Ppe

bugslet

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Quite, though if the employer requests it those that have it will be more likely to get the job I guess.

Saves the employer some money at least!

Not in my company! We buy all the PPE and have never asked a prospective employee if they have their own. I'm hardly likely to tell someone that ticks all the boxes that because they haven't got some basic PPE, that I'll take on a numpty instead. Thoughas a company we do think long-term in relation to employees.

Most anyone has when they come here is boots, but then most people just have them anyway. Next pair the firm pays for.

dickydonkin

ValHaller wrote: »

I think you are reading a little too much into this, although your concerns are entirely understandable.

Paddy is saying that the best PPE for the job is cheap enough, that you should not let the cost dictate an inferior choice.

You can't argue with that.

As for the CE mark, you are aware that there are 2 CE marks of very similar appearance but very different meaning?

• The genuine CE mark meaning Conformit! Europ!enne which indicates compliance with European Safety Legislation
• The entirely disingenuous and IMO fraudulent Chinese Export mark

Section 11 of the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking explains

Yes-I am very aware of the CE 'variation'.

And that is the point-someone may perceive the boots (for example) they are buying will be fit for the tasks they unndertake at work.

A decent employer will have any risks assessed in their workplace (a legal obligation) and if they cannot be totally eliminated, they will determine the correct PPE to reduce harm from any residual risks.

A good company will have a preferred tried and trusted supplier who will provide PPE conforming to the appropriate BS/EN standards.

And yes, equipment may cost more than a Hi Viz jacket purchased at Home Bargains - which may look right, but may not have the correct reflective properties or may not be durable and may likely have to be replaced in the short term which seems false economy to me.

I'm hardly likely to tell someone that ticks all the boxes that because they haven't got some basic PPE, that I'll take on a numpty instead. Though as a company we do think long-term in relation to employees

Unfortunately some employers and many recruitment agencies do not have that mindset - to them, candidates/employees are a commodity that in the current climate, are expendable and they will try to place the onus on the prospective candidate to supply/pay their own equipment.

I respect peoples views on this topic, however, I have to look at it from a legal perspective - again, I would certainly advise an employer to ensure the PPE their staff use is fit for purpose and conforms to the required standards.

Not only will this protect the worker - but also the employer in respect of conforming to his legal (and moral) obligations.

I also accept that this is a money saving site - however, I draw the line when a perceived saving could potentially place someone at risk.

Takeaway_Addict

dickydonkin wrote: »

Cheap - Cheap enough??? What's the difference?

Sure, you can buy reasonably priced Hi Viz jackets, safety gloves etc, however, my concern would be is that people may buy safety footwear, eye/ear protection etc assuming they may offer enough protection for the hazards they may encounter during the course of their work.

As the last line of defence in safety controls - I would prefer good quality kit to stop me from getting hurt as opposed to some low grade product sold in a discount store.

But why should employees be buying their own protective workwear anyway?The law is quite clear - employees should not be buying their own PPE and by doing so may place themselves at risk.

I'm sure many employers are quite happy for their workers to pay for their own PPE - until something goes belly up.

I've never said Employers shouldn't pay for the PPE (though some I do question the validity about).

By your method your saying the most expensive are the best which frankly you and I know isn't true at all times.

Takeaway_Addict

bugslet wrote: »

Not in my company! We buy all the PPE and have never asked a prospective employee if they have their own. I'm hardly likely to tell someone that ticks all the boxes that because they haven't got some basic PPE, that I'll take on a numpty instead. Thoughas a company we do think long-term in relation to employees.

Most anyone has when they come here is boots, but then most people just have them anyway. Next pair the firm pays for.

Which is admirable and the correct thing to be done. Though if you are all about the safety then should you not be buying boots from the start and telling the employee they are not allowed to wear their current boots as these may not conform?

dickydonkin

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I've never said Employers shouldn't pay for the PPE (though some I do question the validity about).

By your method your saying the most expensive are the best which frankly you and I know isn't true at all times.

My method is the correct way and will ensure legal compliance and workers safety - you are twisting my words. I have never stated that the 'most expensive' is best.

What I am suggesting is that cheapest is not always the best and if not sourced from a reputable supplier/manufacture, may be of dubious quality and may place the user at risk.

What is also important is the level of any residual risks and how any PPE would perform if all other controls failed and you would need to ask yourself if the 'cheaper' equipment that is there to protect you would actually do so.

Though if you are all about the safety then should you not be buying boots from the start and telling the employee they are not allowed to wear their current boots as these may not conform?

We don't know if the employer has already assessed the suitability of the boots any new employer wears - if they are indeed satisfactory, then it would be a waste if that person is requested not to wear them.

In an ideal world, it would be better to eradicate hazards so the worker does not need PPE in the first place.

Takeaway_Addict

dickydonkin wrote: »

My method is the correct way and will ensure legal compliance and workers safety - you are twisting my words. I have never stated that the 'most expensive' is best.

What I am suggesting is that cheapest is not always the best and if not sourced from a reputable supplier/manufacture, may be of dubious quality and may place the user at risk.

What is also important is the level of any residual risks and how any PPE would perform if all other controls failed and you would need to ask yourself if the 'cheaper' equipment that is there to protect you would actually do so.



We don't know if the employer has already assessed the suitability of the boots any new employer wears - if they are indeed satisfactory, then it would be a waste if that person is requested not to wear them.

In an ideal world, it would be better to eradicate hazards so the worker does not need PPE in the first place.

we're arguing semantics I believe

paddyrg

Just to clarify, I am not advocating buying dangerous cheapo PPE, just stating that good, compliant PPE is not actually terribly expensive in the first place. Especially when compared with having an injury.

If the agency just box-tick by buying the cheapest items they can find, I am advocating actually getting decent PPE you can trust for the sake of a few hours wages. Indeed it may be a case where all the contractors on site are freelance and expected to provide their own PPE anyway. It's not uncommon in my sector. As such, having good, comfortable PPE makes sense.