# Question of Attitude... 'introducing' PPE to the workplace



## de27192 (Dec 11, 2014)

Hi All... sorry I have been quiet lately

I have an interesting question which has cropped up in conversation recently and would be interested to hear others' experiences in how to approach this.

How have you dealt with introducing PPE / 'clipping on' / rescue systems + plans / etc into a workplace where existing systems have been slacker... without coming across as the dreaded 'health and safety nazi'. I'm sure we all agree that there are many scenarios where adding such systems to a working practice can make it more tiresome and more bother than it were without. Does anyone have any tips for introducing and positively encouraging the use of such systems to a workforce who are very much used to and happy with the system as is... without coming across an over-zealous perfectionist who wants to write a risk assessment for your morning shave and everything upwards of that.

Examples could include cat ladders with no hoops / inertia reel / track system / etc which, if fallen from, could clearly cause serious injury. How do you encourage people who have happily climbed these, minus fall prevention, for several years - that it would be better to use fall protection equipment. Or lighting bridges with open fronts, where a moment off balance could clearly put you over the front, yet again people have managed several years of safe usage without even a near miss. These are situations where I have absolutely no difficulty in justifying the legal and moral requirement to do so... they are places where accidents could both (A) obviously happen; and (B) obviously be prevented; but do have difficulty justifying the actual real need for, to people who have happily used the equipment without incident for a noteworthy period.

Before the obvious answers come flooding in... for the sake of this question; the equipment *can* be provided no issue; and designed into the working situations by an experienced [email protected] / Rescue professional. The obligatory requirement to use the equipment *can* be written into working regulations and that is all very well. However on the basis that (A) people cannot be supervised all the time, (B) people can often be very set in their ways, and (C) the use of such equipment may plausibly mean that some routine tasks can become more effort than people have been used to - without incident; I am interested to know how people have succeeded in positively encouraging their workforce to adopt these practices, and enthused those people towards the benefits of using it; without causing themselves unpopularity in the process.

It is one thing when an external representative comes into a workplace and says "you must do this, this and this". With such people you can berate them and call them names til the cows come home once they've left the building. But when the person trying to introduce the system of work into an existing environment has to live and work as part of the team, with other roles therein, it is much more important to earn respect and appreciation for your efforts, than have them considered an inconvenience.

I am sure there will be forum members here who have experienced this kind of scenario and I am very interested to hear from anyone in that boat. It's all very well running in and shouting regulations, but in scenarios where people have become used to an existing way of working, I feel it is far more constructive to get those people positively enthused about adopting new and safer practices, than doing them simply because they're told to; as well as helping people see that doing otherwise is not simply a case of pulling a naughty when nobody's looking, but it is actually posing a genuine and plausible risk to life that we should all be enthused about preserving.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Dec 11, 2014)

I don't think all of the hazards you describe are equal and resist the all or nothing approach. Certainly, some walking on beams in an arena to make some hard points, require fall protection. On the other hand, someone on a lighting catwalk where the rails are 20 or 21 inches apart (clear opening) instead of OSHA's 19 inches, I'm not convinced. (I've tried to pitch myself through rails 22 inches apart and can't see how its even possible for an adult.)

So, should ppe be more commonly used by entertainment technicians? Certainly, but let's look at each situation.

I think that a good view of what has happened - rather than what might possibly happen - would be a better starting place. My estimate is that between falls off of the stage - into first row or pit - combined with falls involving ladders have resulted in the clear majority of injuries and deaths among all workplace incidents for entertainment technicians. Wouldn't energy and resources be better spent on those hazards than say lighting catwalks, where its hard to find a single incident?

But its a good subject and even the greater awareness resulting from you having posted is likely to prevent a potential injury.


----------



## de27192 (Dec 11, 2014)

My examples were mere examples and I don't want to dwell on them too much. I appreciate you haven't but I just wanted to make that clear. This is more about attitudes than individual circumstances.

Of course I also think the focus should be on making the task safer, or making the infrastructure safer. PPE is a last resort. But sometimes we're forced into that last resort. 

In the particular situations my original conversation (in real life) refers to, I can assure you that there is a definite need identified for additional safety measures in key areas. Furthermore, there's no need to spend time and resources in any key area... there are ample resources to spend in all areas, we would much prefer to reduce risks, than reduce our workload or expenditure.

So not to knock back your response at all, but I am still interested to hear how people have approached the situation where your colleagues/employees may have felt as though your additional measures were burdening them rather than helping them, and how to overcome that and lead them to a point where the apparent burden is considered a worthy trade off against the risk that they may not personally feel is all that present.


----------



## TheaterEd (Dec 11, 2014)

I always use the old stand-by of, "sorry guys, this is out of my hands, my boss says we have to do it this way now." If you don't have someone to blame then make something up. "I got an email from an OSHA representative. Apparently someone pointed out to them the fact that we (Insert unsafe practice here) and they are asking that we take action to fix the situation before they have to inspect us or else we will get fined".

If you can't come up with a plausible scapegoat then one point that I like to make is to illustrate what you are risking your life for. An example conversation:

True, you likely won't fall off the ladder if you stand above to recommended step. You have done it dozens of times without falling. However, if you were to fall, you may be unable to walk, or lift your child, or breath without assistance for the rest of your life. Is that risk worth the minute you saved by not getting the proper lift/ladder? I didn't think so.

Good luck


----------



## egilson1 (Dec 11, 2014)

As the safety officer for my company I deal with this all the time. I am constantly researching and then educating our staff as to the proper PPE for any number of situations. The key is that it is indeed coming from the top. The owners have made a decision to promote the attitude that safety is job number one. Everyone deserves to go home at the end of the day. We also make sure that everyone knows that if people decide to not follow the rules that there will be consequences for those actions. That can be anything from a verbal warming all the way to termination of employment. I can tell you our insurance company looks favorably at our efforts and takes that into consideration when evaluation our insurance rate.

I would start slow. Get management to agree more needs to be done and give a person the authority to implement those changes.. Then start mentioning to the "workers" that over the next few months there will be changes in the safety rules and that safety is everyone's responsibility and that they will have an active part in developing the rules.

The truth is that we are all probably doing things that ALREADY do not comply with OSHA. Why wait for something bad to happen and for an OSHA inspector to fine you for failing to correct what you already knew was wrong?

Regards,
Ethan


----------



## NewChris (Dec 11, 2014)

Can someone link to what the official OSHA rules are in a theater? I know they don't have separate laws for theater/ entertainment, but what laws / rules apply to theater?


----------



## egilson1 (Dec 11, 2014)

The two titles usually used when dealing with live entertainment industry are 1910 (General industry) and 1926 (Construction).


----------



## techieman33 (Dec 11, 2014)

I think for most of us that are used to working in situations without it the only carrot you can offer is that you get to keep your job. And I agree with others about it coming from the insurance company, OSHA, executive director, etc. 

In my main venue I don't have to wear a harness in the cat walks. In another venue I work at occasionally they require a harness to go up into their cat and I find it really hard to use them. I really have to think about it and force myself to use it. I'm sure it's one of those things that over time would just become normal, and not a big deal. But that first year or two would be really hard.


----------



## de27192 (Dec 11, 2014)

I understand the scapegoating principle but I dont like it. I want people to think to themselves:
_
"I want to embrace these additional safety measures because of (insert good motivator here)"_

Not

_"I am going to embrace these additional safety measures because I've been told I have to"_

It's just that the former will have people making an effort to be safe as possible and striving to drive it forward and have others doing the same. It will self police and be seen as positive. Saying it's come from above Etc yes it works but you end up with people who do it because they have to, not because they want to... And they say one volunteer is worth an army of conscripts.


----------



## techieman33 (Dec 11, 2014)

de27192 said:


> I understand the scapegoating principle but I dont like it. I want people to think to themselves:
> _
> "I want to embrace these additional safety measures because of (insert good motivator here)"_
> 
> ...



I just don't think there is a good motivator in situations like this. If you have new people then sure, you can motivate them by telling them that the system will keep them safe in an accident. However it's a lot harder when people have been going without it for years. They already feel safe and comfortable up there. It's just like seat belts in a car. They've been required by law for decades in most places and people still don't wear them. People even have a lot more real life examples of seat belts saving lives of people they know. Unlike fall arrest where they might have heard a story about one guy falling off of something years ago in some far away place.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Dec 11, 2014)

I am glad to hear that you don't want to employ the scapegoat principle. First, there will be an understanding of "that person isn't here, so why should I?". Also, as you said, they should be willing to accept it for valid reasons.

If you haven't taken the OSHA 30-hour class and competent person class, then you should, especially if you are the one in charge of a safety program. You will, as a competent person, learn all of the risks involved and be better able to explain to the technicians the reasons why they should follow the guidelines. It would also be good to have someone familiar with theater come in and do a risk assessment of your space. Beyond the risks of falls, we have many other risks including shock, arc flash/blast, chemical, and fire. To top that off, we are in an ever changing environment that is also in a permanent structure (which is why we follow both general industry and construction). A competent person should be able to help you define shich areas of the performance venue falls under which regulations and at what times. 

I applaud your desire to create a safe workplace. It is a difficult journey to say the least. I know of at least one stagehand who grumbled about safety all of the time, but followed it as was required. He happened to be saved by that system when he fell off of a leading edge in a moments lapse of judgement. It can happen in a moments notice. If we knew when it was going to happen, it wouldn't be an accident.


----------



## de27192 (Dec 12, 2014)

ruinexplorer said:


> I am glad to hear that you don't want to employ the scapegoat principle. First, there will be an understanding of "that person isn't here, so why should I?". Also, as you said, they should be willing to accept it for valid reasons.
> 
> If you haven't taken the OSHA 30-hour class and competent person class, then you should, especially if you are the one in charge of a safety program. You will, as a competent person, learn all of the risks involved and be better able to explain to the technicians the reasons why they should follow the guidelines. It would also be good to have someone familiar with theater come in and do a risk assessment of your space. Beyond the risks of falls, we have many other risks including shock, arc flash/blast, chemical, and fire. To top that off, we are in an ever changing environment that is also in a permanent structure (which is why we follow both general industry and construction). A competent person should be able to help you define shich areas of the performance venue falls under which regulations and at what times.
> 
> I applaud your desire to create a safe workplace. It is a difficult journey to say the least. I know of at least one stagehand who grumbled about safety all of the time, but followed it as was required. He happened to be saved by that system when he fell off of a leading edge in a moments lapse of judgement. It can happen in a moments notice. If we knew when it was going to happen, it wouldn't be an accident.



Thanks for your supporting words. As you say, and in my view, the scapegoating system is not the answer. I want people to *want* to wear their PPE. I want people, when approaching a task that could require a rescue, to stop, conduct a 2 minute toolbox talk, and assign roles (_you_ will operate the rescue kit, _you_ will assist, _you_ will call an ambulance, _you_ will prepare a comfortable location to move the casualty to whilst we wait for the ambulance; etc). But also, I _want_ people - these people being my colleagues - to look at me as the guy who made their job safer, not the guy who made their job more difficult.

Sadly the OSHA course will not be relevant to me, I am not in the USA. But I do have industry qualifications from my own country in [email protected] and Rescue... although as I'm sure you're aware these courses are often regulation-based, and do not teach much on the subject of how to bring your new-found knowledge into the workplace... particularly in a workplace where such knowledge has been lacking for a good length of time, with no incidents. This is why I was interested to hear how others have tackled the issue in their own workplaces and look forward to hearing others' experiences.


----------



## robartsd (Dec 12, 2014)

I'd start with a risk evaluation and aquisition of the appropriate equipment. Then educate everyone on the risks and proper use of the protection without _requiring_ them to use it. Be willing to be the "safety nut" who models the use of the protection even if nobody else does. I think you'll gain followers (I'd certainly join you). You could also have everyone to sign off on having received training and that they agree to be responsible for their own use of the protection - depending on your legal environment the shift of liability may be a significant motivator.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jan 4, 2015)

de27192 said:


> Thanks for your supporting words. As you say, and in my view, the scapegoating system is not the answer. I want people to *want* to wear their PPE. I want people, when approaching a task that could require a rescue, to stop, conduct a 2 minute toolbox talk, and assign roles (_you_ will operate the rescue kit, _you_ will assist, _you_ will call an ambulance, _you_ will prepare a comfortable location to move the casualty to whilst we wait for the ambulance; etc). But also, I _want_ people - these people being my colleagues - to look at me as the guy who made their job safer, not the guy who made their job more difficult.
> 
> Sadly the OSHA course will not be relevant to me, I am not in the USA. But I do have industry qualifications from my own country in [email protected] and Rescue... although as I'm sure you're aware these courses are often regulation-based, and do not teach much on the subject of how to bring your new-found knowledge into the workplace... particularly in a workplace where such knowledge has been lacking for a good length of time, with no incidents. This is why I was interested to hear how others have tackled the issue in their own workplaces and look forward to hearing others' experiences.


 
Sorry for the delayed response. RE: OSHA course. One of the reasons I recommend a course like this, assuming that your system of training is similar to the OSHA training, is that it not only provides training on the regulations, but more so the _reasoning_ behind the them. The regulations are freely available for anyone to read, but employees do not generally understand how that applies to them in the workplace, especially in an environment such as ours. So, if you are trained to be a "competent person", then you not only have the resources to know how to be safe and to identify potentially hazardous situations, but you will also have the knowledge to share that (as according to the training programs I have been witness to). 

As to the reality of the situation, it can come down to how your venue decides to accept the culture of safety. It can seem that safety is only for older stagehands who no longer have the ability to take risks. Often, it is that they have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness many accidents in their career and have chosen to advocate safety later on. First off, you do need to convince the powers that be that they need to recognize the safety principles and provide means of a safe working environment (providing PPE, ensuring tie off points for fall protection, proper accomodations such as a spray booth, etc.). You also have the ability to be an example for your colleagues. If you are following proper safety protocol and they see that you can get your work done effectively while doing so, they might not be as resistant to it (though you may get a certain amount of harrassment from them until then). The venue should also adopt specific emergency guidelines, including who is responsible when an accident does happen be it a personal injury or complete evacuation.

The biggest concern is that safety is done right. There is the saying that knowledge is power, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If your co-workers decide to adopt safety without understanding how to do it right, then it has the potential to do more harm than good. This is why there is a distrust of safety systems as word gets around about some shmoe who was in a harness that fell off a ladder and ended up hanging himself instead of maybe just breaking a bone. See if the venue administration will offer safety training. In the USA, most OSHA jurisdictions will offer to do an inspection without the risk of fines, just to help make sure the workplace is in compliance and allow the employer the ability to fix errors to avoid fines in the future. Whatever method that this happens, make sure that your co-workers get properly trained. You don't want them to start using PPE, only to end up like this picture.


----------



## bobgaggle (Jan 9, 2015)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is TIME. Using PPE and taking the steps to ensure a safe environment takes more time than doing it dangerously. In my experience, the most dangerous things I've done have happened when I'm out of time. 

Example: Its tech week and the LD has the stage in 10 minutes. The shop is behind in the build and we're rushing to get the moulding up so he can focus around it. My ladder is 8' when I need a 10'. So I stand on the very top because it takes less time than walking back into the shop from the stage to get the taller ladder.

I'm sure something like this has happened to just about everybody on this forum. Safety seems to be the first thing to go when we start rushing. If the pace can be slowed (by allowing more than enough time to complete the task) safety can be more easily implemented. 

In an episode of Dirty Jobs, Mike Rowe focused on the safety of the jobs he had done. What stuck in my mind is that a lot of these jobs inherently pose risk to a human, meaning the old adage of "safety first" really can't apply, because if safety is first we wouldn't be doing the job in the first place. Rather, he promoted the idea of, "safety always". Recognize that what you're doing WILL maim/injure/kill you unless you take proper precaution. I know when most people climb to the not-a-step on a ladder, they're not thinking "I may be paralyzed from the neck down in 5 seconds", but the likelihood is there all the same. I think getting people to understand the gravity of the consequences is an effective way to instill a culture of safety. I realize this might sound like fear-mongering, but its effective. I saw a photo of a guy who had his finger de-gloved because he was wearing his wedding ring when rigging. The ring caught on some moving hardware and peeled his whole finger. I don't wear my ring when I'm rigging anymore.


----------



## Timothy A. Samuelson (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm dealing with a similar situation. There was a technician hired at the school about 6 months before I came in. He refuses to wear fall protection in the cats and actually laughed at me the first time he saw me in mine. Yes, it makes a hang take a little longer. Yes, it's a little unnecessary because our rails don't require it. But here was the catching point. What are we telling our students when in the classroom we preach PPE, but when we are working in front of the students, we don't use it ourselves. I'd rather have my students go on to college or into the industry knowing that PPE is always necessary instead of saying to an instructor or employer, "well Mr. Sam never wore fall protection when he was in the catwalk"


----------



## de27192 (Jan 10, 2015)

Timothy A. Samuelson said:


> PPE is always necessary



Sorry but if PPE is always necessary, you're doing it wrong. PPE is there to mitigate risks that cannot be controlled any other way. It's a last resort option. 

If your catwalks are sufficient to stop you falling, then you don't need PPE; and your colleague has every right not to wear it. If your catwalks are not sufficient to stop you falling, then the best option is to improve them. If this can't be done , THEN PPE can be used to mitigate the risks to an acceptable level. 

Teaching your students to wear PPE all the time is not the right approach at all. Teaching your students to work in a safe environment and only use PPE where the risk cannot be mitigated any other way would be better. But the best thing they can be taught is "wear your PPE when you're told to". Early in the careers they should never be subject to a situation where they're required to do their own risk assessment anyway.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 10, 2015)

A typical profile unit - like an ETC Source 4 - will not hang plumb under a rail with the OSHA maximum opening of 19". Some of the LED profiles require even more. We have settled on 21" - which does comply with the International Building Code and the Life Safety Code - and it works for most contemporary units. 19" spacing requires roistering out some how out rigging the unit which then requires leaning quite always over the guard, a condition that I am convinced is more hazardous than remaining balanced with feet flat and a 21" opening.

The result is PPE is technically required by OSHA.


----------



## de27192 (Jan 10, 2015)

That does not mean that "_PPE is always necessary_" though, does it? Surely as I say you should be teaching, _"PPE is necessary where the risk cannot be mitigated any other way".
_
In my current theatre, we have rails with spacing within regulation. There is then another bar which folds out from the handrail verticals, on a nice smooth rolling system. This means you can rig a lantern close to the handrail, then fold out the bar until the lantern sits at a practical distance from the rail in both directions. We have other catwalks with handrails up to waist-ish height at regulation spacing, then the LX bar at about 6'6". There is thus plenty of space below it, but there is still no risk of falling over the handrail. In other places, we simply over-rig the lanterns above the top handrail. I appreciate not all theatres are afforded this luxury but the point is that PPE is definitely not always necessary, it comes down to the individual circumstances of the theatre in question. 

In any case, my point was that stating "_PPE is always necessary_" is factually wrong. Not the first, not the last, but wrong all the same. You *can *use design and methodology to eliminate risks; before involving PPE.


----------



## Les (Jan 10, 2015)

de27192 said:


> In any case, my point was that stating "_PPE is always necessary_" is factually wrong. Not the first, not the last, but wrong all the same. You *can *use design and methodology to eliminate risks; before involving PPE.



This is correct. PPE is a "last line of defense" used after all other options of eliminating or mitigating risk factors (engineering controls) have been implemented, yet particular hazards still exist at an unacceptable level. 

As to "what is unacceptable", that may or may not be up to interpretation. You can schedule an OSHA safety walk where they can review the work environment and possibly make recommendations for corrective actions, but be prepared to actually correct any deficiencies they observe - which are subject to be unrelated what you called them in for in the first place (electrical violations, improper storage of paints, etc). It's a good idea to accompany/lead them on these tours. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Timothy A. Samuelson (Jan 10, 2015)

I think you misunderstood my statement. PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) is always necessary. Be it steel toes, safety glasses, gloves, hard hat/bump cap, harness, etc. The type of PPE is determined by the risk involved. You've zeroed in on Fall Arrest which is just one type. I'd rather teach my students that safety is ALWAYS necessary and show them what protections are available to them and when the appropriate times are to use them than, "this class is a harness. You'll never see me use one, but if you're ever on a job and they say to use it, you should." In reflection to Bill's statement. Focusing our primarily S4 rig requires an immense amount of leaning over the edge, and from some positions requires climbing off the catwalk and standing on the top plate of the wall below. I'd always rather explain why we have to buy a new lanyard because somebody slipped while leaning over the edge than why we have to deal with insurance and find a new technician.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 10, 2015)

It would be nice to see a picture de27. so I and perhaps others can understand but this is typical arrangement for me, and lower rails are 21" clear.

,


----------



## de27192 (Jan 12, 2015)

Timothy A. Samuelson said:


> I think you misunderstood my statement. *PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) is always necessary.* Be it steel toes, safety glasses, gloves, hard hat/bump cap, harness, etc. *The type of PPE is determined by the risk involved.*



Those 2 statements, if not contradictory, only suggest that you believe that risk which cannot be mitigated any other way is _constantly _present in your place of work. And that, in my eyes, means that you are not doing enough to protect the people in your theatre. It should be perfectly possible to perform some jobs there with no PPE whatsoever. If this is not the case, the issue which you need to focus on is far higher up the ladder than just getting people to use PPE.

A lot of the time at work, I wear no PPE at all. Nothing. Just my normal work clothes. No safety boots. No gloves. No helmet. Because the risks involved are not things which could be prevented by them anyway. So I may as well be comfortable in my work. Does this mean I'm doing it wrong? Is it illogical to not wear PPE when the risks that would require it are not present?


> You've zeroed in on Fall Arrest which is just one type. I'd rather teach my students that safety is ALWAYS necessary and show them what protections are available to them and when the appropriate times are to use them than, "this class is a harness. You'll never see me use one, but if you're ever on a job and they say to use it, you should." In reflection to Bill's statement. Focusing our primarily S4 rig requires an immense amount of leaning over the edge, and from some positions requires climbing off the catwalk and standing on the top plate of the wall below. I'd always rather explain why we have to buy a new lanyard because somebody slipped while leaning over the edge than why we have to deal with insurance and find a new technician.



I don't believe that I did zero in on fall arrest. Fall arrest would not be the correct type of PPE when leaning over the edges of catwalks. If you are employing fall arrest in an educational environment, out of interest what is your rescue plan? Surely having so many untrained people would make it hard to effect a rescue from a fall arrest system?

Personally I would go for a _work restraint _system whereby my harness prevented me from being able to go further over the catwalk side than was safe.


----------

