iv stopped providing it, i provide a more robust solution for my industry

Firestar - have sent you a PM

On the blanket policies, be careful that it can be justified as one of the major players a while back was reprimanded by a judge for blanket policy, this at the time was for gloves.

This is an age old problem and where its possible to do so this area should be discussed, addressed and agreed at tender process

That said its a very hard thing to have common sense in place when a client insists that blanket things are in place and you will have to adhere to site rules or you do not get the business

Can I plead with practitioners to argue the case for and against with their employers who have such blanket rules as whilst they may be OK for the general site when manufacturing is on-going its completely different when other activities are taking place

Chris42 the splash of mud or grit is not the problem as it is very rare it splashes up that far. The glasses get wet from the rain falling and they steam up due to the wearer working. The wearer then has to wipe them but their gloves are dirty and this transfers onto the glasses, even when using a cloth the mud still gets onto this transferred from the dirty hands or gloves and then again onto the glasses.

The worker then starts getting very frustrated having to stop every two minutes to try to clean a pair glasses with dirty gloves or a rag. Also it distracts the worker who may have plant operating close by.

Also you have demonstrated one of the arguments why they should be worn but it is not that simple as hopefully explained.

I agree with Bob’s statement and why I put this in the discussion forum.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm aware of the steaming up issue with glasses, even on the ones that claim not to.

You will not get one of the big principle contractors to relent on these blanket rules. I think those at site level don't want to go against those higher up the food chain and you don't get to talk to those.

I had to go to one construction site and conduct a joint audit with the principle contractor and had to wear the gloves and glasses. It was absolutely hammering down as we walked around, the work my company was doing was complete and our site manager was packing up to go. The audit was arranged by others so here we were and decided to make the best of it and do a audit of everything. I as you say had to stop every few minutes to clear my glasses and so did their H&S Manager, I tried to suggest the glasses were a hindrance not a help, but he would have none of it and said it was not his rules.

Mind you I also had to suggest to him that his employee holding the long length of rebar vertically, during the thunder and lightning storm should be told to put it down. At that point I decided the audit was over.

There is only so much of a fight you can have with a customer! Especially when they are one of the big ones in the game.

walkera, my sympathises with your comments. When I was working on construction sites I would give a dispensation if it became a real hindrance, or the PPE became more of a hazard, as the PC this is permissible. Indeed, the PPE regs alow for such an exclusion. For example, tiler (gloves) tarmac laying (glasses) plant operatives whilst in cab (hard hat and glasses) electricians in enclosed building working at ceiling height (hard hat) and so on. However, I sometimes got some stick from the client's representative, just glad I am not working in mainstream construction now.

Sometimes all good sense goes out of the window with mandatory PPE requirements - another reason why h&s gets ridiculed.

And whilst we're on the subject what about the safety helmet farce. Our standard is Yellow for the lads, Orange for the supervisors and as mentioned previously because of the specialised operation we carry out they aren't just standard safety helmets. Is this good enough? No!!

Our lads now have to carry half a dozen different coloured ones in their vans. Everybody seems to want supervisors in different coloured hats. Therefore we have vans which look like a milliners store. If it carries on we'll have to supply trailers just to put our tools in.

Rant over. Going home to chill out.

Andy

A big renewable energy company had a blanket policy on eye protection, but we managed to get dispensation for lads climbing wind turbines due to the glasses steaming up all the time.

It's always better to take a more sensible, measured approach and hopefully there are still a few clients out there who appreciate that.

Gladewell, the civil claim would be made against the employer and dealt with by their Employers Liability insurers, who then would have the option of pursuing a civil action against the PC, if they wish and if they think that they have a realistic chance of success.

Whilst probably not a record for the resurrection of a thread, 11 days short of 2 years is certainly a good sleep! Welcome to theforums.

I found that the major cause of problems with LEP was the selection process. Mainly because there was a Model T Ford attitude of supplying only one model, generally the cheapest. As it is a site rule then it has to treateted like all PPE with a suitable range for selection. The ver spectacle, wraparound lens type seem the most predominant and I think among the worst examples for optical clarity and steaming up.

To be perfectly honest much of the construction industry has so many tasks where there is a risk from low energy particles or projecting materials that LEP should almost be a No Brainer. My time in heavy organic chemical manufacture required the continuous use of eye protection, including LEP, and people did not dispute the needs and worked with the constraints because they understood the problems.