Helping construction workers with safety

One of the most frequent sounds heard by safety officers and those recommending or dispensing workplace personal protective equipment (PPE) is the groan of: "Do I have to wear this?" Whether the equipment is required by state or federal occupational health and safety regulation, or voluntarily distributed to avoid costly lawsuits and shield workers from injury, one of the major obstacles for PPE use is worker compliance. And the macho world of the construction industry is no exception to this rule.

Fluctuations in the building industry over the past decade and a half, together with recent reductions in the workforce and downsizing, can and do add to this problem. Fewer employees more often than not mean fewer safety officers. On-site supervisors are now 'multi-tasked' to the point where they no longer have the time to keep an eye on each and every worker. Training in the proper use of PPE and explanations about why it is necessary may be neglected or in some cases even non-existent.

Employees who are kept on during a downswing episode may well be the most experienced and efficient workers: their training has been expensive, and their skills are valuable and difficult to replace. But they are often also the workers who baulk most at the introduction of new equipment, especially if it's perceived as uncomfortable, unattractive or unfamiliar. Construction sites around Australia are full of workers who cite their own fortunate experience - these long-term accident-free workers may become complacent about equipment they've used for years.

The frequency rate of workers compensation claims in the construction industry, at 15.5 cases per million hours worked, was around 50 per cent more than the national average of 10.2 and puts the industry second only to transport and storage as one of Australia's most dangerous.

The construction industry also recorded the second highest number of workplace fatalities, 39, in 2001/02.

According to the latest statistics from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC), in 2003 alone there were 12,582 accidents recorded (which includes fatalities) across all of Australia's construction sites.

The frequency rate of workers' compensation claims in the construction industry, at 15.5 cases per million hours worked, was around 50 per cent more than the national average of 10.2 and puts the industry second only to transport and storage as one of Australia's most dangerous.

The construction industry also recorded the second highest number of workplace fatalities, 39, in 2001/02.

The irony of PPE compliance is that even employees who recognise the value of PPE and demonstrate their knowledge and skill well enough to pass WorkSafe or even NOHSC training mandates may, over time, become lackadaisical about wearing their equipment, precisely because it is doing what it has always done: protected them from injury.

There is a variety of reasons why people resist PPE, and a number of practical ways to approach the problem. Once the type of PPE needed has been established, and the list has been narrowed to products with the documentation and proven reliability to do what's been deemed necessary, compliance hurdles can be considered. The fact is that there will always be employees who don't wear their PPE, and there will always be PPE that is too hot, too stiff, too bulky and too heavy.

However, there are a number of ways to help make the equipment more palatable to workers.

The simple reality is, though, if it doesn't fit, most workers just won't wear it - there is a reason why it's called 'personal' protective equipment. When it comes to PPE, fit literally means function. If the equipment in question is too big or too small, it probably isn't doing what it's supposed to do. And if workers are uncomfortable in their gear, they'll either 'forget' to put it on, wear it incorrectly, or be irritable and inefficient while wearing it.

Stocking a full sample range of sizes of a particular item may seem like an unnecessary expense, but every worker's body is different, and sizing charts can't cover the guy in receiving with the huge wrists and tiny hands. Employees able to try on various sizes and immediately compare fit and comfort are more likely to end up with their correct size.

Another common complaint is: "It's so bulky (restrictive, hot, cold) I can't work well."

Ironically, the features that allow PPE to provide protection are often features that make it uncomfortable. Even if it fits correctly, it can be annoying to wear. Although new fabrics are constantly being introduced, a lot of protective gear, by its very nature, is designed to keep certain substances out, often keeping the wearer's body heat and moisture in.

When it comes to areas such as the construction and building industry, investing in both hot and cold weather gear or extra linings and cooling pads can quickly add up, and the money saved because workers stayed in their PPE, and therefore stayed safe, never shows up in the bottom line. But the constantly rising costs of healthcare and the large payouts awarded to those suffering workplace injuries should be incentive enough to spend the additional money needed to make personal protective equipment as wearable as possible.

Simple alterations in a work environment can also make compliance much more palatable. Accessible temperature controls, additional fans, 'step-out' areas, convenient shelves, lockers, sun shelters and clothing hooks can make finding and getting in and out of equipment, as well as wearing it, faster and therefore easier.

Equipment that is taken on and off by workers when briefly passing through hazardous areas must be immediately and constantly available, because it's easier to go without it than go get it. Which leads to another compliance issue: consistent and unwavering enforcement of equipment use.

From a legal standpoint, if the sign reads "Eye protection required beyond this point" or "Hard hat area", then everyone setting a toe into that area must wear the proper equipment. No exceptions should be or can be allowed. The message should be clear: "Everyone who comes in here puts on a hard hat. We mean what we say, we're paying attention, and it's a matter of fact, not a choice or matter for debate."

In other words, everyone who comes in the restricted area or site, even for a minute, must always put on an apron and steel-toed boots. The implication is: "This is a dangerous place, and without your equipment, you may easily get hurt."

Using an area as a shortcut, slipping into a room to snap a new sheet into the MSDS book, stepping around the corner to answer a phone or have a cigarette, or allowing visitors access without wearing the required equipment undercuts the importance of PPE and may even render the employer's liability insurance null and void.

Choosing two or three qualified equipment styles and letting workers vote on which to use may seem like a democratic solution, but if the vote splits down the middle, half the workers will feel they 'lost' and ended up with PPE they don't like.

Instead, employers should consider offering each employee a choice between two or three styles of each item, especially unisized products, which will require only a minimum of extra paperwork and little or no additional storage space. Choices need not be as complicated as completely different products. Even different fabric or strap colours, or different storage cases, can make employees more receptive to their equipment. Picking out their own PPE gives workers a personal investment in and a responsibility towards their equipment, if only because it is the item they chose for themselves.

Labelling PPE with the user's name, even if it's worn for a short time by temporary workers, increases his or her stake in the product.

Another common complaint is: "It's ugly and I look terrible (or fat, dorky, awkward, gimpy, strange, unidentifiable) wearing my safety equipment." This might sound like a childish or petty complaint, but appearance is probably the main reason people pull off certain types of PPE, or resist wearing medically issued PPE designed to help protect or heal an injury. It's difficult to underestimate the vast importance our culture places on an appearance of fitness and so-called 'cool/hip/happening' style. This is nowhere more important than in areas such as construction where the workers are out in full view of the public gaze.

Most of us aren't too concerned about high fashion when surrounded by splashing chemicals or flying building materials, but we wouldn't choose to spend our day looking like a weirdo in clumsily designed PPE either if we had another choice.

Obviously no one looks his or her best in a respirator, goggles, earmuffs and a face shield, and most personal protective equipment wasn't created with appearance in mind.

Times, though, are changing. Safety eyewear and shoe suppliers are introducing more stylish selections, and items bearing sports and brand logos that add to consumer appeal and boost employee compliance are now available. Ergonomic design and safety effectiveness can't be sacrificed for fashion, but they can be included in more flattering styles. Other PPE producers are following the eyewear and shoe lead, if only because many products are so similar that better tailoring is one of the least-expensive 'value added' selling points.

A more comfortable, more flattering and less intrusive fit is often achieved simply by making an item adjustable: not necessarily unisized, but better able to accommodate different heights and weights.

Connecting employee commendations and awards to PPE reinforces the idea that the equipment is part of a uniform, rather than an 'extra' piece of clothing.

The methods for getting building site employees into and keeping them in their personal protective equipment are probably as varied and numerous as the workers themselves. Allowing wearers to make some of the decisions about their own equipment, and assuring their gear is as comfortable, familiar, personal and habitual as donning their own socks, is certainly preferable to cornering recalcitrant employees and demanding they wear equipment or face disciplinary action.

Proper training, demonstrations of equipment use and information about wearing it correctly, combined with a realistic understanding about attitudes toward equipment, can help defuse many objections to a necessary discomfort - potentially saving life and limb in the process. No worker should be injured or for that matter killed because of a PPE comfort issue.