Posted By Robert.
I have requested that eye protection be worn at all our operational sites from Jan 2008.
A blanket approach.
We already provide hard hats with retractable half face visors and safety glasses for those who require them for close work.
On many sites, client protocols dictate that wearing eye protection is mandatory. The reason for my blanket approach was that individuals would get into the habit of wearing / using them, whilst actively carrying out their works and not just because a client wants it. They all do wear hi-vis clothing, foot and head and protection when at work
The line managers now want clarification of when and where to wear eye prot and they prefer the (easy) option of risk assessing to determine whether a yes or no. My answer is that they don't have that luxury on some client sites, posing the theory that if they, the managers, say optional use, the end user would generally take the option not to use. The managers are not in a position where they can monitor or audit effectiveness on a frequent basis.
We do work with fluids and generally operate in areas where an employee can come into contact with airborne debris during our works.
Should I just let the managers, manage as they see fit and back down from the blanket approach?

Posted By Adam Worth
Do you have a history of eye injuries?

I work in the chemical industry and as such have worn eye protection almost daily for the last 10years.
This means i have an automatic urge to wear eye protection (I won't even cycle with out it)

In my experience a blanket rule is easier to enforce as it means managers don't have to question reason for not wearing...

That said is it common to find this in your industry? If not why not?

You may find you add an additional hazard by hindering vision etc(if specs steam up, or are not looked after)

Also will specs clash with other forms of PPE?

Just a few things to think about.

Posted By holmezy
Robert,

You've now had 2 opinions which differ greatly. Perhaps you could tell us some more about the environment so we can have another go. I assumed, probably wrongly, that you are a construction type site, whereas the other opinion is from a chemical type site.

Holmezy

Posted By David Bannister
Robert, my preference would be for a well-educated workforce, able to recognise hazards and make informed judgments on whether eye protection is necessary, led by strong management example and mentoring.

I have no knowledge of your exposures other than what has been posted here so your conclusion may well be correct for you. However, I detest blanket rules imposed "just in case we may be sued" and only in rare circumstances do I see any merit in them.

In fact I am putting together a presentation to a group of business people where my message is not to fear H&S but to embrace good H&S management as an integral part of good business management. I intend to start off by wearing every type of PPE I can fit on my body (plus tweed jacket, elbow patches, clipboard and a plentiful supply of red cards) and gradually discard it all whilst explaining that risk control at source should be the primary goal and that relying on PPE is wasteful of resources, materials, energy, productivity, time and anyway is usually a flawed method of protection!

Posted By Robert.
Ok I'm backing down.
I'm really not in favour of blanket approaches.
I have decided to advise the local managers along the basis that the need for eye protection is to be be clearly justified in a risk assessment, safety method statement, HAZID or Specific Safety Plan. It must consider the actual job, the type of protection, other PPE and all who could be affected – including employees, visitors, contractors, etc.
David, thank-you, but we do not have a flawed method of protection. The nature of our work often means that we have little or no intelligence with regards to what is in or on a site, and I am definately not one of the often misguided "fear of being sued" fraternity.

Thanks all & merry Christmas

Posted By Tabs
Not a construction site, but a large engineering factory.

Everyone, every day, whenever on the shop floor.

In offices, the rule did not apply.

I saw absolutely no evidence of the eyewear contributing to any injury. Yes it was uncomfortable to begin with, and on very hot days.

No big thing though, we all did it.

Rationale should include that no-one knows what is coming next - espcially on a construction site.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
When you look at F/A records there are an awful lot of "dust in eye " type treatments on sites. This ignores those situations not recorded. Thus there could be a strong case for suitable eye protection in many construction operations. Construction operations tend to include windblown dust etc, stray sparks, protruding objects and wires etc etc. What is the problem with recognising these ubiquitous risks.

In my laboratory days eye protection was manadatory for all persons in the laboratory, regardless of who they were. Some tasks did not need it but there were always other tasks in progress that could require it. Thus it was far easier for all to be wearing them continuously - no-one forgot to use them when they were required! The same applied out on plant except that goggles and visors often replaced spectacles.

Bob

Posted By Andrew Bradbury
Thank you Steve for your post, I think my issue with the safety glasses is similar to your safety gloves..

A blanket approach does not in my opinion recognise the specific dangers or difference in work activities undertaken by different people on a construction site.

Forgive me Robert but a construction site is not the same as a laboratory environment, and as a general rule architects and surveyors do not routinely wear PPE in our offices..

So when we visit a construction site most of us are not used to wearing bulky fluorescent jackets, heavy safety boots, irritating hard hats and awkward safety glasses.

I understand I’ve got to wear PPE but it’s difficult not to be distracted by all this ‘safety equipment’ whilst avoiding the drainage trenches, site traffic or climbing up a scaffolding ladder.

The safety glasses the contractor now requires us to wear do not protect against dust, only impact (the contractor has failed to specify the standard or impact resistance).

Why then have I got to wear these safety glasses when I visit site if they don’t protect me from dust, and I certainly not going to near anyone cutting or wielding!!?

I wonder who would have the statistics on architects and surveyors injuries on site, the HSE or perhaps the RIBA or RICS?

Just a thought, my ‘best guess’ is that surveyors tend to fall off roofs or through floors more than they sustain eye injuries..

Andrew

Posted By Andrew Bradbury
Hello Bob,

Thanks for the feedback, as a member of the design team I am not above anyone else working on site, I appreciate and understand health & safety is a mutual responsibility for everyone working on site.

The contractors new mandatory rule states: that wearing of light eye protection at all times for everybody working on site.

In his e-mail light eye protection refers to safety glasses, these do not protect against dust only safety goggles can do that, and these tend to be specific to a job e.g. wielding or using a disc cutter.

Trust me when I say nobody wears safety goggles around a construction site in order to walk from A to B, because they are more of a hindrance than a help..

About the dust issue, usually any good contractor will manage the dust on site by using water spray, wash down facilities and regularly hire a vehicle road sweeper.

But my original question remains, why the mandatory rule to wear a pair of safety glasses?

I just dont understand these blanket policies..

Andrew

Posted By Merv Newman
How big is your blanket ? King size, Queen size or just big enough to keep you warm ?

The approach taken by Tabs is about right. We once worked on an engineering site which had had minimum eye-protection rules. (welding, grinding and so on. Even they weren't policed or enforced.

Then the company was taken over by americans and the first american auditor went really really spare on eye-protection. Insisted that you put it on as you came through the gate and kept it on until you went off-site again.

This solicited a number of questions : "In the toilets ?" "In my office ?", "While chatting up the boss's secretary ?" (sorry. "Administrative assistant")

Unfortunately the American had the power and authority to enforce his ruling. So, in the face of much derision, they tried.

Unions informed management of plans for a 1-day strike. Fortunately the American soon went home and management were able to calm things down by saying, in effect, "let's be reasonable"

but it took us about two years to be able to talk sensibly about eye-protection.

Blanket bans are too easy. Define your terms, define your needs and take the time to convince people.

Merv