What are your guys' opinions on workplace safety laws?

Let's take personal protective equipment or PPE (things such as gloves, hardhats, ear plugs). Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers? Do you guys think that the company can require employees to wear PPE?

Dear Albert,

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - ensures
for the mandatory wearing of work safety equipment
for employees. An employer is obligated to provide
employees with the necessary protection - their job
requires. Including training and instructions.

Of course the equipment has to be appropriate to the
situation. It should not cause pain or serious
discomfort.

If employees refuse to wear the safety equipment an
employer is entitled to take disciplinary action
including excluding the employee from the work
place.

Hi Albert,

Its a no brainier, of course PPE is absolutely essential, and it should be provided by the employer. Work safe laws, and an investigative and enforcement bodies like 'Work Cover' are absolutely necessary. Lets turn back the clock to the good old days when there was no "safety", safety was what you made it, as for PPE virtually nothing. Take the Sydney Harbour Bridge project of the 1930's, 16 men died due to accidents, only 2 fell to their death. 16 was considered amazing for a project of the scale in those days. Hundreds of workers were killed or permanently incapacitated every year from work related accidents. There was no compensation paid. In those days there were few industries that could be considered safe. Even today with our safety laws and requirements, up till May this year, 76 workers have been killed on the job, in 2019, 174 died.

Today in undeveloped countries like India with scant regard for safety, little enforcement of industrial laws, the official figure for deaths or serious work injuries is put at 50 per day, the actual number is much, much higher.

In Australia it has been the work of the "despised" trade unions that dragged the employers and politicians to the table to create laws for the safety of workers, and associated compensation payments that came with the introduction of those laws.

I want to do everything right and follow the latest trends in employee protection legislation and attend various courses. For example, recently I was on https://alertforce.com.au/can-you-do-the-riiwhs204d-working-at-heights-course-online/ where different standards and VOC were followed retraining of personnel

//Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers?//

Yes, it's a legal requirement.

//Do you guys think that the company can require employees to wear PPE?//

Yes. Firing somebody for not wearing PPE is entirely reasonable, and isn't unfair or unlawful dismissal.

Except if you work in an all night service station or such and may be the victim of an armed robbery, then you are not allowed by law to wear or possess suitable safety equipment such as a ballistic vest (commonly, but mistakenly, called bulletproof).

You just have to hope that the medics get to you in time.

Issy I thought it was a John Howard Waistcoat. on special this week at Target. And if its a 7-eleven you cant work for award wages either, it as the ATO require, all cash in hand!

BTW; Issy can you provide evidence for your claim? I still have a shot load of PORKY AWARDS awaiting you! The clock is ticking.

Of course, some of you must be joking...really. In Australia, in 2020 as a contract, casual or prospective full time/ permanent worker under "probation" you can & will be sacked for bringing to the notice of your employer any unsafe practice, condition or PPE that is not suitable. If you want to keep your job it's a simple case of "turn up, shut up & put up". Anyone thinking other wise is off with the pixies. Employers, for the most, will provide PPE up to and including work shirts with their logo sewn on, (sometimes but not always) trousers, hard hat, gloves, clear & tinted safety glasses and very rarely, boots. Many labour hire companies will provide the minimum hard hat, glasses and a couple of shirts. There are some Pilbara based crews who provide "Pre-loved PPE", that is: it has been previously worn by someone and washed before they re-issue it for the next shutdown/crew. Lend Lease is one of those companies. When asked what "safety" is at the work site, it is best not to answer: "Safety is the risk mitigation strategy that your company employs. It is written by your lawyers at the behest of your insurer to minimise the losses to your ordinary shareholders." Rio Tinto's recent "House Rules home renovation" of a 46,000 year old rock shelter is probably not a good example to quote at a pre-start/toolbox meeting, if you don't want a 'Window seat' back home (at your expense).

Dear Albert,

«Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers?»

Since you mentioned "companies", that would be a legitimate demand.

The term "privately owned companies" is a misnomer because there is nothing private about them, all it really means is that the company's shares are not listed on the stock-exchange - the people who own a company have appealed to government to be incorporated, to be recognized as something other than individuals, hence they have no grounds to complain. Nobody forced them to incorporate: they did so because it gave them certain privileges, thus there is nothing wrong about having to pay for them in return, including by being required to offer protections to their employees.

While private individual "employers" and "employees" ought to be able to agree on their work-conditions in whatever manner they see fit (including to not even label their relationships as "employer" and "employee"), companies are fair-game to be showered with government regulations.

Yuyutsu,

There are private companies, a very small minority but they exist.

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks, so what is the difference then between a "private company" and just a private business? Isn't it the fact of incorporation, in other words of asking government for recognition and certain privileges?

Do you guys think that the company can require employees to wear PPE?

Yes, because if the company is negligent in it's dealing with members of the public it can be sued for failing to protect customers in it's retail stores if one of it's staffmembers has a virus.

- But notification of being made to wear them should form part of the job description and contract.

Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers?

Yes, because if the company is negligent in it's dealing with staff it too can be sued for failing to provide reasonable protection for them in their duties.

I think a company should be able to force staff to wear PPE if the staff member wants to keep a job.
And I think staff themselves have a right to PPE if they request it, and are in contact with others during their work shift.
(Assuming we're talking about face-masks, and a staffmembers right to protect themselves from / not be exposed to - viruses while at work)

Dear Critic,

«Do you guys think that the company can require employees to wear PPE?

Yes, because if the company is negligent...»

Yes, just as they can require employees to wear clown's hats.
As they pay for the employee's time, they can require their employees to do whatever they like during that time, at their pleasure - unless their contract states otherwise.

In the particular case of PPE, a reasonable company would require it, not in order to protect employees against their will, but in order to protect its customers, in case an employee is contagious.