Alan in Belfast: My Blackberry's not working ...

Alan in Belfast: My Blackberry's not working ...

How To Write A Visitors Safety Policy

Just as employers must provide for their workers, companies cannot unilaterally disclaim any liability for visitor safety. Apart from any governance applicable under OSHA regulations, neglecting visitors' safety could see you embroiled in a mess of trouble under common law or tort law. A sensible approach then would be to adopt policies designed to safeguard visitors and ensure their enforcement and effectiveness - just as you would for your own workers. Be aware too that simply posting notices stating that visitors "visit at their own risk" won't cut it in court. Disclaiming in advance and requiring acceptance as a condition of entry simply carries no weight. It would be wise then to craft a safety policy for visitors along the same lines as employers do for workplaces.

1- Visitors must be notified of any hazards they might encounter.

2- They must be made aware of all protocols and procedures in the event of an emergency.

3- All visitors must sign-in and sign-out of your facility.

4- Similar to all workplaces, must be provided with the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and on its use and reason for it.

5- Care must be taken to ensure proper fit and use of the PPE.

6- Visitors must be oriented properly and advised on the basics of behaviour during the visit.

When developing a visitors safety policy it is important to factor-in the type of industry you are in and any special features of your facility. It is important also to particular attention to the suitability of any PPE provided. For example, if the hazard assessment only calls for 'toe protection' the protective footwear cannot be ill-fitting or so awkward to wear that it constitutes a hazard in itself!

While it may never be possible to avoid liability for visitors' safety entirely it may be possible to do so if you can prove that your safety policies were not adhered to. Just as with workers' safety you are only required to behave responsibly as any reasonable person should. If your visitors safety policies are communicated properly and enforced consistently you should be able to avoid injuries and nasty lawsuits.

Truckers leading with their 'toes

Toe injury is an all too often occurrence in the trucking business. There are loads of hazards in and around trucks, loading docks and warehouses: heavy boxes, shifting load pallets, moving equipment, tail-gates.

The pace of work is fast too. Truckers are expected to unload quickly and move on to their next appointment. Dock levelers don't always operate smoothly and a swift kick is often required. Loads can shift in transit, resulting in heavy goods falling out unexpectedly when cargo doors are opened. Forklifts and hand trucks are in constant motion. All of this activity poses a threat to the driver’s toes as they wait for their trucks to be unloaded.

Typically, a truck driver has very little to do with the actual unloading but, as described above, the truck driver’s toes are at risk. Also typically, the unloading area is governed by statutory bodies such as OSHA in the USA. Statutory bodies impose minimum standards for workplaces with hazards, and any infraction is punished under the letter of the law.

Loading docks and cross-docks are work environments where risk assessments would indicate a potential for toe injury. According to the law, employers must provide Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) suitable to protect against hazards identified by a risk assessment for every work environment under their control.

Even though the driver is on the dock for a short time toe protection would be required. Any truck driver will tell you that safety shoes or boots are not their favourite piece of attire. Especially long distance drivers, who are just not motivated to wear anything less than totally comfortable footwear when driving. Carrying a spare pair of safety shoes or boots in the cab isn't too inviting for most drivers either. There's only so much room in a truck cab.

The Solution

Fortunately, there has emerged a solution for anybody seeking occasional toe protection.

Steel toe overshoes are a rule-compliant alternative to safety shoes. They use the same steel toecaps as in safety footwear. This means a rubber safety toe will protect toes against impact and compression up to 200 joules which is 100 more than the minimum. One of the advantages of rubber safety toe overshoes is that they provide toe protection when necessary. A truck driver then can wear comfortable shoes all the way to the dock and then slip on toe protection before jumping out of the cab.

'Slipp-R' Safety Toes overshoes have benefits in excess of the toe protection they provide.

Being made of rubber they are sturdy, long lasting and offer good slip resistance. They are easy to slip on and off, tight fitting, waterproof and stylish to boot! 'Slipp-R' safety toe overshoes are very inexpensive compared to safety shoes, and they trap the dirt carried on outer shoes, making visits clean and safe.

Sharing Footwear - Urban Myth Or Unhealthy Practice?

Evidence exists that in the energy production industry employees and visitors alike are expected to step into old boots.

This is the sole verification of what I had suspected was happening. Previously I had only anecdotal accounts of the practice. Sort of like an urban myth. Apparently, when accessing a 'safety zone' every entrant is expected to pick through a selection of old safety boots. Usually there is a close enough fit available but if not, loose-fitting boots apparently are not a big concern. Oddly enough, perhaps because time spent in the safety zone is expected to be short and free of hazards, a loose-fitting boot is not considered a risk.

That being the case, I fail to understand the merits of such a culture. If the risks are minimal, why insist on a full safety boot? To make matters worse, the boots are loaded with features not required at all in the circumstances. Protection from electrical shock for example is only likely to be of benefit to those in close contact with live wires. It seems to me this is expensive over-kill for the occasional visit to a safety zone.

Furthermore, I wonder where the inventory of old boots comes from? Are they cast-offs from employees who have abandoned them or are they purchased for the purpose of lending out? Regardless, the whole idea is fraught with unpleasant images conjured up by the sharing of used footwear. It seems, in this one organisation anyway, there is no discomfort when visitors are invited to pick their temporary old boot. I suspect that the shock of being refused admission is greater than the uninviting prospect of stepping into somebody's old shoes.

There are a number of hygiene and podiatry issues associated with this policy.

The law requires that risk of injury be considered when implementing any safety program. Depending on the degree of risk it may be prudent to provide adequate PPE and to insist that any recommendation of protective equipment be mandatory. It's the safest way out given our litigious society. However, just how civilised or enlightened is it to ask workers and visitors to share footwear? The thought of it brings the risk of foot diseases, warts and verrucae to my mind. From an employee perspective such a policy could easily be considered unreasonable. The issue of sanitization is enough to put me off the whole idea.

According to Robert Shaw, M.Sc D.Pod M MCh.S, podiatrist to Diageo’s Kilmarnock whisky bottling and distribution plants in Scotland, there are some important considerations to be concerned about sharing footwear, industrial or otherwise. He agrees hygiene wise the main concern would be cross infection of pathogens. However, there may be other serious consequences. Since old boots have been pre-formed by a previous user, pressure points can arise. These pressure points are most likely to occur behind toe caps. Crease marks or flexion marks differ from person to person and can lead to friction on the upper of the foot. The much respected West of Scotland chiropodist advises those suffering from diabetes, or other systematic disorders, to be very careful. Poorly fitting boots can lead to ulceration and diabetics are prone to foot infections in general. Comfort and fit are of vital importance to a diabetic.

In this particular instance the employer is obviously rich. Not every employer can afford to provide employees with fully-loaded safety boots at no cost to them. To the employer's credit, these 'Cadillacs' of safety footwear are provided with a lot of personal choice. Fit is not usually a problem. The only company requirement is that the full range of safety features are embodied in the footwear. Unfortunately, admirable as that appears, this unusually rich cost finds its way into the cost of the product supplied to the consumer and the boot cast-offs end up as enforceable safety PPE. In this case, it would be the cost of electricity. This means that the extravagant cost finds its way into the price of all manufactures since electricity is a component cost of all goods sold. Makes you wonder if an 'old safety boots' policy is a good idea after all?

I think its time for employers to re-evaluate safety policies that insist on full safety boots where the risk assessment indicates only toe protection is necessary. Such a practice would be less wasteful economically and I happen to think it would be a whole lot more hospitable and healthy.

The 'Slipp-R' safety overshoe is made of sturdy rubber material with a steel toe cap providing similar or greater toe protection than the minimum required by international safety standards bodies. A 'Slipp-R' safety overshoe stretches tightly over outer shoes. It is easy to pull on and is transferable between users with no hygiene or health risks. 'Slipp-R' safety overshoes cost a lot less than a safety boot. It is PVC-Free, the protective toe cap is covered and coloured discs on the inside sole indicate the seven sizes. The 'Slipp-R' is acid, oil and animal fat resistant with anti-slip qualities.

Safetytoes International Inc of Toronto Takes the PVC-Free Pledge

The NEC convention is the largest of its kind on the North American continent. Patrick Smyth, CEO, said "We needed to be there if we are ever to raise awareness for steel toe overshoes. Our 'Slipp-R' was the only example of these versatile and cost-effective items of safety apparel." The 'Slipp-R', a closed toe safety overshoe which was launched in October 2006 was rewarded with a two page feature article in the show edition of the "Occupational, Health and Safety" magazine. The editor of the magazine, Jerry Laws, had never seen an article on the specific topic of steel toe overshoes and he felt an overview would be of great service to his readership.

"Naturally, we were delighted to receive such prominence in such a prestigious publication and at such an influential convention," Smyth admitted, "but when we discovered that PVC-Free products were being embraced by PPE manufacturers and end-users we were even more thrilled." The 'Slipp-R' is PVC-Free. "We use a vulcanized rubber material for our 'Slipp-R', which is made in Canada."

Many of the world's major corporations have adopted PVC-Free policies. Market leaders such as Apple, Ford, GM, J&J, Microsoft, Nestle, P&G, Sony and Volvo have taken a stand against the use of PVC. Industries and governments are making a global commitment to environmentally preferred purchasing programs. "Companies who have taken the PVC-Free pledge will no doubt be looking closely at the 'Slipp-R'", the CEO of Safetytoes International said upon his return from Chicago. "These products have been slow to gain acceptance due to a lack of marketing efforts and subsequent lack of awareness for their suitability in any situation where toe protection is necessary." The'Slipp-R' meets or exceeds all the minimum toe protection standards required by OSHA, CSA and CE.

Safetytoes International Inc., has devoted many resources to promote the use of its 'Slipp-R'. "Our safetytoes blog has been responsible for a much improved situation with respect those occasions in the industrial world when a product like the 'Slipp-R' can provide as much toe protection as a full safety shoe but at a much lower cost. The 'Slipp-R' is a robust piece of PPE that can withstand harsh environments. The 'Slipp-R' has many quality features not found in other steel toe overshoes and it's great to see the PVC-Free aspect being recognized as well."

The 'Slipp-R' is distributed throughout the world with master distributors in Europe and North America.

Protect Your Piggies Alternative Toe Protection For Diabetics

Rubber galoshes with steel toecaps not only protect vital body parts but come with some safety features lost long ago with the demise of the original rubber galosh. Once a familiar sight around the home and office, rubber galoshes were 'de rigueur' barely a generation ago. Back then; this unique piece of attire was used solely for protecting shoes. Fortunately, the rubber material also had some inherent safety features, much sought after today - if not so highly valued then.

Slips account for a large percentage of accidents. Until the collection and reporting of data became a force in the medical field, many accidents were classified according to the injured area or body part. The cause of these accidents would be due to a "slip and a subsequent fall". This is why the rubber galoshes of yesteryear were not viewed as items with safety features. Rather, they were considered pieces of clothing. The fact that the rubber gave good grip and helped create a solid footing went unappreciated.

The SLIPP-R brand of safety toes fit snuggly over the toe area of outer shoes. The galosh itself is made of a 100% rubber material and it has some other neat safety features. The concept and design were inspired by curlers on ice rinks who always need to sweep, stop and sweep. But not all surfaces are icy and these steel toe overshoes also deliver good grip underfoot in snow, rain and mud.

SLIPP-Rs for toe protection should be of interest to any diabetic who is active around the house and garden. According to a recent survey, about 86,000 lower limbs are amputated annually due to complications from diabetes. To a diabetic, the big toe is an extremely vulnerable body part with some very unfortunate consequences if damaged. Advice recommending occasional toe protection should be included with suggestions to wear thick socks, to cut toenails straight across, to exercise and always get the best fitting comfortable shoes. Shoes are of supreme importance to diabetes sufferers because poorly fitted shoes are involved in as many as half of the problems that lead to amputations.

Our ability to use our feet safely, with ease and comfort, is vital if we are to remain active and efficient at work and play. Our customers report many uses for our SLIPP-Rs around the house and at the office. The sturdy steel toe cap is stylish, light and covered. Qualities that encourage regular use which is so important for a safety culture.

SLIPP-R safety toes are direct descendants of the original rubber galosh. The original was invented by an African-American by the name of Alvin Longo Rickman, who received a patent for an overshoe in 1898. The move to vulcanized rubber was invented by Charles Goodyear in the 20th century.

So, keep the tradition and spread the word. Slips and falls are dangerous. SLIPP-R steel toe safety overshoes are good for you.

Protect your piggies!

HOW TO TOE THE LINE AND HELP FOOT THE BILL FOR SAFETY COSTS.

Economising on safety costs is something few would argue with either. So, here's a safety alternative you should know about.

Rubber safety overshoes - ' shoes with toes' - are getting more attention, for more reasons than simply cost-effectiveness. And not just because of the ever increasing numbers of temporary workers employed in this country. It's the ever increasing cost of providing fully-loaded temporary safety shoes that's bringing the whole matter of toe protection to the attention of senior management. The recent challenge by the United States Postal Service and OSHA's ruling attests to that. Anywhere a safety shoe alternative exists, that sits all right with OSHA in the USA or CCOHS in Canada, it's a win-win situation.

There’s not a thing wrong with generally accepted safety toe footwear, but all too often it seems the expensive choice is selected out of fear or a lack of understanding. Although it's true to say safety shoe policies in manufacturing have embraced rubber pull on safety toe cap products for visitors they have been 'missing in action' elsewhere. I know of one particular food processing plant that refuses to use a '”better than those yellow clacker things” solution, but tolerates gunk that might be introduced to the production floor on the soles of visitors' shoes. Their thinking is they had better address the greasy floors than more effectively provide toe protection. Some might argue the greasy floor is a hazard that should not be tolerated.

All workplaces are subject to statutory requirements and minimum standards that reflect our desire to protect workers. It is up to the employer to implement safety rules and regulations but bodies such as OSHA allows significant latitude in doing so, provided choices are reasonable and done responsibly. Careful attention is required as errors in judgement, as with willful neglect, will be punished under the law. Unfortunately, the tendency in a fear and compliance atmosphere is to avoid failure rather than attempt success. Compliance is commendable but can instill fear. That can stifle creativity which can result in unnecessarily high costs.

Take the whole matter of safety footwear. Company safety policies that lack creativity can result in over-spending far in excess of the typical fine for a safety transgression. It's a bit like this; we know there's always the possibility of rain but do we need to wear a raincoat every day? Or, would a small umbrella, costing a lot less than a raincoat, do the job just as well? Throw in the ability to offer others shelter if the need arises and you get the idea.

An employer is required to provide personal protective equipment where the risk assessment indicates as much. Risk assessment is the cornerstone of industrial safety and statutory bodies require employers to undertake one to determine what hazards can reasonably be expected in any particular working environment. There is always the chance of accident but risk assessments are not expected to be clairvoyant. They are expected to review routine operations and recommend the proper Personal Protective Equipment. (The employer is also expected to pay for it.) Risk assessments are expected to be 'reasonable' and the onus is on OSHA to prove otherwise.

There are two important things to remember. Firstly, it is the employer who decides how best to comply with the law. Secondly, organizations like OSHA do not mandate any particular piece of equipment to be used.

In the case of foot safety, OSHA’s occupational foot protection standard is 29 CFR 1910.136. This requires the use of protective footwear when employees are working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects. Once that hazard has been determined, OSHA does not recommend, or approve of, any particular safety footwear. According to OSHA in a recent letter to the United States Postal Service, an employer may comply with the criteria set forth in ANSI Z41-1991, replaced by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2412-05 and ASTM F2413-05, or the employer may opt to demonstrate that other criteria are equally effective. If the employer pursues the second option, then compliance with the consensus standards is not mandatory. This means, the burden lies on the employer to demonstrate that the footwear provided is equally as protective as the footwear that meet the ASTM F2412-05 and the ASTM F2413-05 standards.

In another fairly recent ruling, OSHA declined to comment on the suitability of the now ubiquitous ‘Croc’ clogs. It said, in situations where no hazard exists, the matter of appropriate footwear at work is between the employer and employee. This principle was reiterated when OSHA was asked to comment on rubber over-shoes. OSHA was firm in stating that it does not find rubber overshoes acceptable where they provide no toe protection. However, provided they can demonstrate that they meet minimum standards they are acceptable.

What then would be “acceptable foot protection” where there is a chance of toe injury? The first choice of many employers is ASTM or CSA tagged safety shoes or boots - the so called "approved" footwear we hear so much about in advertising. For sure, a fully loaded safety shoe or boot will provide more than enough legal defence in the event of a challenge from OSHA. What is also true is that such a policy comes at a very high cost. Not every employee requires safety toecap, steel-soled, electricity dissipative footwear. For many work situations only toe protection from falling or rolling heavy objects is required. Is it wise then to incur the full cost of a safety shoe or boot?

For example, an office worker visiting a loading dock to pick up documents will not perform any manufacturing duties while en route. This might imply that the PPE provided to the workers may not be necessary for the office worker. However, since the office worker might be exposed to falling objects, or in close proximity to heavy moving equipment, it would be reasonable to foresee only the need for toe protection against impact and compression.

In another situation a risk assessment for the production area might indicate the need for slip resistant footwear and toe protection. However, it is also reasonable to expect that a visiting office worker might not encounter slippery conditions. Furthermore, such conditions are not supposed to persist and it might be reasonable to expect the office worker to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the risk should it occur.

The danger from sharp objects underfoot requires steel sole protective footwear but where no such risk is anticipated toe protection may be all that is required. A good example would be the paper-making and the newspaper print production industry, where there is little chance of sharp objects but always a chance of rolling stock or heavy moving equipment that can injure toes. Having steel sole shoes or boots that can dissipate electrical shock is just over-kill and costly.

Rubber safetytoe overshoes provide the same protection from impact and compression as safety shoes and boots. The steel toecap meets the same ASTM standards and can easily be verified by test results from the major testing bodies. This is what makes OSHA happy. Rubber has been used for a long time in the safety footwear industry and its slip resistance qualities are well known. The rubber material is flexible but sturdy, in some cases as thick as 6mm resulting in a firm fit and some long wearing characteristics. Rubber safetytoe overshoes are a lot less expensive than safety shoes or boots and they eliminate the hazard of passing along unsanitary footwear. They are especially useful where only occasional toe protection is required, such as with visitors to production facilities, temporary workers and for medical reasons.

Safety personnel looking for budget savings, as in today’s economy, would be well advised to consider them for these reasons and more.