Richard,

You won't find evidence of either.

If you are having to introduce the policy make sure there is a substantial range for users to pick from.

As far as damaging your eyes I have asked our optician (and others) and they have not seen any deteriation in eyesight other than as would be expected through age.We have had a mandatory eye protection for all production areas and workshops since 1992

The area that has seen a big difference is our Occ Health Dept which rarely have to deal with an eye accident as opposed to the large number our records indicate we dealt with before the policy was introduced.

When working on a chemical plant - same policy introduced
15% drop in eye related incidents in 2 years!

There was another thread on this not that long ago - if you can get the search function to behave

If they're clean, scratch free and (where applicable) of the appropriate prescription then there shouldn't be an issue.
Has there been a monitoring program up to now in the hazard areas to confirm that this PPE is being looked after properly?
You'll be aware of other potential pitfalls such as sudden changes in temperature - instant misting of lenses when walking into higher hazard areas can be problematic.

I've expressed my views on the blanket issue of PPE in the past. I'm not a fan. You'll spend more time contesting and ensuring 'global compliance' and there's an attendant risk that the focus on those actually at risk will diminish somewhat.

It has been common practice now on most major contractors sites for years now.You get the usual complaints to start with, cant see properly, cant read drawings with them on, mist up all the time. But when the summer comes they all want dark style. Our eye injury rate has dropped to zero since they have been implemented. Just make sure that all wear them including the managers.

Richard

My previous company had this policy and on the most part it was extremely effective and in at least 2 cases the operatives wearing of the safety glasses certainly saved their eyesight. The only reservation comes down to your workplace risk assessment and having a blanket policy covering ALL workplaces outside of offices is not in some cases a good idea. I had to introduce 'safety glasses only zone' maps in the warehouse as FLT drivers leaving the outside to come inside were blinded by condensation steaming up their glasses in the winter months (We didnt use cheap glasses either) Also they were suffering from glare from the high level lighting.
I remember the arguments about headaches from the glasses well, but as already pointed out, this was only possible if the users of the glasses had not looked after them and if one lense was scratched then the other eye was obviously straining. So a PPE policy would help there.

We were encouraged to have a full time glasses policy approx 2 years ago and we asked ourselves a few questions which included, Do we have an issue with eye injuries and what were the stastics over the past 5 years?
We found that in fact we did not have an issue with eye injuries but decided to try it out on a few Construction projects over a period of 3 months with regular communication with both the operatives and the site teams.
The findings were as suggested below that yes if clean, not scratched and cleaning stations provided they were OK.
We then introduced Rain, sunlight and working in dusty, warm areas and found that actually the wearing of safety glasses just for the sake of it was more a hazard than a control measure.
We have had so many positive comments off trades who come and get induected and then ask about mandatory eye protection and when we say we have a risk based approach we do actually get a sigh of relief.
Mandatory eye wear breads complacency and does not encourage operatives to wear the corect levels of protection.

I wonder if there is any comparison incident data out there to measure increased slips, trips, lapses, near miss, error etc. due to enforced eye protection balanced against the zero eye injury rate?
Or are the blinkers on in that respect?

Ron, as a company we tried to get the use of mandatory eye protection changed to risk assessment only, we asked all the operatives to report any slips, trips, near miss or errors so that we could go to the principal contractor (PC) and have the policy changed. Not one operative reported anything. With this data, how do you defend your position of non compliance? You can not so you have to comply. All you can do is offer a fair range of glasses so that it is easier for the operatives to comply. I would prefer that it was blinkers that we were forced to wear, at least then I would be able to collate data to have them removed. As you are well aware in this climate what the PC wants then the PC gets, they pay the wages.

My concern is the statement that the policy is a blanket one for ALL areas other than offices does that include corridors, toilets the carpark etc?
What we try to do is get people to identify the specific areas where safety glasses ( and other PPE) are required. And that any PPE is suitable for that task, so for example light weight safety glasses are not much use in a lab where staff are using acids etc. There they should be using visors etc when they are carrying out the hazardous activities. An unthinking blanket requirement just gets peoples backs up.

Richard, what ever you do get Middle / Senior Management buy-in!

There's nothing worse than persuading the workforce to wear mandatory safety specs only to find the management team waltzing around the shop floor without them on. From that moment on your climbing up a very steep hill!

Speaking from experience.