Safety Glasses - Sackable offence?
Discussion
I work for an engineering company which has recently gone health and safety mad following a takeover by a large concern
I work in the offices and have been told that when I step on to the shop floor, even if it is just walking to the next office 5 yards away, then you have to be wearing safety glasses.
This to me seems a ridiculous request given the type of work we do, the fact the machines run with doors closed, there is nothing floating about in the air that could be a risk etc. There is more chance of something getting in your eye when walking about in the general outdoors and we don't all go about our day to day lives with safety spec on
Are safety glasses a case of we suggest you wear them and if something happens to your eyes while not wearing them then you won't be covered insurance wise? Or are they a compulsory wear once issued?
I work in the offices and have been told that when I step on to the shop floor, even if it is just walking to the next office 5 yards away, then you have to be wearing safety glasses.
This to me seems a ridiculous request given the type of work we do, the fact the machines run with doors closed, there is nothing floating about in the air that could be a risk etc. There is more chance of something getting in your eye when walking about in the general outdoors and we don't all go about our day to day lives with safety spec on
Are safety glasses a case of we suggest you wear them and if something happens to your eyes while not wearing them then you won't be covered insurance wise? Or are they a compulsory wear once issued?
I've heard of several instances of chuck teeth getting spat out of a lathe at high speed and cracking and then punching through the ballistic perspex. Not that safety glasses would help much in that case mind.
One of the reasons why a lot of companies enforce this rule is that it's easier - in terms of making sure people wear PPE in the right places - to enforce a blanket "you will wear PPE on the shop floor" rule. People then get into the habit of putting them on as they leave the office. Otherwise, you find people forget to take them with them and then can't be bothered to retrieve them as it means a walk back. So they risk not wearing them when they need to.
Is it such a bind wearing safety glasses?
As to whether it's sackable? Yes it would be - eventually - as you are failing to follow your companies H&S policy which will have been put in place to mitigate the risks identified within your working environment.
One of the reasons why a lot of companies enforce this rule is that it's easier - in terms of making sure people wear PPE in the right places - to enforce a blanket "you will wear PPE on the shop floor" rule. People then get into the habit of putting them on as they leave the office. Otherwise, you find people forget to take them with them and then can't be bothered to retrieve them as it means a walk back. So they risk not wearing them when they need to.
Is it such a bind wearing safety glasses?
As to whether it's sackable? Yes it would be - eventually - as you are failing to follow your companies H&S policy which will have been put in place to mitigate the risks identified within your working environment.
wear them, i guess, it's not that hard.
however this kind of 'blanket rule' really weakens the specific rules that do concern safety. The best way to ensure a safe work environment is to ensure everyone involved understands the processes and the accompanying risks that are involved.
For example, at the end of my time at my previous two employers they began enforcing their "wear a labcoat all the time" rule. it was completely unnecessary because, whilst some aspects of my work require a lab coat, others don't, and the best judge of that is me, not somebody who is not involved. I will never handle pyrophoric material, or large quantities of corrosive or toxic things, or perform operations which could result in a fire, without a lab coat, but at the same time I don't need one to handle a few hundred mgs of some fairly inert powder. Enforcing a blanket rule just breeds resentment among people who are judging and assessing risks themselves.
however this kind of 'blanket rule' really weakens the specific rules that do concern safety. The best way to ensure a safe work environment is to ensure everyone involved understands the processes and the accompanying risks that are involved.
For example, at the end of my time at my previous two employers they began enforcing their "wear a labcoat all the time" rule. it was completely unnecessary because, whilst some aspects of my work require a lab coat, others don't, and the best judge of that is me, not somebody who is not involved. I will never handle pyrophoric material, or large quantities of corrosive or toxic things, or perform operations which could result in a fire, without a lab coat, but at the same time I don't need one to handle a few hundred mgs of some fairly inert powder. Enforcing a blanket rule just breeds resentment among people who are judging and assessing risks themselves.
RealSquirrels said:
wear them, i guess, it's not that hard.
however this kind of 'blanket rule' really weakens the specific rules that do concern safety. The best way to ensure a safe work environment is to ensure everyone involved understands the processes and the accompanying risks that are involved.
For example, at the end of my time at my previous two employers they began enforcing their "wear a labcoat all the time" rule. it was completely unnecessary because, whilst some aspects of my work require a lab coat, others don't, and the best judge of that is me, not somebody who is not involved. I will never handle pyrophoric material, or large quantities of corrosive or toxic things, or perform operations which could result in a fire, without a lab coat, but at the same time I don't need one to handle a few hundred mgs of some fairly inert powder. Enforcing a blanket rule just breeds resentment among people who are judging and assessing risks themselves.
That may be so, but when you are in charge of a workshop or work area, and it is you in the direct firing line of the H&S executive if someone else screws up, you're much less inclined to allow people their own choice of when to wear PPE.however this kind of 'blanket rule' really weakens the specific rules that do concern safety. The best way to ensure a safe work environment is to ensure everyone involved understands the processes and the accompanying risks that are involved.
For example, at the end of my time at my previous two employers they began enforcing their "wear a labcoat all the time" rule. it was completely unnecessary because, whilst some aspects of my work require a lab coat, others don't, and the best judge of that is me, not somebody who is not involved. I will never handle pyrophoric material, or large quantities of corrosive or toxic things, or perform operations which could result in a fire, without a lab coat, but at the same time I don't need one to handle a few hundred mgs of some fairly inert powder. Enforcing a blanket rule just breeds resentment among people who are judging and assessing risks themselves.
RealSquirrels said:
i can understand that, and i do believe employers have a responsibility to the safety of their employees, but i still don't think that just saying "always wear this PPE, no ifs no buts" is an approach that works well.
Certainly not from the workers perspective. Whenever I nip onto a mill these days they have those stupid perspex guards over them, which normally results in me not being able to see what I'm fecking doing.what i should make clear though is that as far as safety glasses go, i do go for always wearing them, no matter what. if there are other people working around you you don't know what they are doing, and even if you do know the risk and you know it's low, the consequences are very extreme so it makes sense to wear safety glasses. also a decent pair aren't a hindrance like some safety measures can be. so really, for safety specs, there is no excuse.
RealSquirrels said:
i can understand that, and i do believe employers have a responsibility to the safety of their employees, but i still don't think that just saying "always wear this PPE, no ifs no buts" is an approach that works well.
It does though for a number of reasons.Firstly it's far easier to administer than having to justify exceptions. Secondly, particularly where it is a new requirement, it is easier to make wearing the PPE a habit rather than something people have to think about.
rhinochopig said:
I've heard of several instances of chuck teeth getting spat out of a lathe at high speed and cracking and then punching through the ballistic perspex. Not that safety glasses would help much in that case mind.
One of the reasons why a lot of companies enforce this rule is that it's easier - in terms of making sure people wear PPE in the right places - to enforce a blanket "you will wear PPE on the shop floor" rule. People then get into the habit of putting them on as they leave the office. Otherwise, you find people forget to take them with them and then can't be bothered to retrieve them as it means a walk back. So they risk not wearing them when they need to.
Is it such a bind wearing safety glasses?
As to whether it's sackable? Yes it would be - eventually - as you are failing to follow your companies H&S policy which will have been put in place to mitigate the risks identified within your working environment.
there's also the issue of the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work act with regard to PPEOne of the reasons why a lot of companies enforce this rule is that it's easier - in terms of making sure people wear PPE in the right places - to enforce a blanket "you will wear PPE on the shop floor" rule. People then get into the habit of putting them on as they leave the office. Otherwise, you find people forget to take them with them and then can't be bothered to retrieve them as it means a walk back. So they risk not wearing them when they need to.
Is it such a bind wearing safety glasses?
As to whether it's sackable? Yes it would be - eventually - as you are failing to follow your companies H&S policy which will have been put in place to mitigate the risks identified within your working environment.
z4chris99 said:
Is guy at uni left a chuck key in a lathe which was then thrown across a wall and hit a fire break glass..
the guys it flew past shat themselves
That was a weekly occurrence in my apprentice school the guys it flew past shat themselves
Oh, and always remember to drop the table back down on a milling machine when you rapid traverse unless you actually want bits of milling cutter embedded in the wall
Could you not ask to see the risk assessment? If it appears to be OTT and unreasonable then perhaps ask your H&S rep to look at it again, and possibly pass to HSE?
I doubt you'll get anywhere, but from someone who also has a massive problem with generic blanket PPE it's something I've considered doing myself.
I doubt you'll get anywhere, but from someone who also has a massive problem with generic blanket PPE it's something I've considered doing myself.
Doesnt sound too bad
In a powerstation in SA we had to wear hard hat, shoes, glasses ear plugs and sometimes gloves.
Sounds sensible and to an extent, yes boots and hard hat are sensible, glasses didn't seem all that necessary but we had fancy hats with integrated ones so it went on as one piece. Ear plugs were definitely needed while the turbines were spinning, but we still had to wear them when they were off and actually completely dismantled. It was no louder than an office in there and we had to wear earplugs which made talking to anyone a massive ball ache. We didn't dare pop them out either because the government company we were doing the work for hired a load of what were essentially spies from the townships to keep watch and write down in their books anything to do with H&S. These people are not smart, they have been given a crash course in right and wrong with a few basic examples and its completely black and white. Ear plug out even for a second to hear what your colleague is saying (in a quite hall) and you go down in the book.
Looking in a crate/box or carrying things like tools/lifting eye bolts without gloves? in the book you go.
They had us lifting things from trucks using the big gantry cranes, loads of lifting straps and tag lines.... Sure you need all that for lifting a heavy piece incase it tries to wander, but lifting light stuff? stuff that can be taken off a truck by two men and a trolley and then taken up in the lift in seconds? daft.
Unbelievable. I mean they spent the whole time seemingly actively trying to sabotage the progress of the work.
another example (and I don't know if this guy was serious or just trying to extend the length of the dumb H&S lecture which you had to go on and was like something from the Office) was the H&S training. Presenter talked about ladders being leaned against walls, how you should have it at certain angle and that someone else should be there with you to steady it. Ok, sensible (and completely common sense). The he shows a ladder built within scaffolding, secured at both ends but at a much shallower angle, one that would be impossible to do with a ladder against a wall without it slipping. For most in the room, it is pretty obvious this thing is safe (unless the whole scaffold is going to come down in which case, if you are on it, you're f
ked anyway). But not for this guy, it was at a 45 deg angle, this was a bigger angle than the ladder on the wall example and was thus not safe. Cue a long argument about said ladder which then somehow got on to being electrocuted by power lines by carrying your ladder above your head (when the powerlines were quite high, but more importantly, no where near where you would ever be using a ladder or even carrying one...above your head).
In a powerstation in SA we had to wear hard hat, shoes, glasses ear plugs and sometimes gloves.
Sounds sensible and to an extent, yes boots and hard hat are sensible, glasses didn't seem all that necessary but we had fancy hats with integrated ones so it went on as one piece. Ear plugs were definitely needed while the turbines were spinning, but we still had to wear them when they were off and actually completely dismantled. It was no louder than an office in there and we had to wear earplugs which made talking to anyone a massive ball ache. We didn't dare pop them out either because the government company we were doing the work for hired a load of what were essentially spies from the townships to keep watch and write down in their books anything to do with H&S. These people are not smart, they have been given a crash course in right and wrong with a few basic examples and its completely black and white. Ear plug out even for a second to hear what your colleague is saying (in a quite hall) and you go down in the book.
Looking in a crate/box or carrying things like tools/lifting eye bolts without gloves? in the book you go.
They had us lifting things from trucks using the big gantry cranes, loads of lifting straps and tag lines.... Sure you need all that for lifting a heavy piece incase it tries to wander, but lifting light stuff? stuff that can be taken off a truck by two men and a trolley and then taken up in the lift in seconds? daft.
Unbelievable. I mean they spent the whole time seemingly actively trying to sabotage the progress of the work.
another example (and I don't know if this guy was serious or just trying to extend the length of the dumb H&S lecture which you had to go on and was like something from the Office) was the H&S training. Presenter talked about ladders being leaned against walls, how you should have it at certain angle and that someone else should be there with you to steady it. Ok, sensible (and completely common sense). The he shows a ladder built within scaffolding, secured at both ends but at a much shallower angle, one that would be impossible to do with a ladder against a wall without it slipping. For most in the room, it is pretty obvious this thing is safe (unless the whole scaffold is going to come down in which case, if you are on it, you're f
ked anyway). But not for this guy, it was at a 45 deg angle, this was a bigger angle than the ladder on the wall example and was thus not safe. Cue a long argument about said ladder which then somehow got on to being electrocuted by power lines by carrying your ladder above your head (when the powerlines were quite high, but more importantly, no where near where you would ever be using a ladder or even carrying one...above your head).Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 21st February 21:45
if you've a (even incredibly mild) prescription, use it to your advantage.
You can choose your prescription safety glasses.
And of course you needd an afternoon out to go and get your eyes checked at an optician. At your companies expense.
Choose your (lovely, prescription) safety glasses at the opticians, whilst out on a sunny afternoon jolly, on company time.
They turn up and are great, it's like a free pair of glasses / you don't even know you are wearing them.
That bd scratch. Need a new pair now. (that have to be provided, by their own rules)
Off to the optician...........
You can choose your prescription safety glasses.
And of course you needd an afternoon out to go and get your eyes checked at an optician. At your companies expense.
Choose your (lovely, prescription) safety glasses at the opticians, whilst out on a sunny afternoon jolly, on company time.
They turn up and are great, it's like a free pair of glasses / you don't even know you are wearing them.
That b
d scratch. Need a new pair now. (that have to be provided, by their own rules)Off to the optician...........
GT03ROB said:
RealSquirrels said:
i can understand that, and i do believe employers have a responsibility to the safety of their employees, but i still don't think that just saying "always wear this PPE, no ifs no buts" is an approach that works well.
It does though for a number of reasons.Firstly it's far easier to administer than having to justify exceptions. Secondly, particularly where it is a new requirement, it is easier to make wearing the PPE a habit rather than something people have to think about.
your second point 'it's easier to make it a habit than something to think about' is a bit worrying. The only way to have an actually safe workplace is to have people think through the dangerous activities they are doing and take steps to minimise the risk. You want them to think things through and take safety measures, the first of which would probably be identifying the correct PPE.
so your argument comes down to: "we can't be arsed to implement proper measures to ensure a safe workplace so its easier just to tell everything they have to wear X/Y/Z ALL THE TIME."
RealSquirrels said:
GT03ROB said:
RealSquirrels said:
i can understand that, and i do believe employers have a responsibility to the safety of their employees, but i still don't think that just saying "always wear this PPE, no ifs no buts" is an approach that works well.
It does though for a number of reasons.Firstly it's far easier to administer than having to justify exceptions. Secondly, particularly where it is a new requirement, it is easier to make wearing the PPE a habit rather than something people have to think about.
your second point 'it's easier to make it a habit than something to think about' is a bit worrying. The only way to have an actually safe workplace is to have people think through the dangerous activities they are doing and take steps to minimise the risk. You want them to think things through and take safety measures, the first of which would probably be identifying the correct PPE.
so your argument comes down to: "we can't be arsed to implement proper measures to ensure a safe workplace so its easier just to tell everything they have to wear X/Y/Z ALL THE TIME."
PPE is not a substitute for safety. The analogy is with seat belts / airbags & safe driving. Habit for PPE / seat belts is essential. Careful planning (thinking) of work / driving is essential to arrive safely. Habit in working/driving is dangerous.
PPE does not equal safety, it's a protection when everything else fails. PPE should be tailored for specific work practices, but basics such as safety glasses when on the production floor are & should be mandatory.
Put it this way; if some freak accident did happen - however unlikely it'll be company that will be to blame and you'll lose your sight. You only get 1 set of eyes and even the smallest thing can damage them. OK, it hasn't happened now and will not likely to but the fact remains it can.
They pay your wages, so they set the rules. For the sake of putting some specs on for 30 seconds; is it worth getting annoyed about.
I know if I was a company owner I'd want to cover my own backside should anything bad happen; plus I would want to make sure my staff are working in a safer environment. It's win/win if you look at it from their perspective.
They pay your wages, so they set the rules. For the sake of putting some specs on for 30 seconds; is it worth getting annoyed about.
I know if I was a company owner I'd want to cover my own backside should anything bad happen; plus I would want to make sure my staff are working in a safer environment. It's win/win if you look at it from their perspective.
RealSquirrels said:
What you're saying is that it's easier for employers to implement. that is a very different thing from being effective. If you mandate safety measures across the board, whether they are necessary or not then you weaken the effect.
so your argument comes down to: "we can't be arsed to implement proper measures to ensure a safe workplace so its easier just to tell everything they have to wear X/Y/Z ALL THE TIME."
This for sureso your argument comes down to: "we can't be arsed to implement proper measures to ensure a safe workplace so its easier just to tell everything they have to wear X/Y/Z ALL THE TIME."
How often does anyone pay attention to someone in a hi-viz anymore. The postmen doing their rounds wear them, window cleaners wear them, runners, cyclists, dog walkers and people that stack shelves wear them. So when people do actually need the added benefit of them, people don't give them a second glance.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff