Lack of safety clothing at work.. suggestions please

RichardD1970

paddedjohn wrote: »

Design has come a long way since the days of hobnail boots, nowadays you wouldn't be able to tell by looking if the footwear were steel toe capped/reinforced or not. I used to have a pair of steel toe capped trainers that were great for five-a-side, no one knew but me.

Trust me, these were obviously NOT safety shoes, I have been wearing steel toe cap boots, shoes, trainers every working day for 26years and there is no way these were.

As I say, just an observation, and if safety shoes are required for the workers, who presumably would have had manual handling training covering at least the basics, what about the untrained customers who don't know the dangers and could get run over? The shop was quite busy with lots of children (WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN :rotfl:)

RichardD1970

dickydonkin wrote: »

It would be good practice to wear safety footwear even when using a hand pallet truck for short periods. It only takes one use to drop a pallet on your toe.

Never said it wasn't good practice, but if the risk assessment puts the risk as minimal the the company aren't going to issue every worker with a pair of safety shoes.

If there is an accident and the severity of injury is exacerbated by not wearing safety shoes then the risk will be re-assessed. And to be honest if you are the one using the pallet truck, you would have to be a bit of a contortionist to trap you foot under the load.

Jonboy_1984

Going back to the hi-vis bit where was the lorry located at the time?

Was it parked:
1)outside on a main road
2) located inside a store car park on the main customer vehicle movement area with area for vehicles to travel between lorry and store
3)located inside a store car park on parking spaces/movement area immediately adjacent to the store entrance
4)round the back of the store in a dedicated yard using the vehicles tail lift.
5)backed against a dedicated loading dock with a platform bridging the gap between the trailer and the dock?

If 3 or 4 then the exact area may not warrant hi-vis.
If 5 it definitely will not unless there are both powered forklifts and poor lighting inside.

dickydonkin

RichardD1970 wrote: »

And to be honest if you are the one using the pallet truck, you would have to be a bit of a contortionist to trap you foot under the load.

Indeed you would - but you also have to consider your colleagues who could also be working around a raised pallet. Items can (and do) drop off pallets onto feet.

When doing a risk assessment, you have to consider everyone who may be affected by the operations/processes that are going on - and that also includes secondary hazards that may become apparent when using the equipment.

I certainly cannot recall any warehouse that does not require safety boots to be worn - I'm sure there are some however.

There seems to be a focus on this thread on what can be dropped on the feet, but you also have to consider the condition of floors (oils/acids etc) and (speaking from a personal painful experience) items that may protrude through the soles - namely nails from damaged pallets!

Jonboy_1984 wrote: »

Going back to the hi-vis bit where was the lorry located at the time?

Was it parked:
1)outside on a main road
2) located inside a store car park on the main customer vehicle movement area with area for vehicles to travel between lorry and store
3)located inside a store car park on parking spaces/movement area immediately adjacent to the store entrance
4)round the back of the store in a dedicated yard using the vehicles tail lift.
5)backed against a dedicated loading dock with a platform bridging the gap between the trailer and the dock?

If 3 or 4 then the exact area may not warrant hi-vis.
If 5 it definitely will not unless there are both powered forklifts and poor lighting inside.

I don't agree with any of the above at all.

Even in areas of suitable lighting, I always advise that where workplace traffic movements are taking place that HI-VIZ attire should be worn as there will always be shaded areas and staff may have to enter external areas during the night.

Making the warehouse a mandatory HI-VIZ zone ensures staff get into the habit of wearing it all of the time - and lets face it, wearing a ligtweight HI-VIZ jacket is hardly a hardship is it?

In an ideal world, workplace traffic/people segregation such as fixed barriers is the ideal solution, however, costs will be a factor in how well this can be achieved - it's strage however, that some companies manage to finance effective segregation after a prosecution!

scheming_gypsy

dickydonkin wrote: »

You mean like the days when we sent 6 year old kids up chimneys?

waffle

you're a health and safety pest aren't you?
you probably demand that everything electrical is PAT tested, as well.

dickydonkin

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

you're a health and safety pest aren't you?
you probably demand that everything electrical is PAT tested, as well.

No - just maintained! There's no legal requirement to PAT test.

RichardD1970

dickydonkin wrote: »

Indeed you would - but you also have to consider your colleagues who could also be working around a raised pallet. Items can (and do) drop off pallets onto feet.

When doing a risk assessment, you have to consider everyone who may be affected by the operations/processes that are going on - and that also includes secondary hazards that may become apparent when using the equipment.

So what about the customer, are we all to be issued with safety boots when we shop at a certain time?

dickydonkin

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So what about the customer, are we all to be issued with safety boots when we shop at a certain time?

Should you wear a HI-VIZ jacket when walking to the shop?

You obviously know the answer to the question you raised, but shops do need to consider customers during their operations. Many supermarkets replenish their stocks during less busy periods (overnight) or when they are closed.

In one of my post upthread, I alluded to 'proportionate' control measures - the Daily Mail would love a story where supermarkets issue safety boots to customers.

In any working environment, 'collective control' measures which protect everyone - not just the individual - is always the best method, however, PPE is fine for supplementing other precautions or where a risk cannot be totally eliminated by other measures.

For bulk movements during operating hours for example in the likes of Makro, I have seen them barrier off aisles to enable fork trucks to work in the area and segregate customers from the equipment, although this method is not always safe.

I know of one incident where a customer of a DIY store was killed when a fork truck impacted with racking and despite the unfortunate person being nowhere near the truck, the impact caused some racking to collapse some way from the incident.

You will also find that for fast moving products (coke, cases of beer etc. a full pallet of the product will be stored at the end of an aisle which should reduce the need for constant replenishing if stored on a shelf.

I suspect that most accidents in a 'normal' supermarket where hand pallet trucks are used to move pallets of goods, relate to slips and trips caused by wet/contaminated floors rather than mechanical handling equipment issues.

The same cannot be said for B&Q who have regularly found to their cost (and sadly resulting in death of many of their customers) - that mechanical handling/warehouse equipment and people are not compatable.

Their premises are more like a warehouse with many customers in close proximity to forktrucks, high racking and badly stored/stacked goods. I would never let my grand kids wander around these places.

They have an appalling safety record and for those on this thread who are mocking H&S, let's hope they or any member of their family are not seriously injured or killed at work - or even visiting their local DIY store.

If by attempting to stop people getting killed and injured at work classifies me as a 'pest', then that says more about the accuser than the accued!

RichardD1970

I haven't called you a "pest".

I was pointing out, in answer to the OPs post complaining that her son hadn't been issued with safety boots, that, at my local Asda, one of the biggest in the country, the people operating the pallet trucks were not wearing safety shoes, (this was at 8.30 on a Friday evening when it is quite busy, and a large restock) so I assume that their risk assessment deems them unnecessary. In which case it may be the same for the OPs son.

Proc

He's 18.

Doesn't he find it a little patronising that his mum fights his battles for him? No wonder he doesn't speak up for himself.