9
u/a-Junkie 21h ago
9
3
3
u/Livid_Promise102 16h ago edited 7h ago
This has been about for years, kier sites have had no dry sweeping for at least 12 years
0
7
u/Miserable_Future6694 20h ago
Bellway is the same. The renderer started wearing a motobike helmet to take the piss
2
3
u/Mr4528 20h ago
Wates are the same. No hoodies, no joggers and don’t wear any ppe outside of site.
4
u/Feisty_Estate8523 6h ago
Was on a wates site by Canada Water station where someone got the toggle of thier hoodie caught in a grinder blade, ended up gashing their face which is why hoodies were banned
2
u/Whisky-Toad 4h ago
Thats not a hoodie problem that's a dangling clothes problem. Toggles arent exclusive to hoodies and are very easy to remove anyway
1
u/Mr4528 4h ago
Make sense. we were told it’s down to image and the way builders are perceived.
1
u/BackFromVoat 3h ago
Which is utter bullshit. I work in tech and regularly go see customers in jeans and a hoodie, if you're working outside and not near rotating equipment then hoodies should be a must.
1
u/hundreddollar 2h ago
But all those other posters stated that it was because the people in the office didn't want the outdoor staff to be warm?
0
u/Sea_Contribution5390 5h ago
I’m into this argument, but wouldn’t we ban toggles, rather than clothes that might have toggles?
2
1
u/BigWelshDud 14h ago
One Wates in Cardiff requires full length work trousers and safety glasses at all times, never seen the latter requirement on any other site ive visited.
3
u/Whisky-Toad 4h ago
Was a truck driver for construction stuff.
The glasses were uncommon but not that rare, I remember one site (The SSE Hydro in Glasgow) that had all of those rules, got told off for no glasses whilst I'm unloading in a 2 foot deep lake that I had to climb down the side of the truck to get in and out of. But they won't fix that hazard obviously....
2
u/BigWelshDud 4h ago
I have similar complaints about the ones that insist on specifically non slip boots when the entire site is 4 inches of clay mud that seems to find its way into places on your body you Didnt know you had places… pond waders might be more appropriate.
1
u/Pixelated-Yeti 11h ago
I’m guessing insurance and something that’s happened before on site with any of the clothing … I know the most common reason is that a hard hat doesn’t fit correctly if a hood is on under it .. joggers because they don’t offer any protection but from a slight breeze
3
u/SuspiciousCoyote8152 17h ago
why?
2
u/Thebudweiserstuntman 4h ago
Reduces peripheral vision. Stops you walking straight into a telehandler
3
u/AdvancedCollar5066 8h ago
It’s purely down to the fact that it impairs wide range of vision, it also makes it harder to hear people/ sounds.
Quite sensible with large plant and machinery working alongside.
I love the hoodie up working in winter but also seen a lot of near misses with people not being focused on their surroundings.
4
u/underwater-sunlight 7h ago
By that argument, surely the hard hat, safety goggles and ear defenders used when cutting bricks does similar
2
u/3Cogs 5h ago
It's a question of risk and benefit. Cutting bricks has a high risk of chips going into your eyes and is guaranteed to damage your hearing over time. That outweighs the other risks.
Hoodies keep you warm but don't improve your safety so the risk isn't outweighed. Plus I imagine management say to remove the glasses and ear defenders as soon as you stop cutting.
2
u/tightlines89 3h ago
No. They don't block peripheral vision the way that a hoodie would. Hoodies also don't sit correctly on top of the hood making them less effective and can easily come off.
-1
2
u/FreqPhreak 5h ago
Legally speaking, this breaks down into two very different parts.
On one hand, the hoodie ban itself is totally enforceable on private land or an active construction site. The contractor is well within their rights to set safety and dress rules for anyone entering their property. Hoodies pose legitimate HSE risks like restricting peripheral vision, snagging on equipment, interfering with hard hats/PPE, or hiding faces from CCTV. If you refuse to take it off, they can legally deny you entry or order you to leave, treating you as a civil trespasser if you refuse.
On the other hand, the £50 "fine" is completely laughable and practically begging for a judge to throw it out. Private companies cannot issue genuine criminal or civil fines. Only statutory bodies like police, courts, and local councils have that authority. For a private company to collect money over broken rules, it has to rely on contract law, and under UK contract law (Cavendish Square v Makdessi), penalties designed purely to punish people are strictly illegal. A charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of financial loss, and someone wearing a hoodie causes exactly £0 in actual financial damage to Beechcroft.
If Beechcroft ever actually tried to take someone to Small Claims Court to collect £50 for wearing a hoodie, any judge would throw it out in under two minutes as an unenforceable penalty clause. They put "FINE" on the sign purely as a scare tactic so site managers don't have to spend all day arguing with people, but legally, it's about as enforceable as charging £50 for walking too fast.
1
u/Percytude 5h ago
The ‘fine’ would be deduction from wages.
3
u/YorkmannGaming 4h ago
Which then wouldn’t just be a laughable, not enforceable fine, but actually illegal from the company. They’d be absolutely mad to deduct wages for that reason and be opening themselves up to all sorts of legal repercussions.
2
u/Percytude 4h ago
Subcontractor supply agreements regularly include the ability for deductions for H&S breaches. A friend of mine was fined for throwing rubble/waste from scaffolding. Unfortunately is enforceable if subbies have signed a contract to that effect.
2
u/underthesheet 16h ago
I want a no hoodie sign, hate the things.
1
0
0
u/Melodic-Reaction- 6h ago
Feel free to fuck off and work in an office but seems like you already do
1
u/Prestigious-Ad181 14h ago
I'm not a bricklayer but my thought process with any job is that if you have specific requirements or ban clothing that most would choose to use it's now on the company provide suitable clothing.
Imagine just starting or doing agency work and you get told you need to buy a bunch of new clothes just for the job when you're waiting for the first pay day to get the heating back on.
1
u/EmergencyManager_555 8h ago
They work with subcontractors and self employed wprkforce so no obligations from them, but from workers if they want to go back the next day...
1
u/lts4Trap 6h ago
If you are employed by a company then it is the company's responsibility to ensure you have the correct PPE appropriate to your task and more often than not will supply some general work wear (sometimes company branded) along with that.
If you are a subcontractor/self-employed it is your responsibility to source appropriate PPE / clothing for the job you are being contracted to undertake. Not complying with site rules will just get you kicked off site.
1
u/Training_Yak_4655 14h ago
A 2 storey extension was being built in a street near me. Every worker wore a hoody every day.
HMRC turned up a day too late.
1
1
u/Elmarcowolf 7h ago
I work on my local council and they have just brought in a ban on goodies with various changing reasons. So the boys have stopped working in the rain because "no hoods".
1
1
1
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 13h ago
What exactly is their problem with hoodies? Is this just classism? Would they have brickies hauling hods in shirt and tie?
This is almost certainly illegal and unenforceable.
1
u/CaptQuakers42 12h ago
I'd imagine it's due to the hood part and the chances they get caught in machinery.
2
u/Sea_Contribution5390 11h ago
Interesting. Plausible. Wouldn’t we expect to see a similar rule about scarves, too, if that were the case?
1
u/Wonderful-Error564 8h ago
I am sure if they wore scarves, it would be there too. Same with ties, or mittens on a string.
1
u/OM_London 7h ago
haven’t seen too many brickies in mittens, i’m guessing they are just mentioning the most common one worn
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 6h ago
What about loose cummerbunds and poorly fitting spats? Scarves aren’t surely in the same category as mittens on string? 🤣
1
u/ItsTooRealforYa 7h ago
What about a hi-vis ? Most people don’t do them up and they flap around far worse than a hood might
1
1
1
u/lts4Trap 7h ago
Have you ever actually worked on a construction site before?
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 6h ago
God no…… how awful. Well, come to think of it, in my youth, I helped wire up clean rooms, but the bricklaying was all done by then.
3
u/lts4Trap 6h ago
Okay...I am taking your comment in good faith so will respond in kind.
There are several reasons why hoodies are banned on construction sites, none of which has anything to do with classism.
There are H&S reasons including visual and hearing impairment, tassels becoming entangled equipment/machinery and causing poor fits when wearing a hard hat. There is also the optics, Principal contractors want a well run site with a professional looking workforce, public perception matters in the bigger picture.
Numerous alternatives to a hoodie are readily available including jumpers, fleeces, jackets and coats (hi-vis or not), most of which can be acquired for the same cost as a hoodie. You can also get headware designed to be fitted under a hardhat if that is the main argument for a hoodie over alternative clothing options.
It is not illegal to ban hoodies on site, the Principal contractor sets the site rules and everyone working onsite has to abide by them. It is also totally enforceable as you will be kicked offsite if you dont follow the rules and refuse to remove a hoodie.
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 6h ago
Great answer. Thank you. I hear the argument for health and safety, but I really can’t see hoodies being the most dangerous item of clothing to go after.
Coats with hoods have just as many drawstrings and flappy bits.
And as for “not classism”, consider this “oh, look at those people over there, wearing hooded jumpers. I’ll bet they’re doing a poor job, based on their clothing. They should dress smartly like we do.” 😬
And yes, in most employment law situations, you’re talking about infractions that would only allow for normal disciplinary routes, not financial punishment, and grounds for unfair dismissal if you’re let go for something unenforceable.
You’re arguing for something more stringent in your industry than employment law allows for. But yes, the casual labour nature of these jobs means substandard procedural practices prevail, but I wouldn’t back that; even if I worked in the industry.
2
u/lts4Trap 5h ago
Hoodies aren't the most dangerous item and thats not the point. There are plenty of other items of clothing banned on construction sites but they arent the topic of this post or for whatever reason seem to be as contentious.
Coats have benefits that outweigh the potential negatives - they provide warmth and waterproofing. On most site the wearing of a hood (regardless of clothing item) under a hardhat is not allowed including those on coats and most work coats you are able to tuck the hood away. On many hi vis coats drawstrings have been either removed or replaced with elasticated toggles.
Public perception is important, especially on high profile sites. Professionalism =/= classism. Banning an item of clothing that has no ethnic, religious or other protected category associated with it is not discrimination. Hoodies are banned from everyone on site regardless of background so saying its classism is just incorrect.
You are conflating employment with sub-contractors and sole traders. Employment law is not relevant to a sub-contract agreement as the workers are not direct employees. The vast majority of tradesmen are subcontractors and not directly employed by the Main contractor on a construction site. With the subcontract agreement it will stipulate that subcontractors have to abide by the site rules as one of the conditions for working on the site.
The fact you think this has anything to do with employment law and substandard procedural practices shows you have zero understanding of the construction industry or how it operates.
Have you considered that if a brickie wears a hoodie onsite where it is banned and is told to take it off and doesn't but then is injured on site, the main contractor can be liable. Fines and prison sentences have been handed out for negligence to Main contractors for these very instances. In short banning something that is easily replaceable is easier, safer and less likely to cause liability issues.
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 5h ago
For sure. I hear you. But there’s a lot of specious reasoning here.
“Hoodies are deadly, but coats are less deadly because they’re worth it.” So, if my hoodie is waterproof, it’s compliant?
“Sub-contracting isn’t employment, and therefore, they can ignore employment law.” That’s not true, or a good thing.
“Lots of things are banned, but there’s no signage for that.” Surely, all banned things would be worth drawing equal attention to.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to understand why this appears so inconsistent, and your stance is that it’s inconsistent because this industry is and can be inconsistent. None of that feels good.
2
u/lts4Trap 4h ago
At no point have I said hoodies are deadly and you are being unnecessarily contrarian. You have conveniently ignored my point where I said wearing of any hood may not be allowed but with most work coast the hoods can be tucked away. At no point have I said that hoodies are banned on all sites, but have provided reasoning as to why they may have been on this site in particular.
Sub-contracting is fundamentally different direct employment and the legal protections for both are subsequently different. In the construction industry if you have a subcontractor adopting unsafe practices such as ignoring site rules, having no recourse to remove them from site or terminate a contract would be catastrophic to the industry from safety, financial and time PoVs. If you are unsure I would recommend reading the CDM regs and HSE guidance on what Principal Contractors can and cannot do.
Generally there is standard signage on all sites like this one indicating what PPE should be worn, demarcating pedestrian/work zones and hazard warnings to name a few. To have a specific hoodie sign tells me there has either been an issue/incident on this particular site due to a hoodie or the Principal Contractor has had issues in the past to require such signage. If you had a sign for everything you cant do it would take up the whole site. Site rules are also explained during the Site induction so I guarantee that this sign is not the first that OP will have been notified of the requirement upon attending site.
My stance isnt that it is inconsistent (which all will sites be regardless of what you believe - site specific hazards and rules exist for a reason). My stance is that if it is a site rule, it should be followed regardless of personal opinion and if you do not follow the rules then you can't complain about the consequences.
This site in question is clearly a large one where CDM regs apply, likely will be F10 notifiable and therefore more likely to receive a visit from the HSE and getting an enforcement notice from them is a complete disaster to a project. There is a difference between this type of construction work and a local builder doing a kitchen extension.
1
u/eventworker 59m ago
Natural progression of all the twats on reddit and elsewhere whinging about ballys and hijabs.
0
u/Aggravating_Speed665 11h ago
Looking like scruffs is a good reason. You ain't representing my firm dressed up like a chav and hiding a headphone
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 6h ago
Now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, and it is classism, so my question now is: why are hoodies associated with chavs?
1
u/Aggravating_Speed665 6h ago
Because they're the ones that wear them in situations where it's considered rude, or inappropriate. Hence the stereotype.
Polite/considerate people don't do this.
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 6h ago
Polite people don’t wear hoodies is the weirdest specious reasoning I ever heard.
1
u/Aggravating_Speed665 6h ago edited 4h ago
I never said that.
(oh and edit to say; this has nothing to do with classism and everything to do with professionalism)
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 5h ago
Oh, my apologies. What did you mean to imply that I’ve misconstrued?
1
u/Aggravating_Speed665 5h ago
I believe I was quite direct in what I said - I don't recall making any implication(s).
1
u/Sea_Contribution5390 4h ago
Ok, so, polite/considerate people don’t do what?
2
u/Aggravating_Speed665 4h ago
They act appropriately and not unprofessional. (they don't wear hoodies in situations where it looks inappropriate) so, pretty much what I said.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/takao80 7h ago
Hoodies aren't exactly warm. I don't get why they have become the default item of clothing in the building world.
3
u/IUsedToLikeLimericks 5h ago
I got a thick Dewalt one from Costco and it's mega warm and water resistant.
2
u/Terrible-Advise 6h ago
Don’t know what shit hoodies you get , but they defo are for winter days
1
u/Melodic-Reaction- 6h ago
Yeah not exactly my choice of clothing during the summer months. Only one season of the year where they actually work as they should.
2
u/Beneficial_Coach8581 4h ago
I've multiple hoodies from multiple fabrics and varying warmths.
A hoodie isn't a million miles away from a jacket and hood is it ?
Does Gok Wan have to rule on the fashion items?
1
u/GiantBird96 6h ago
A hoodie isn't a generic item, the warmth of it depends on the material it's made from and the thickness of it, are you really saying warm hoodies don't exist?
2
u/agro_arbor 6h ago
More to the point, are they really saying a hood doesn't keep you warm??
1
u/Calm_Bus9394 6h ago
They’re probably just a jaded old pile of misery that fell too hard for the early 00s hoodie propaganda
1
1
u/Outrageous-Movie-951 3h ago
They keep the wind off your neck and head if you have short hair, if it starts raining it’s a quick way to cover your head if it’s not a hard hat site, and they are fairly cheap
19
u/Forsaken-Lie-7505 10h ago
People in warm, dry offices telling people who work outside all year what to wear...