boots (not the chemist)

karcher

dickydonkin wrote: »

I can understand the employer to a degree as they are in control of what type of footwear is required for the hazard the user may encounter, however, in my experience, many employers opt for the cheapest and nastiest footwear available with complete disregard for the wearer.

This of course is folly as uncomfortable PPE could (and does) not encourage the wearing of it and if the quality is poor, it is not cost effective as having to keep replacing worn out footwear can be expensive in the long term.

It is better to get a supplier to provide samples of footwear (or any PPE for that matter) to enable the workers to try on and decide what is best for them. If you inform the supplier of your needs ie non slip/chemical resistant, steel toes etc, they will provide samples free of charge with the hope of getting the contract to supply all of the workwear - well that is what you tell them anyway.

In an ideal world, it would be better to eradicate the hazard so staff do not need to wear PPE in the first instance, however, I fully accept that for many workplaces, this is not an option.

Just to add, no employee should have to pay for their PPE or indeed anything related to health and safety at work.

Well said. Fortunately my line manager understood our need for comfortable, hard wearing, weather proof safety boots which didn't fall apart after 4 weeks wear and did send for samples for us to try on before buying. After all he had to wear a pair himself and in our line of work there was no way of eradicating all hazards.

bap98189

bugslet wrote: »

Complain again after a bit!

We provide uniform here, but gave up issuing footwear as everyone has their own preference and now just have an footwear allowance of x amount that we will pay.

We do the same. We send staff down to the local shop to get whatever make they prefer. There is no point trying to get everyone to wear the same make of boots as everyone has different feet.

ohreally

The PPE guidance notes provide an amount of detail which you may find helpful.

#32 informs...

Those who do the job are usually best placed to know what is involved, and they should be consulted and involved in the selection and specification of the equipment – there is a better chance of PPE being used effectively if it is accepted by each wearer.

Also...

The aim should be to choose PPE which will give maximum protection while ensuring minimum discomfort to the wearer, as uncomfortable equipment is unlikely to be worn properly.

[Deleted User]

ohreally wrote: »

The PPE guidance notes provide an amount of detail which you may find helpful.

Link please...

paddyrg

Suggest ALL management must wear company issue high heels and thongs. Company mandated arbitrary discomfort should apply throughout.

I have duck feet, very wide, and most/almost all designs are too narrow for me. It's been a nightmare finding shoes and boots my whole life, but in most designs the ones that are wide enough are 2 sizes too long, and create a trip hazard. I really understand, as that limits my options on steelies too. Obviously, I'd prefer to be able to wear any old rubbish, but simply can not. Maybe your work would understand if you can demonstrate that their issue boots themselves create a safety hazard like increased slipping/tripping because they do not fit your feet? The risk of a trip is much higher that that of just under 300 Joules of impact on your toes.

ohreally

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Link please...

The quote was copied from a doc on my pc, I'll post a link to the GN later.

dickydonkin

paddyrg wrote: »

Suggest ALL management must wear company issue high heels and thongs. Company mandated arbitrary discomfort should apply throughout.

I have duck feet, very wide, and most/almost all designs are too narrow for me. It's been a nightmare finding shoes and boots my whole life, but in most designs the ones that are wide enough are 2 sizes too long, and create a trip hazard. I really understand, as that limits my options on steelies too. Obviously, I'd prefer to be able to wear any old rubbish, but simply can not. Maybe your work would understand if you can demonstrate that their issue boots themselves create a safety hazard like increased slipping/tripping because they do not fit your feet? The risk of a trip is much higher that that of just under 300 Joules of impact on your toes.

I can sympathise, but unfortunately, there is nothing within the PPE regulations that allows discretion or exemption, although Sikh construction workers do have a little leeway in respect of head protection.

I recall from somewhere back that an employee refused/could not wear safety footwear because of a medical condition (medical condition not disputed), and as there was no other alternative employment for tasks that did not require PPE, he was dismissed.

He won his case for unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal, however, the decision was overturned at appeal and he was deemed to be fairly dismissed.

I am a little uncomfortable allowing employees to provide their own PPE as I believe the employer needs full control of issue to ensure the equipment is suitable for the potential hazards the worker may encounter.

Give the worker a good choice and in the main, there should be no issues, but be aware that where PPE is mandatory, then there are no exceptions - irrespective of whether the PPE is uncomfortable or not.

[Deleted User]

dickydonkin wrote: »

be aware that where PPE is mandatory, then there are no exceptions - irrespective of whether the PPE is uncomfortable or not.

It's not a case of "discomfort" though, as I pointed out in my original post. The issued boots actually caused blisters to form on my ankles which then became broken skin as the material continued to rub. I was actually in agony just walking around. The boots I bought were comfortable from day one, required no "wearing in" and (most importantly) provided a superior level of foot protection.

Regardless, I've been informed that several people have come forward with issues regarding the new footwear directive. I'll update the thread when I have more....

dickydonkin

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's not a case of "discomfort" though, as I pointed out in my original post. The issued boots actually caused blisters to form on my ankles which then became broken skin as the material continued to rub. I was actually in agony just walking around. The boots I bought were comfortable from day one, required no "wearing in" and (most importantly) provided a superior level of foot protection.

Regardless, I've been informed that several people have come forward with issues regarding the new footwear directive. I'll update the thread when I have more....

That seems like a case of discomfort to me!

Your last paragraph however raises a point that would concern me if I was responsible for safety in your workplace.

Is it the footwear 'directive' that is an issue or the footwear itself?

The last thing any safety manager would want is a PPE 'free for all' where staff are allowed to use whatever PPE they choose themselves.

The employer must have control of what equipment is brought into the workplace (that includes work/electrical equipment etc) and you just cannot allow such a scenario.

You suggest your footwear is more expensive than that issued to you by the company - let me assure you that expensive isn't always best.

You should be offered a choice of footwear because you have a more successful compliance rate if they are comfortable, however, you need to be careful as sangie595 has pointed out that potentially you could be disciplined over the matter.

Furthermore, not only has your employer to abide by safety regulations, but you as an employee also have duties under the very same legislation and one of the requirements is to cooperate with your employer to ensure he is able to comply.

I would tread carefully (excuse the pun) and try to sort this out with your employer as it is also in his interests to resolve the problem.

[Deleted User]

I won't be disciplined, whatever happens.

I'll make sure of that.

I do think there is a distinct difference between "discomfort" and "agony".