Irwin43241 - several people have taken teh same approach)



Somewhere where an assessment has identified that it is generally preferred to have ankle support, but wellingtons are permitted if there's a good reason for them?

Or how about somewhere where there is a chemical reaction hazard relating to general footwear and you need to shut off some process if you're going in without the special gear. Someone tries to access in any old gear and is told "oi, you can't go in there like that - what if there's an xyz leak". They say "it's ok, i've got me wellingtons on" "that's not good enough mate, you need a permit to go in there dressed like that" and the next thing you know we have someone sounding off about a permit to wear wellingtons.

I think that ridiculing things that have been heard second-hand with no actual knowledge of the detail of the situation is at least as damaging to the reputation of H&S as are the silly blanket rules. After all, most of the tabloid press anguish turns out to be based not on the true facts of the case, but rather on misleading spin.

Find out the facts of the case before heaping such opprobium on it. Maybe it deserves it, but if you really can't think of situations where a permit is required to wear wellingtons in some area, that rather suggests you think that wellingtons are the ultimate PPE footwear suitable for every possible hazard, and I'm yet to find a single piece of any class of PPE that's right for absolutely every situation.

We have a gloves and glasses policy at all times.

Gloves MUST have Cut Protection Factor of 3 or greater, Glasses to EN166 F. We also state in our policy, Risk Assessment and Method Statement that higher protection factors may be required as defined by Risk Assessment. An example would be - use of a Chopsaw where Goggles to EN 166 B (Medium Impact) MUST be worn. We mainly carry out Dry Lining, Plastering, Rendering & Ceilings.

We have significantly reduced our hand and eye injuries. (Dust in eyes and Cuts to fingers and hands).

We did start by providing budget PPE, then I took over the ordering and started ordering decent stuff now not only does the PPE last longer, the better fixers ask for Gloves and Goggles.

Regards

Clive

That should be ' both have valid reasons'

Hi all,

I wouldnt call it lazy H&S.

I have worded with blanket eye protection and hand protection, and the reduction in eye injury and cut to hand injury, also safety runners and riggers were banned owing to lack of ankle support.

I dont disagree with these blanket bans, its a bit like the introduction of the hard hat many years ago. Its a case of getting used to it.

With regard to the PTW for Wellies, its understandable again on the ankle support issue.

And with regard to the stepladder issue, I fully agree with permitting them, or the incompetent users, as they will stand anywhere, lean over etc...

Yes - a sensible approach - a general or default prohibition, unless thought is applied.

Trouble is, suppose someone said "to ensure ankle protection in this circumstance we'll ban wellies, unless there's been a risk assessment identifying them as appropriate for the task in hand". That needs control, so you have some sort of form to control the process.

Next thing you know, someone is on here mouthing off about idiots requiring a permit for wellingtons.

It might not be an idiotic rule - there might be a good reason.
It might be a valid part of a process controlling a risk.

Hmmm...the thread has twisted towards blanket PPE rules are ok. Yes, they are in some circumstances like hard hats on construction sites where there may be a risk of falling objects or W@H. That does not mean other blanket rules are ok like, gloves, glasses, etc.

Wellingtons should be permitted on site if the task dictates that they or rigger boots are the most appropriate - identified by the ubiquitous RA of course. Those working in utilities or excavations are more likely to require wellingtons rather than boots with ankle protection - surely, no need for a permit! The problem here is that site rules normally dictate that boots must be worn on site without any thought for those working in a water logged excavation...as the originator of the post commented: 'lazy health and safety.'

Chris, good point about gloves which I fully support, chemicals being your raison d'être. Most all purpose gloves on site provide little or no protection from cuts and impacts, those that do have a residual effect of losing dexterity. Never mind, as long as you are wearing gloves it complies with the site rules...

Just as bad if not worse, is the use of light eye protection as a blanket rule. This encourages the non-use of impact resistant glasses wittingly or unwittingly when using abrasive wheels and some companies are not providing impact resistant glasses anyway.

So..... its OK to just use glasses (even high impact) when working with abrasive wheels is it?

'So..... its OK to just use glasses (even high impact) when working with abrasive wheels is it?'

I presume you mean that abrasive wheels should also be fitted with guards/shields...PPE is the last resort, but it should also be the right PPE for the task.

My thoughts (nearly) exactly.

There is a BIG difference between goggles & glasses where abrasive wheels are concerned.

My preference is for face masks in this instance, anyway.

I agree Ken, generic assessments are certainly useful for large sites and multi-site organisations. What's important is that workers understand the risk assessment process - they understand the safe systems of work and are aware of the reporting structures to identify weaknesses or understand that if their work is to deviate from the generic that they must notify their manager and get a more appropriate risk assessment done....

This is all about the management of rules and blanket assessments and blanket rules do have their place.