The Impact of the Employer-Pay-For-PPE Rule

OSHA recently issued a final rule requiring employers to pay for most personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the workplace. Explore how this announcement will affect U.S. workplaces and compliance with our panel of experts.

Hand Protection

Bill Alico
Chief Operating Officer, Best Glove Inc.

“Historically, when manufacturers pay for PPE, the PPE selected is higher quality than that chosen when the employee is purchasing the equipment.”

The OSHA ruling adds emphasis to the importance of PPE. There is no question that the great majority of employers already do provide PPE to their employees. Most of our end users have strong PPE programs in place and mandate that employees wear appropriate protection at all times.

One of the results we expect after this ruling goes into effect is that those employers who do not currently supply their workers with PPE will better appreciate the role PPE plays in not only making the work environment safer, but also in reducing overall costs by decreasing sick days and insurance costs.

Historically, when manufacturers pay for PPE, the PPE selected is higher quality than that chosen when the employee is purchasing the equipment. Manufacturers are more aware of the relationship between higher quality, better protection and length of time before replacement. All of us as manufacturers know that workers are our greatest asset. For most, protecting workers against harm and ensuring that they return home at the end of a day's work uninjured is the core of the company's safety mission.

Tom Draskovics
Director of Marketing, Ansell, North America

“The new mandate will likely affect smaller companies and other industries that may not have placed as much emphasis on compliance in the past, such as construction.”

When considering hand protection products, the new OSHA ruling will probably have little impact on large industrial companies who are compliance-driven and already providing workers' PPE products. Many of these companies were more than 95-percent compliant before the ruling was made.

The new mandate will likely affect smaller companies and other industries that may not have placed as much emphasis on compliance in the past, such as construction. During site visits, we found some construction companies make gloves available to workers and others do not. Workers often must buy their own gloves, purchasing them at big box stores. Gloves are usually cotton or leather and do not provide an optimal level of protection.

Within the construction market, many older technology gloves may not adequately protect hands from cuts, punctures and abrasion, injuries that are common when workers handle wood, glass and concrete. The gloves may not provide performance advantages such as grip and are probably not designed for all-day wear.

With the new OSHA ruling, employers may hesitate to provide more aesthetically pleasing products that typically cost more. This could create a two-tiered market, with products that provide the required protection but are not as physically attractive, and a second level that meets protection requirements and appeals to end-users' sense of style. Education will be critical to inform employers and workers about the safety products available and their ability to reduce injuries.

Eye, Face and Hearing Protection

Donna Rentler
Product Manager, Eye, Face and Hearing Protection, MSA

“… The new rule is expected to result in 21,000 fewer injuries per year, saving $200 million annually … .

OSHA's final rule requiring employers to pay for employee PPE will affect workplace safety differently, depending upon the type of PPE in question. Recently, OSHA Assistant Secretary of Labor Edwin G. Foulke Jr., noted that there has been some confusion in the past over whether employers were required to pay for PPE. Although the new rule will cost employers $85 million, the change will most likely offset issues such as employees purchasing incorrect equipment, using it beyond its service life, or not purchasing or using PPE at all. Thus, the new rule is expected to result in 21,000 fewer injuries per year, saving $200 million annually, not to mention employees' reduced pain and suffering.

The final rule's impact on hearing protection should be minimal as employers were already mandated to pay for hearing protection. Employees must be allowed to choose from a variety of suitable employer-provided hearing protectors.

When engineering and administrative controls have been implemented and exposures without PPE reach OSHA's action level, employers are required to provide a hearing conservation and monitoring program. A comprehensive audiometric testing program, also at no cost to employees, can require employers to notify, evaluate, fit, train and enforce use of employee hearing protectors.

With non-prescription eye and face protection, OSHA previously mandated employers to ensure use of devices in compliance with ANSI Standard Z87.1. Even without a stated requirement, Foulke noted that employers already pay for 95 percent of PPE.

Renee S. Bessette, COHC
Marketing Manager, Sperian Hearing Protection LLC

“ … If the ruling serves to reinforce the importance of offering a real ‘selection' of HPDs, it could have a positive impact on the effectiveness of hearing protector use, both in terms of achieving proper attenuation and avoiding overprotection.”

Regarding the provision of hearing protectors (HPDs), CFR 29 1910.95 states: "Employees shall be given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer." It has never been clear from this whether the employer could charge for the HPDs so "provided." But, as most employers do provide them at no cost to their employees, this ruling should have minimal impact on HPD availability and use.

However, if the ruling serves to reinforce the importance of offering a real “selection” of HPDs, it could have a positive impact on the effectiveness of hearing protector use, both in terms of achieving proper attenuation and avoiding overprotection.

The simple fact is that ear canals come in different shapes and sizes. These subtleties can easily impede any protective effect from an otherwise adequate earplug. Sometimes that misfit is apparent due to discomfort. But many times, a poorly fit earplug is very comfortable but does not seal the ear canal to offer protection.

One study of real-world attenuation in the workplace measured the protection levels of 101 workers to determine if some workers obtain less than the published noise reduction rating (NRR), regardless of the earplug. The answer was definitely no. Workers who tried a second style of earplugs often had major leaps in their attenuation.

Safety managers should offer a comprehensive variety of HPDs, including several moldable foam single-use and pre-formed multiple-use earplugs, earmuffs, and even bands, all in different sizes and attenuation levels.

Fall Protection

Joseph Feldstein
Manager of Technical Services, MSA

“When workers inexperienced with fall protection are responsible for selecting their own personal fall protection equipment, the potential increases for incompatible connections to occur.”

OSHA's new ruling concerning PPE is expected to benefit worker safety at heights. Fall protection as a class of PPE has unique requirements, as it is comprised of a system of interconnected components: a full-body harness, shock-absorbing lanyard, and an anchorage connecting device. To ensure compatibility between the system components, a competent person must evaluate the fall hazard and decide which products will perform safely together to protect a worker in an accidental fall.

When workers inexperienced with fall protection are responsible for selecting their personal fall protection equipment, it is more likely that incompatible connections may occur. Lack of compatibility can result in accidental disengagement and in catastrophic failure of the fall protection system. Some fall protection systems such as fixed ladder-climbing systems require that only connecting components provided by the system's manufacturer can be used safely with the installed fall protection system.

Workers in this scenario are likely to make decisions based upon personal criteria of value, such as cost and availability. Fall protection systems require particular emphasis on combining the right equipment with the worksite hazard to provide the appropriate level of protection. Equipment used in one location or for one particular application may be unsuitable for a different location or task.

When employers provide their workers with fall protection equipment, considerations such as compatibility and suitability are accounted for by the employer. Training and use of fall protection equipment is simplified; inspection, maintenance and repair of equipment become more manageable, resulting in a safer, more effective fall protection program.

Scott Gaddis
Global Safety Capability Leader, Kimberly-Clark Professional

“While some employers may view the new OSHA regulations as an additional cost in a competitive business environment, the safety benefits for employees justify the expenditures, especially with regard to low-income workers.”

For most large- and medium-size businesses, the impact of the final OSHA rule regarding Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is likely to be minimal, since general industry is already supplying PPE for employees and has been doing so for many years. However, smaller businesses, especially those with part-time, short-term, temporary or seasonal workforces, which have not paid for PPE in the past, may be affected by this ruling. These include construction, shipyards, longshoring, marine terminals and agriculture, which often rely on transient workforces. There are large segments of the workforce that could potentially be covered by the new ruling and, more importantly, their workplaces will be subject to OSHA inspection, which acts as an additional incentive to compliance.

The challenge will be reaching many of the smaller employers affected by the new ruling. These groups are less likely to attend safety trade shows or have safety representatives on staff. As a result, the transition for some of these companies may be more difficult. OSHA acknowledged this in its final rule by stating that “OSHA agrees that training aids are needed to help employers, and most especially smaller employers, with a variety of PPE issues, and the agency has various resources and materials available to help provide PPE information.”

While some employers may view the new OSHA regulations as an additional cost in a competitive business environment, the safety benefits for employees justify the expenditures, especially with regard to low-income workers. As OSHA points out: “The evidence suggests that lower wage employees are less likely to purchase adequate PPE and replace it when necessary, and are more likely to make cosmetic repairs, hide defects, purchase used PPE aged beyond its service life, or fail to keep the PPE in proper working order… OSHA also believes that employees will be more inclined to use PPE if it is provided to them at no cost.”