Posted By Bob Youel
PC was wrong - as usual its easier to blanket than manage

The time to agree protocol is at the T&C stages not when a job is ongoing

Posted By John Fraser

This is certainly an example where not much common sense has been applied on site by the pc.

Agree with the above post this should have been discussed at pre-construction stage of the project to identify any factors which would affect PPE. i.e Inclement weather etc and how the pc and appointed s/c deal with the issues.

I don't know if you can do much more unfortunately though if you are contracted to work to the pc. Is there a clause in the contract to recover costs regarding tower erection / dismantling phase from the pc or client.

John

Posted By Andrew W
Had exactly the same myself many times. Luckily now as stated above we clear it all up at pre meetings and lay our justifications at that stage.

Andy

Posted By alex mccreadie
I know there will be more but thanks for the many varied suggestions,opinions and possible solutions.

Much Appreciated


Alex

Posted By Andrew W
The other problem I have with blanket PPE policies is that that is all people seem to concentrate on whilst ignoring far more serious events.

Case in fact; once whilst on a site I witnessed the PC's safety advisor remonstrating with a worker for not wearing his glasses whilst directly adjacent a 20t 360 excavator was loading a dumper with rubble. However the driver was still mounted on his seat watching. I know which risk I would be more concerned with. Needless to say I had a quiet word out of earshot

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Indeed Chris, that's why I generally don't like the use of blanket PPE, which normally emanates from company policies designed by men in ivory towers.

I suppose we will have to wait for a serious accident to occur where upon investigation it be shown that the mandatory PPE policy was at fault before anything changes.

Posted By Chris Packham
I have worn prescription lenses for the past 64 years. It can be a problem but in time one learns to compensate. I can well imagine that someone not used to it could find it difficult.

I often wear a long peaked baseball cap to keep the rain off my specs, but even this has its problems as it can restrict visibility, particularly when considering what is happening above one.

I even tried contact lenses, but because I have a considerable difference between near and distance vision these did not help and actually made me accident prone.

Often there are not any simple answers and one is looking for the best possible compromise.

Chris

Posted By Jim Tassell (2)
Roll back a minute please. Can you all explain exactly what the actual risk to the eyes is in this particular example? I read the exchanges with interest but I've never been intimately involved in tower crane erection.

Posted By Jim Tassell (2)
Thanks Alex

I was just wondering if any of the other contributors could move the discussion away from "patently silly rule" so as to provide real justification that there is indeed a risk.

Jim

Posted By Jim Tassell (2)
Peter

I think you are getting to the nub of this (setting aside your pun) in your first sentence. It's the protection against the unknown, the one in a million (a vague hazard not a clear and present risk).

I agree with you completely that any PPE needs proper selection and roll-out but let's not treat our employees like numpties. They may not understand our terminology but they certainly know when something is being done without a basis of risk assessment. The blanket control may be easy and seem to give protection against infinitessimal risks but it devalues the concept of risk assessment from the perspective of the wearers. It moves us away from the opportunity to take a rational approach to the control of real and substantial risks and expect employee buy-in. Dare I say it heads us in the direction of conkers-bonkers and management by J*DI?

So who out there can explain what the real risks are as opposed to comfort-zone and sky-falling-on-head reasons?

Jim

Posted By Pete48
Some strange logic in this thread. For me the fact that there is a rule that eye protection is to be worn is a rule. Now that rule may be wrong but it is there. If the rule is wrong it is wrong and the sector needs to get that approach sorted.
It rains a lot in the UK so it is foreseeable. If indeed it is not possible to work safely with eye protection on this task during the rain then the job stops, simple. OR the rule gets changed to one where ppe is defined by the task and environment in which it takes place; suitable, effective and usable ppe is provided and not the lowest cost kit; an adequate level of positive, trained, competent supervision is provided to assure compliance.
Of course these approaches will cost money somewhere and I doubt that contingency for all such costs is anywhere in most bid prices. The job was priced in the knowledge that the blanket rule applied but didn't consider this impact of a rainy day? Maybe that is the underlying cause of these continuing problems in the open market construction sector.
As Chris pointed out those of us who wear prescription specs find ways to reduce the problems or modify our working practice. There is always something that can be done to reduce the problem.
What happens, for example, if an employee did habitually wear prescription glasses in an area where there was not a blanket rule? Does your risk assessment consider that and what does it say? Does that employee have to stop work when it rains or does that employee have to take the risks that you now consider unacceptable to others?
I wonder has there ever been a case where a site occupier/controller has insisted on the wearing of inappropriate ppe and an accident or injury has resulted?