Hi All, just looking for some advice around company standards for Scaffolding Erectors. With this warm weather there has been an increase in individuals wearing shorts. Just looking for members views and experiences or links to industry best pratice. In a past industry where I worked the requirements were one piece suits or long trousers. 

Welcome to the other world in construction - scaffolders and roofers - where despite sound advice regarding skin exposure to UV and the need to cover up the workers in this area of construction will often strip down as the temperature goes up.

You can have all the corporate policy and PPE but as one roofer pointed out when requested to don long company issued overall trousers "where's the UV rating?" no faulting that logic when leisure goods such as rash vests and sun hats have it marked on their label. Whilst common sense says any covering is better than none without a known level of protection how can you demonstrate or argue suitability and sufficiency?

Another regular justification proferred is postal workers in shorts (some observed in the depths of winter) as example of the workwear being suitable for the task rather than the employee stuffed in to PPE due to policy.

Unfortunately you are also battling Social Media where many manufacturer and distributor channels regularly show workers in shorts - I have even seen one roofing channel where the four seasons (meteorological) were played against an image of a roofer in shorts as a sign of industry machismo "working in all weathers".

In other industry long trousers / boiler suit / coverall are often mandatory because the primary risk is not sun exposure but dust, chemical, abrasion or contact heat.

Thanks Alexis fully aware of what can be available as many workwear suppliers now engage with leisurwear manufacturers.

The example was given to highight that just because it is called PPE it does not necessarily deal with all risks or in this case a particular risk.

Hi Miller

I think you need to be careful to avoid simply mandating PPE rules, particularly if the perception is that you are defaulting to PPE instead of measures that are inherently more effective at mitigating risks.

Globally the ILO estimates that some 2.7 million people die prematurely each year as a result of work-related risks with over 2 million of those being from health risks. Yet across the World, most organisations still seem to put much more focus on preventing accidents, which account for less than 400,000 of those premature deaths each year. 

A not dissimilar picture in the UK. If we include all the work-related fatal accidents that are excluded from the scope of RIDDOR then perhaps 1000 a year, but about 13,000 premature deaths a year from occupational ill health, almost entirely from respiratory issues.

May be in times of heat wave, it would be more effective to tell the scaffolders (and roofers) NOT to work in the open air during the midday hours AND, perhaps, to put up screens to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching where people are working rather than simply telling such workers to "cover up"?

PLUS do they have plenty of water stations and a work routine that includes for regular breaks so that people can get some shelter OR is the regime such that there is pressure to finish whatever the weather conditions?

Does the site have its ducks in a row when it comes to all the other occupational health risks or is it going for the easy target - worker behaviour?