Loading ...
Should Individuals Have Freedom Not to Wear PPE?
OSHA laws require workers to wear PPE in a variety of situations. But should wearing PPE really be a legal requirement? One could argue that forcing people to wear PPE is an infringement of their liberty.
PPE and Personal Freedom
The argument that individuals should be free to decide for themselves whether to wear PPE isn’t a new one. For example, it’s been raised in Canada in challenges to laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.
And it was recently raised in a new context—the elite world of dressage, a competitive event in which horse and rider are judged on the elegance, precision and discipline of the horse’s movements.
PPE in Dressage: Tradition v. Safety
According to a recent New York Times article, helmets are required in equestrian sports that involve jumping. But in the highest levels of dressage, riders wear a top hat. You can imagine how much protection a top hat provides! And because serious falls aren’t common in competitive dressage, many riders never wear a helmet—even while practicing.
But falls do happen in dressage—and the results can be devastating. Take the case of Courtney King Dye. When her horse slipped and fell, she went down with it, fracturing her skull. She was in a coma for weeks. After months in rehab, she’s finally regaining her speech and the use of her right side.
The tide may be turning, however, when it comes to wearing helmets. At the current World Equestrian Games, a few prominent riders wore helmets at practice. The entire Canadian dressage team wears helmets during practice. But still, the vast majority of riders don’t wear helmets while practicing. And even those who do wear helmets to practice don’t wear them to compete.
The article also notes that riders who wear helmets in practice still seem to believe that doing so is a matter of personal choice and don’t necessarily think that a helmet requirement should be imposed on all riders.
The Indirect Consequences of Personal Choice
It’s highly unlikely that the OSHA or Canadian OHS laws will be changed any time soon to make wearing PPE optional. But don’t be surprised if workers at construction or industrial sites play the freedom card to avoid having to wear PPE. In fact, religious objections to PPE, such as by a Sikh worker who objects to shaving to effect a facial seal for a respirator or removing a turban to wear a hardhat, are common.
Should workers have the freedom to refuse to wear PPE? The argument is more compelling when the worker’s refusal to use PPE endangers only the worker. But that’s hardly ever the case. For example, a worker entrusted with shutting down the power in the event of a gas leak carries the safety of many others in his hands. So allowing that individual to choose to expose himself to harmful gases without a respirator would be sheer lunacy.
In addition, even if the worker is the only one at risk of physical injury, when a workplace injury occurs the company incurs indirect costs, such as increased workers’ comp premiums, costs of replacing the injured worker while he’s out, reduced production, etc.
Bottom line: No matter how you cut it, workers should be required to wear PPE—not only because it’s required by law but also because it’s the responsible thing to do.
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (6)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IF workers were given the right to chose whether or not to wear PPE would employers also have the right to deny claims based on the worker's right not to wear PPE that a Hazard Assessment indicated was required to protect them from the residual risk of a legitimate hazard? Would OSHA (state or Federal)waive responsibility for the employer to provide and make mandatory? I don't think that either of those could reasonably be expected to happen and would be MAJOR obstacles.
I also think it's a stretch to compare helmet laws to occupational PPE requirements.
PPE in Dressage and PPE in Occupational requirement, do not compare. PPE in dressage is a individual issue but occupational PPE requirement is involved with employee and employer and the company HSE Policy crearly states that the company ( The Employer ) is committed to the safety of their employee. Therefore it is a morale and legal requirement, workers should be required to wear PPE
The Canada Labour codes stipulate that it is the employer's duty to provide every person granted access to the work place by the employerwith prescribed safety materials, equipment, devices and clothing, but Part XII of the Canada OH&S Regulations use the words "the employer shall provide"for some PPE and just "shall be used" for other PPE. Are employers obligated to provide those PPE where the rules don't say "employer shall provide"? i.e.Protective headwear and footwear
I'm in line with Ron Tolsma's comment about employer's ability to deny any claim resulting from a unilateral choice not to wear needed and employer-provided PPE, but reality intrudes. The Carribean islander wearing the bag of dreadlocks on his head and who cuts half of his hardhat suspension harness away to accomodate said same bag of hair is not going to be responsible for his own stupidity as he lays in a hospital bed with a severe concussion or worse. Nor are survivors of his stupidity going to hold him accountable for his choice and say "Gee, Mr. Employer it's not your fault he wasn't wearing his PPE properly." Nor will OSHA walk away without issuing a citation. Having been thru the above on multiple occasions, the employer offers this choice - cut your hair or otherwise arrange it to wear the PPE as designed or go work elsewhere... and don't come back. This is the only way to protect the company and the worker intent on being his own worst enemy.
If this is to be a truly theoretical academic discussion then we should consider the end result of a truly successful behavioral based safety program. We would begin with a dual premise: company 'x' hires employees amenable to & capable of freely embracing BBS programs AND ultimately have all the 'tools' (training, PPE, guarding, etc) available to those employees so they could make intelligent choices based on their own physical & mental attributes. Pre-OSHA there were more injuries BUT there were also employers and employees who despite working with far fewer safety options, did so safely. A significant number of employees in high hazard industries were never injured in 40 year careers. Why? The burden was placed on the employee to make intelligent, informed choices. Admittedly the "informed" part of the equation hinged on how concerned the employer was with safety. But consider today: even if we have an optimum safety program, a cutting edge BBS (OSHA VPP) program still relies on individuals to make choices before every action taken. No, I am not advocating we make PPE optional but I am saying in a superb safety program, employees would utilize PPE because they chose to, not because the employer told them to. And that would be, I submit (& admit), a perfect world. Nonsense you say but look around your neighborhood: some people consistently behave safely, others don't yet they perform the same tasks. Some people can cut food repeatedly without mesh gloves or arm guards & never get a scratch. Some can be do-it-your-selfers acting as carpenters, electricians & mechanics and never get a scratch.
Why? They use their own individual brand of BBS (and old fashioned common sense, self-reliance, et al)
Until employers no longer have to pay WSIB Premiums for all workers, then PPE must remain mandatory. Employees entering an employment agreement with an employer in Ontario, Canada agree to be covered by the WSIB and are also covered under the Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations (for Construction Projects). They therefore have to abide by the law and wear the appropriate PPE or the Ministry of Labour will fine them. These are devices designed to protect against injury and death.