Rank: Forum user 
|
Good morning,
I have just been asked a couple of questions on safety boots.
Firstly, a member of staff often wears their safety boots off site and when they are not at work. Is this a problem for the company at all in regards of insurance? (One member of staff believes that boots should only be worn whilst at work and the other obviously disagrees)
Also, how often should safety boots be replaced? The company issues staff with safety boots but there is not currently a policy on how often these boots need to be replaced.
I am in the process of writing a policy on safety boots so all the information you can give me will help me towards finding the right and appropriate solution to the issue.
Thanks
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Personally I'd be very happy people are wearing safety kit away from work.
It reinforced behaviors
It means he might avoid being off sick with a crushed foot or similar.
They get replaced when they are no longer fit for purpose.
PPE regs say you should "inspect" any PPE at regular intervals
Might be 3 months or 3 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
reinforces
Edit function please !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I’d worry about HMRC, who would argue that it you allow staff to use PPE away from work then that constitutes a taxable perk. We have had horrendous issues with these people about this. At one point they suggested that we keep all of the PPE in central store and only issue it to people as they needed and they should return before going home. We had to explain to them that out staff work up and down the country and that’s just not practicable. (Round trip from Truro to York to pick up a pair of wellies anyone?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Your policy needs to reflect the working practices and the hazards of the working environment.
At one employment where we had 12 hour 4 on / 4 off shifts each employee was issued 2 pairs at a time so they could alternate wearing and allow the footwear to air & dry over their work periods.
Another employment standard 8 hour days / shifts (large site 300+ employees) had an arrangement with a large provider whereby every 6 months their sales van would arrive at site and everyone would be issued one work pair. This employer was acutely aware of HMRC taxable benefits and the rule was if people wanted PPE for home they could purchase direct from the van.
Another employment issued two pairs annually due to external working so as to address the potential for wet boots (wellingtons were not considered appropriate footwear due to other hazards).
Current employment are replaced when "worn" and no longer fit for purpose.
Common theme at all was a reasonable average price limit - not cheap but also no free for all in the catalogue e.g. Kevlar forestry boots in a non forestry environment.
Specific considerations for PPE leaving site:
1) Will it make it back the following day / shift? Start asking the question and you may find the employees reason for taking things home is that they have no locker in which to store work gear.
2) Contamination issues from site materials adhering to the footwear and work wear being transferred in to the employees car / home / public environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Your policy needs to reflect the working practices and the hazards of the working environment.
At one employment where we had 12 hour 4 on / 4 off shifts each employee was issued 2 pairs at a time so they could alternate wearing and allow the footwear to air & dry over their work periods.
Another employment standard 8 hour days / shifts (large site 300+ employees) had an arrangement with a large provider whereby every 6 months their sales van would arrive at site and everyone would be issued one work pair. This employer was acutely aware of HMRC taxable benefits and the rule was if people wanted PPE for home they could purchase direct from the van.
Another employment issued two pairs annually due to external working so as to address the potential for wet boots (wellingtons were not considered appropriate footwear due to other hazards).
Current employment are replaced when "worn" and no longer fit for purpose.
Common theme at all was a reasonable average price limit - not cheap but also no free for all in the catalogue e.g. Kevlar forestry boots in a non forestry environment.
Specific considerations for PPE leaving site:
1) Will it make it back the following day / shift? Start asking the question and you may find the employees reason for taking things home is that they have no locker in which to store work gear.
2) Contamination issues from site materials adhering to the footwear and work wear being transferred in to the employees car / home / public environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We issue a document to all of our staff giving the expected life span for all of our PPE. However, these are expected and not absolute. If a pair of boots become unfit for purpose then they are exchanged.
We track all of our PPE to see if we see any trends on use and if a particular item is being replaced more often than our expected life, then we review the product and replace if necessary as well as reviewing the risk assessment to ensure that it is the right PPE in the first place.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have a new for old policy with boots. We instruct the operatives on how to care for their boots and when / how to exchange for new.
I often wear mine when gardening and helping people move :)
|
 1 user thanked Mr.Flibble for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Although we do not have a written policy specific to the boots, we do have a general policy for PPE/RPE.
We do not allow anybody to take home any of their safety equipment on the grounds that they may be transporting some of they chemicals from the workplace with them.
We try very hard with other control measures: LEV, house keeping and supervision (to name a few) but we cannot guarantee that the safety shoes/boots will not have some work place detritus on them.
In terms of replacing, we say annually or when damaged. We set a price limit of £40/50 per pair. If the operatives want a fancy and expensive pair, we ask them to make up the difference, unless there are medical reasons involved etc.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi everyone
Many thanks for the comments.
This has helped me very much.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel's point is very valid
- the tax man even wanted us to put coloured tags on our boots so as it was obvious that they were boots supplied by work as staff would not want to take them home because if they did the tax man was to treat them as a perk???!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
bob youel wrote:A Kurdziel's point is very valid
- the tax man even wanted us to put coloured tags on our boots so as it was obvious that they were boots supplied by work as staff would not want to take them home because if they did the tax man was to treat them as a perk???!!! been there had that argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The fact that the above response is addressing a post from 9 years ago, followed by a clear indicator of US influenced English language & the hyperlink to a shoe company makes me suspicious that is is an AI Generated response...
|
2 users thanked AndrewFM94 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: AndrewFM94  The fact that the above response is addressing a post from 9 years ago, followed by a clear indicator of US influenced English language & the hyperlink to a shoe company makes me suspicious that is is an AI Generated response...
we appear to be getting more and more of these - how do they get past teh security check? Or is a human cutting and pasteing the response? My comment has just been rejected because i have tried to post 2 comments two close together GRRRRRRR!
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: HSSnail Originally Posted by: AndrewFM94 The fact that the above response is addressing a post from 9 years ago, followed by a clear indicator of US influenced English language & the hyperlink to a shoe company makes me suspicious that is is an AI Generated response...
we appear to be getting more and more of these - how do they get past teh security check? Or is a human cutting and pasteing the response? My comment has just been rejected because i have tried to post 2 comments two close together GRRRRRRR!
Honestly, I am not sure how they are circumventing the controls & also the benefit of them actually posting the information! I've not been active on this forum for nearly 3 years now and have only just started using it again, however there is a clear issue with the AI generated posts at the moment
|
1 user thanked AndrewFM94 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well the fact that the offending posting has been taken down might mean that IOSH is looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
At least it refreshes our thinking about PPE, not a bad thing. Going back in time Asbestos workers took their PPE (overalls) home and the wife washed and ironed them, this meant the wifes suffered the harmful effects as well. Firefighters in some brigades leave their worn Bunker Gear (PPE) for collection by a cleaning company who return cleaned gear to the stations. I don't think they are issued personal PPE except for the likes of boots and helmet. Don't know what precautions are takes regarding dirty PPE and the cleaning company, although any decontaminated PPE will be bagged up and labelled with the name of any harmful substances and relevant paperwork attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
They are back and more brazen than ever. what have sports boots to do with H&S and why are they marketing directly thorough the forum? reported and I suspect that the blurb that the link is embedded in is AI generated. I am not a robot because I remember poggles wood!
|
3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel what have sports boots to do with H&S. I am not a robot because I remember poggles wood! Many years ago a boot manufacturer had a travelling sales van that came to our site and started selling a "new" lightweight waterproof safety boot - 12 months later they were selling the same boot without the toe cap protection in to the emerging leisure market for hiking at a £50 per pair premium. Meanwhile I have finallly abandoned my trusty riggers (no longer paddling around constuction sites) and have some trendy luminescent lime green & black ultra lightweight toe cap training shoes for trapsing round the factory & warehouse. I must be AI because my web scrape tells me the programme fom my childhood was Pogles' Wood
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel what have sports boots to do with H&S. I am not a robot because I remember poggles wood! Many years ago a boot manufacturer had a travelling sales van that came to our site and started selling a "new" lightweight waterproof safety boot - 12 months later they were selling the same boot without the toe cap protection in to the emerging leisure market for hiking at a £50 per pair premium. Meanwhile I have finallly abandoned my trusty riggers (no longer paddling around constuction sites) and have some trendy luminescent lime green & black ultra lightweight toe cap training shoes for trapsing round the factory & warehouse. I must be AI because my web scrape tells me the programme fom my childhood was Pogles' Wood
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
AI's know nothing but can spell I know it all it but can't spell!
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
REPORTED the Grip's second go at infiltrating the Forums (currently #20) after first had been removed following being reported by Roundtuit. SOOOOO much easier when there was a team of Moderators who were on the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
....Meanwhile I have finallly abandoned my trusty riggers (no longer paddling around constuction sites) Wouldn't have been welcome on my sites - lack of ankle support from Rigger Boots Edited by user 21 September 2023 12:27:49(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes Wouldn't have been welcome on my sites - lack of ankle support from Rigger Boots
Bit more support than the wellingtons you see foundation subbies wading around in or the new generation of construction worker plodding round in loosley laced footwear. Even in well laced boots that extend to cover the ankle they do not stop a twist or sprain happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes Wouldn't have been welcome on my sites - lack of ankle support from Rigger Boots
Bit more support than the wellingtons you see foundation subbies wading around in or the new generation of construction worker plodding round in loosley laced footwear. Even in well laced boots that extend to cover the ankle they do not stop a twist or sprain happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Since the thread has reverted to actually talking about the actual issues.... Can't remember how long ago it was when Network Rail introduced a ban on rigger boots nor exactly what exceptions were included, but the ban was based on real evidence of accidents often involving people tripping on ballast. It will all now be in a Railway Group Standard. So, given the choice of train derailment v risk of tripping on uneven ground, it's no contest and insisting on ankle support in the last line of defence to mitigate the trips was sensible. Conversely elsewhere the starting point should be safe walkways and ankle support in boots is not so critical. ....and if people are at risk of wet concrete sloshing around during foundation works (then whilst the wet concrete shouldn't be simply sloshing around) then chemical resistant wellies might be the right choice of boots.
All with a little regard to the culture at the time. It must have been in the early 1990s that I suggested to one of those administering the Contract for the widening of a road to form a M-way that perhaps some of their staff might like to trial some nice urethane wellies - in yellow to add a further element to the hi-viz. The response came in a form of words that I am prohibited by Forum rules from repeating here. Anyway we trialled urethane wellies but not i yellow, even though I had pointed out that these were not commonly in use on comparable sites in Germany.
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel AI's know nothing but can spell I know it all it but can't spell!
So at least i have some Intelegence even if its artificial LOL. Just looked at 6 topics and Im fairly sure everyone has had an answer from AI or a bot - is H&S being targeted or is this now normal for all forums?
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Brain and fingers can't have been working for my last posting - an i when obviously I meant a two letter word and then a "not" entered a sentence to make it say the opposite of what was intended. However, on the subject of AI, the company that has been identified as having a link to a poster here who seemed likely to be AI, has now started posting threads on LinkedIn which look way off the company's mainstream business and commenting on things like RAAC (NO - I am not going to go to an H&S training company for advice on RAAC) and Safety Signs (there is HSE guidance for those). So perhaps AI is taking over LinkedIn as well as intruding on these Forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch has now started posting threads on LinkedIn which look way off the company's mainstream business and commenting on things like RAAC
The perpetual arms race of Search Engine Optimistaion placing new content words and phrases to direct searches in order to generate "likes" and views - at the forefront of this charge are the scammers ensuring it is their pages which appear near the top of search results aided and abetted by the providers statistics. Like all wars the first casualties are integrity and truth.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch has now started posting threads on LinkedIn which look way off the company's mainstream business and commenting on things like RAAC
The perpetual arms race of Search Engine Optimistaion placing new content words and phrases to direct searches in order to generate "likes" and views - at the forefront of this charge are the scammers ensuring it is their pages which appear near the top of search results aided and abetted by the providers statistics. Like all wars the first casualties are integrity and truth.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I read an article somewhere recently (sorry, I don't remember where, but I think a reputable publication) which claimed that bots are quicker at successfully completing the not-a-robot tasks such as identifying all the pictures with traffic lights / bicycles / bridges inthem than human users are. So I don't see why they couldn't do the letter task on this forum.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
1 user thanked RVThompson for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.