# PPE - who pays?



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Employers pay for PPE, this side of the border it's an OSHA requirement..


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 1, 2015)

Other then work boots it’s 100% supplied by me, guys can bring in their own work gloves as everyone has their preference but nothing else non company supplied is allowed.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Here is south of the border rules.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I furnish all PPE, all training and still have to remind the men the importance of wearing PPE. 2-3 sets per truck depending on the employee's job.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

PPE, Meters, ladders, blades, bits, and power tools are supplied by us. I can't have people bringing in equipment I have no control over. Period.


----------



## JRaef (Mar 23, 2009)

Employers are responsible for a safety plan and execution of it. Part of that safety plan involves making sure that PPE is appropriate plus periodic inspection and/or testing and/or replacement of it. Nobody should be expecting the employee to deal with that burden and those that do open themselves up to possible liability (and criminal prosecution) if something goes wrong with an employee's PPE in an accident.

In the places I've worked where employees supply their own boots and gloves, safety companies come in for routine inspections of them and if they require replacement, the employers provide a way to reimburse the employee, but prevent them from working until it is corrected.


----------



## active1 (Dec 29, 2009)

The employer is required to pay for all PPE except work boots.
Think there is some fine print about the work boots.
Like if it's a special type of boot required for a task.
The employer would probably need to supply high voltage or chemical resistant boots.
Or if the worker is not permitted to take the boots home such as for product control or contamination reasons.

I read job postings to judge market conditions. I wish I had a dollar for every job ad that is written the employee:
MUST HAVE OWN REQUIRED PPE

All I can think is the employer does not have a clue about OSHA and job safety or they know they can get away with it. Either way it must be a poor workplace.

Keep thinking the next time I put out a job ad it will include something like:
All PPE except work boots is required by OSHA law to be provided by the employer and will be.

The truth is some workers probably just don't care as long as they have a job. Plus they still got the PPE from the last company.


----------



## billymac93 (Apr 4, 2015)

Perhaps I should have posted this query under the Canuck section. Up here, the H&S act is provincially controlled as opposed to federally. Hell, we're not even consistent province to province! The language states that employer will "provide" PPE. This has never been legally interpreted as "Pay for". Seems ridiculous in this day and age of liability and litigation but... welcome to Ontario, Canada.


----------



## WrongWire (Dec 1, 2017)

I have never had my PPE paid for, for the most part. Last job I was at paid for my hard hats and I think my waders but that was it. I had to get my boots, glasses, gloves, and rubber boots. They also supplied us with coveralls and a big winter coat, but that was so they could have their logo visible. This is in Canada by the way.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

I think this is “hit and miss” in Canada. I am not aware of any regulation, but I suspect that any company that is organized will likely have it as a written requirement to provide PPE.

I have mixed feelings about it myself. I agree that as an owner I do not want to be held liable if an employee uses inferior PPE then what I would provide; but I also think that “personal protection” is exactly that, personal. Now I certainly do provide (make available) the basics such as harness, glasses, hearing protection, etc. I do not provide boots, outer garments (although I do have them with our logo on them), gloves, etc. I also think that if the employee supplies their own safety equipment, they are more likely to take better care of it. On a bigger job, I end up buying safety glasses by the case and seem to find them all over the place; people seem to think they are disposable. While one pair of safety glasses is not a big issue every once in a while, at about $7-$10 a pair, this can get expensive on the job site for a smaller company.

This also extends into some types of tools and consumable goods such as rotary hammer drill, heat box, pipe benders, blades / bits, etc. While I do supply a number of cordless tools, I would not have any issue if someone wanted to use their own or brought their own driver bits, etc.

Cheers
John


----------



## WrongWire (Dec 1, 2017)

Navyguy said:


> I think this is “hit and miss” in Canada. I am not aware of any regulation, but I suspect that any company that is organized will likely have it as a written requirement to provide PPE.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about it myself. I agree that as an owner I do not want to be held liable if an employee uses inferior PPE then what I would provide; but I also think that “personal protection” is exactly that, personal. Now I certainly do provide (make available) the basics such as harness, glasses, hearing protection, etc. I do not provide boots, outer garments (although I do have them with our logo on them), gloves, etc. I also think that if the employee supplies their own safety equipment, they are more likely to take better care of it. On a bigger job, I end up buying safety glasses by the case and seem to find them all over the place; people seem to think they are disposable. While one pair of safety glasses is not a big issue every once in a while, at about $7-$10 a pair, this can get expensive on the job site for a smaller company.
> 
> ...


A big reason some of the companies I have worked for did not give out PPE was the recycle rate of employees. There were quite a few people who would be given something from the company (just like with training) and then take it with them when they leave for another job two weeks later as they now have the PPE required, or to sell it.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

WrongWire said:


> A big reason some of the companies I have worked for did not give out PPE was the recycle rate of employees. There were quite a few people who would be given something from the company (just like with training) and then take it with them when they leave for another job two weeks later as they now have the PPE required, or to sell it.


We have everyone sign for all company supplied items and require them to be returned when separated. 

We take back the training with one of these. A nerulizer....


----------



## Tortuga (Sep 22, 2014)

My company provides everything, including $125 for boots. All of our uniforms are FR, every tech has an arcflash kit, fall protection, etc... If we ever need anything extra, each tech has a company credit card. Our stuff is inspected regularly and we are tested on its use regularly.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Navyguy said:


> I think this is “hit and miss” in Canada. I am not aware of any regulation, but I suspect that any company that is organized will likely have it as a written requirement to provide PPE.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about it myself. I agree that as an owner I do not want to be held liable if an employee uses inferior PPE then what I would provide; but I also think that “personal protection” is exactly that, personal. Now I certainly do provide (make available) the basics such as harness, glasses, hearing protection, etc. I do not provide boots, outer garments (although I do have them with our logo on them), gloves, etc. I also think that if the employee supplies their own safety equipment, they are more likely to take better care of it. On a bigger job, I end up buying safety glasses by the case and seem to find them all over the place; people seem to think they are disposable. While one pair of safety glasses is not a big issue every once in a while, at about $7-$10 a pair, this can get expensive on the job site for a smaller company.
> 
> ...


 As a worker there is no requirement for PPE, it all falls back on the employer.
It’s in the green book, if you want when I get to work this afternoon I can post the #’s


----------



## Krolman (Nov 7, 2016)

eddy current said:


> As a worker there is no requirement for PPE, it all falls back on the employer.
> It’s in the green book, if you want when I get to work this afternoon I can post the #’s


If you wouldn't mind I would love knowing that information. :thumbsup:


----------



## WrongWire (Dec 1, 2017)

Krolman said:


> If you wouldn't mind I would love knowing that information. :thumbsup:


Seconded, I would love to have something to support my wild claims with when I ask for some money for very specific cut proof gloves.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

eddy current said:


> As a worker there is no requirement for PPE, it all falls back on the employer.
> It’s in the green book, if you want when I get to work this afternoon I can post the #’s


There is no green book that covers all work; therefore I would assume there is no regulation.

The green books are designed for personnel and companies that operate exclusively in those situations... When I work in an industrial setting, the corporation that is operating the site must ensure that I (as a sub-contractor) am complying with the required regulation(s) at that time, but there is nowhere that states that the owner (either the client or the sub-contractor) is financially responsible to provide items to insure compliance.

As the client (owner / operator of the site), he can easily state that if I want the job I must comply with the regulation, just as I could say to an employee if he wants the job he must comply with the regulation.

Cheers

John


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Sorry, I was wrong. It happens all the time, just ask my wife 

I assumed it was the employers duty to pay for, supply and maintain PPE but that is if your in the union. The Unions have agreements with the contractors, tool lists for workers etc. As for non union, it’s not that easy.

I took a good look at the Green Book “for construction, not the industrial one” and found it is not clear. Apparently when it says “provided by the employer” that does not mean they have to pay for it? 

This is from the occupational health and safety act for Ontario.

Duties of employers
25 (1) An employer shall ensure that,

(a) the equipment, materials and protective devices as prescribed are provided;

(b) the equipment, materials and protective devices provided by the employer are maintained in good condition;

(c) the measures and procedures prescribed are carried out in the workplace;

(d) the equipment, materials and protective devices provided by the employer are used as prescribed;


***For the non union guys out there, show this in the green book to your boss. I bet he will not fully understand it (like I did) and supply your PPE from now on :thumbup::thumbup:

For the employers out there, the bottom line is if there is an issue with the PPE and a worker is injured, who is responsible? It says the employer needs to maintain it, but not pay for it?


Here is a great article about all the provinces and their rules. It is dated but I don’t think much has changed. https://www.ohscanada.com/features/pays-ppe/


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

eddy current said:


> Here is a great article about all the provinces and their rules. It is dated but I don’t think much has changed. https://www.ohscanada.com/features/pays-ppe/


Great Link!

I assumed it was different all over the country as I eluded to in my post, but did not realized it was that far ranging.

I like the perspective that PPE should be treated as a "guard on a machine" and you would not expect an employee to pay for that; makes sense.

One of the points that is not clearly addressed is the "portability" issue. So all if this makes more sense if you are working in the same place doing the same job everyday. But as small contractors many have a revolving door and to start being required to pay for new employees boots, hats, gloves, etc would be cost probative I think; I think that is why most legislation is not specifying the issue.

Cheers

John


----------

