UK face coverings discussion

[jumble]

No, Shop workers are all 'exempt' there is no requirement for them to wear masks / visors etc , so they don't !

One large supplier/shed has signs that claim the "Staff will be wearing masks for your protection " but in practice none of them were wearing them on the day I attended.

 

[BJames]

One large supplier/shed has signs that claim the "Staff will be wearing masks for your protection " but in practice none of them were wearing them on the day I attended.

I certainly agree that staff should be wearing masks in customer-facing areas if customers have to wear them (this very much goes for railway staff too).

Funnily enough the same is said of masks, but don't tell anyone....

 

[43066]

I certainly agree that staff should be wearing masks in customer-facing areas if customers have to wear them (this very much goes for railway staff too).

I can understand why staff in various settings have been excluded, as mask wearing for extended periods while at work is impractical.

Yes, it’s inconsistent, but when the whole policy is a nonsense in the first place, does they really make any difference?

 

[LAX54]

You must wear a mask, you must social distance, you must not do this, that, yet every weekend, beaches are packed, there are 'raves' and protests, with no mask in sight, we must wear a mask, but if you work in a shop you don't ! not sure why we bother, even more so, when you see many, many not even wearing them correctly in the first place.
IF we did mask wearing correctly, we would have a new one for each shop !

 

[BJames]

I can understand why staff in various settings have been excluded, as mask wearing for extended periods while at work is impractical.

Yes, it’s inconsistent, but when the whole policy is a nonsense in the first place, does they really make any difference?

To be fair, I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of the approach. E.g. If a train manager not wearing a mask told me to put mine on, I wouldn't be too happy about it.

 

[Richard Scott]

Just seen a disposable mask thrown down on car park in Tescos. Bet no-one in there had the virus but now this is left to join the waste plastic mountain. All masks seem to be doing is adding to the environmental problem, oh and China's profits.

 

[BJames]

Just seen a disposable mask thrown down on car park in Tescos. Bet no-one in there had the virus but now this is left to join the waste plastic mountain. All masks seem to be doing is adding to the environmental problem, oh and China's profits.

Loads of these litter the ground in my area. Can't walk to the shops without seeing quite a few on the ground. Very frustrating.

 

[yorkie]

No, Shop workers are all 'exempt' there is no requirement for them to wear masks / visors etc , so they don't !

Can anyone be legally required to wear a face covering at their workplace?

I ask because in all the early examples, e.g. public transport workers and shop workers, it was clear they are exempt.

However now, some militant pro-mask campaigners are adamant that school staff can be forced to wear a face covering at work, and can be disciplined if they do not.

Does anyone know the legal position?

Firstly, does the law compel any staff to wear face coverings e.g. does the law compel school staff to wear face coverings in "local lockdown areas"?

Secondly, if the answer to the first part is "no", can an employer require it? Does this count as varying the terms of their contract?

 

[Huntergreed]

Can anyone be legally required to wear a face covering at their workplace?

I ask because in all the early examples, e.g. public transport workers and shop workers, it was clear they are exempt.

However now, some militant pro-mask campaigners are adamant that school staff can be forced to wear a face covering at work, and can be disciplined if they do not.

Does anyone know the legal position?

Firstly, does the law compel any staff to wear face coverings e.g. does the law compel school staff to wear face coverings in "local lockdown areas"?

Secondly, if the answer to the first part is "no", can an employer require it? Does this count as varying the terms of their contract?

Certainly in Scottish secondary schools, masks are mandatory in corridors and communal areas for staff (which I totally disagree with, along with the mandate for students) and this is (I think?) a legal requirement.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

@yorkie

Teachers may face legal action for if they make kids wear face masks

An expert in public law has told how schools do not have a mandate for plans to make face coverings compulsory in school settings

www.birminghammail.co.uk

/Headteachers could face legal action for 'absurdly' making pupils wear face masks, according to legal experts.

George McLellan of the law firm DLA Piper warned the Telegraph : "The primary ground for judicial review would be unreasonableness or irrationality.



"The concern with masks is that there is no rational basis for them to be required. We would say there is a lack of proportionality of requiring children in schools to wear masks."

He described plans to push ahead with the rule as "manifestly absurd".

Co-founder Molly Kingsley said: "Based on the anger we have seen among our group, there is a very visceral reaction among parents to face masks in schools.

"This is something parents would want to challenge and we would want to support them."

 

[island]

Can anyone be legally required to wear a face covering at their workplace?

It’s certainly required of doctors and dentists, for what it’s worth.

I am not aware of any legislation requiring school staff (or pupils) to wear face coverings in England. I cannot rule out the possibility some has been published very recently under the alleged “emergency” process.

I would expect where an employer, such as a school, instructs a staff member, such as a teacher, to wear a face covering for some or all of the working day, and the staff member refuses to do so for a reason not including a disability or other protected characteristic, the staff member could be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to obey a reasonable instruction from a manager. The outcome of such an action would depend on how “reasonable” the instruction was considered to be – and as alluded to above, whether the policy is considered rational.

Matters such as workplace dress codes are usually a matter of policy or employment handbook in most cases, and varying them does not come to the level of a variation of contract.

 

[Randomer]

I would think that a mask could arguably be classed as PPE which any employee is obliged to use as directed and trained by the employer. Use of PPE or work equipment in general can be used to reduce risk to others in a workplace as well as the individual employee e.g. a safe system of work for rope access would include not just the training, PPE and work equipment for the user but also tool lanyards to prevent a worker dropping tools potentially causing danger to others below (yes there should be an exclusion zone before a pedant points it out.)

It would not be a variation in contract in that having done a risk assessment for a newly developed hazard the employer could argue they were taking appropriate measures to keep the risk as low as reasonably practical in line with government guidance. Arguably collective measures should be applied first e.g. screens and appropriate distancing but it would not necessarily make masks inappropriate or excessive.

Although if it was considered as respiratory protective equipment which is a specific sub-set of PPE a whole load of other obligations would occur (fit testing, work task assessment to ensure RPE allows adequate air flow for task and filter/air flow testing.) This is the process employers of front line workers expecting to have deliberate contact with COVID positive people would have to undertake.

 

[43066]

Can anyone be legally required to wear a face covering at their workplace?

I ask because in all the early examples, e.g. public transport workers and shop workers, it was clear they are exempt.

However now, some militant pro-mask campaigners are adamant that school staff can be forced to wear a face covering at work, and can be disciplined if they do not.

Does anyone know the legal position?

Firstly, does the law compel any staff to wear face coverings e.g. does the law compel school staff to wear face coverings in "local lockdown areas"?

Secondly, if the answer to the first part is "no", can an employer require it? Does this count as varying the terms of their contract?

As someone has noted above, dress codes can be varied unilaterally as part of the handbook rather than the employment contract itself.

However the elephant in the room, as far as mandating masks is concerned, is the Equalities Act. No HR department worth its salt will want to enter that minefield by insisting on “enforcement”. There’s far too much risk of constructive dismissal tribunal claims from those with disabilities that prevent mask wearing (disabilities which may be unknown to the employer).

 

[Scrotnig]

Frankly if the government listened to the Karens on this one, expect serious pushback from medical experts. The jury may still be considering the case of masks as an effective means of reducing spread vs / ineffective to a hazard, but gloves will almost certain bring them out in force.

I'm afraid they have already said they are considering it, this was only a month back:

Ministers 'considering telling public to wear gloves to curb virus'

It comes on the day people in England were required to start wearing face coverings in shops

www.standard.co.uk

Ministers are considering telling the public to wear gloves to curb the spread of coronavirus.
Speaking in the House of Lords, Conservative Baroness McIntosh of Pickering asked: "Has the Government formed a view on the use of gloves?
"Obviously we’re all following the guidance of washing our hands but surely the correct use of gloves outdoors and indoors could prevent the passing on of the virus?"
Health minister Lord Bethell, concluding a debate on coronavirus regulations, replied: "To date, gloves are not in the guidance but they remain an area that we’re looking at."

 

[43066]

not sure why we bother, even more so, when you see many, many not even wearing them correctly in the first place.

Indeed. Which is why many simply aren’t bothering .

 

[bramling]

Indeed. Which is why many simply aren’t bothering .

This is what makes me cringe.

Being “up north” this week (well, away from what we would call London & South East) I’ve noticed there is very conspicuously more hostility to those who aren’t wearing a mask. We had an under-breath comment in a tourist attraction today, which was responded very much in kind. Likewise I sensed considerably more dagger looks in Tesco’s compared to at home.

Yet I’d say pretty much *everyone* was misusing their mask in one form or other.

It’s a total joke.

I’m coming to the conclusion that communications with MPs is what is required, both regarding Covid and - ultimately - disposing of this useless amateurish and out-of-depth prime minister. There’s been a noticeable increase in news reports this week where it’s been hinted that Conservative MPs are starting to get jittery, and that’s hardly surprising.

 

[NorthOxonian]

This is what makes me cringe.

Being “up north” this week (well, away from what we would call London & South East) I’ve noticed there is very conspicuously more hostility to those who aren’t wearing a mask. We had an under-breath comment in a tourist attraction today, which was responded very much in kind. Likewise I sensed considerably more dagger looks in Tesco’s compared to at home.

Yet I’d say pretty much *everyone* was misusing their mask in one form or other.

It’s a total joke.

I’m coming to the conclusion that communications with MPs is what is required, both regarding Covid and - ultimately - disposing of this useless amateurish and out-of-depth prime minister. There’s been a noticeable increase in news reports this week where it’s been hinted that Conservative MPs are starting to get jittery, and that’s hardly surprising.

That's a really interesting observation - I remember seeing a study a few months back which found mask usage was lowest in the Midlands, fairly low in the North, average in the more rural South, and then very high in London and the South East. Has that pattern reversed, perhaps? Are areas which initially went big for masks now tired of them?

And considering I'm moving back to my (southern) university city pretty soon, I'm a little heartened to hear the mask zealotry might be not quite so strong down there.

 

[Huntergreed]

That's a really interesting observation - I remember seeing a study a few months back which found mask usage was lowest in the Midlands, fairly low in the North, average in the more rural South, and then very high in London and the South East. Has that pattern reversed, perhaps? Are areas which initially went big for masks now tired of them?

And considering I'm moving back to my (southern) university city pretty soon, I'm a little heartened to hear the mask zealotry might be not quite so strong down there.

I must admit people do seem to care less about masks down here in London than they did when I visited Glasgow last week (but to be fair, I’ve found unless you know them, nobody really cares about anything down in London )

People do wear them (even when there’s nobody watching or making them or they’re in a very quiet carriage, but they don’t seem to care or even spare a thought for what the rest of the carriage is doing)

 

[yorkie]

I would think that a mask could arguably be classed as PPE which any employee is obliged to use as directed and trained by the employer. Use of PPE or work equipment in general can be used to reduce risk to others in a workplace as well as the individual employee e.g. a safe system of work for rope access would include not just the training, PPE and work equipment for the user but also tool lanyards to prevent a worker dropping tools potentially causing danger to others below (yes there should be an exclusion zone before a pedant points it out.)

It would not be a variation in contract in that having done a risk assessment for a newly developed hazard the employer could argue they were taking appropriate measures to keep the risk as low as reasonably practical in line with government guidance. Arguably collective measures should be applied first e.g. screens and appropriate distancing but it would not necessarily make masks inappropriate or excessive.

Although if it was considered as respiratory protective equipment which is a specific sub-set of PPE a whole load of other obligations would occur (fit testing, work task assessment to ensure RPE allows adequate air flow for task and filter/air flow testing.) This is the process employers of front line workers expecting to have deliberate contact with COVID positive people would have to undertake.

If they want them to qualify as PPE then surely they need to be providing to the employee a mask that actually protects the employee, e.g. an "N95" type mask?

A standard face covering is designed to protect others, not the wearer, so does this really count as PPE?

Could it be argued that protecting people from getting viruses is not a "new hazard" and the same logic could be applied to a bad 'flu season, but I am not sure if that argument would hold water?

Certainly in Scottish secondary schools, masks are mandatory in corridors and communal areas for staff (which I totally disagree with, along with the mandate for students) and this is (I think?) a legal requirement.

@ForTheLoveOf might know?

...I would expect where an employer, such as a school, instructs a staff member, such as a teacher, to wear a face covering for some or all of the working day, and the staff member refuses to do so for a reason not including a disability or other protected characteristic, the staff member could be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to obey a reasonable instruction from a manager.

They would have to provide the face coverings, presumably?

And could they ask for proof or evidence of a disability, medical reason or other protected characteristic?

The outcome of such an action would depend on how “reasonable” the instruction was considered to be – and as alluded to above, whether the policy is considered rational.

I'd like to see this tested in court! If there was someone taking donations to take one of these overzealous headteachers to court, I'd be up for making a donation right away

@yorkie

Teachers may face legal action for if they make kids wear face masks

An expert in public law has told how schools do not have a mandate for plans to make face coverings compulsory in school settings

www.birminghammail.co.uk

Hopefully a legal case will develop as there are some militant headteachers out there who need to be brought down a peg or two...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

A standard face covering is designed to protect others, not the wearer, so does this really count as PPE?

PPE is not just about protecting the user; it can also be about protecting others. Appropriate PPE is ultimately a way of complying with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act's duty of care to employees as well as persons other than employees.

If they want them to qualify as PPE then surely they need to be providing to the employee a mask that actually protects the employee, e.g. an "N95" type mask?

They can still be PPE even if they do not protect the wearer; however, I think they could be open to legal liability if they required the use of face coverings but did not provide or specify N95-style ones that protect the employee.

This would be because they would effectively be tactitly admitting that the risk posed is unacceptable without this item of PPE.

If anything, the risk posed by coronavirus is greater to teachers than to children (based on demographics) and thus it should really be the teachers that should have to wear masks, for their own benefit, if they are deemed at all necessary (I don't think I need to spell out my views on whether they are necessary).

Could it be argued that protecting people from getting viruses is not a "new hazard" and the same logic could be applied to a bad 'flu season, but I am not sure if that argument would hold water?

The societal reaction to coronavirus has been much stronger than that to the 'flu, even though they are similarly lethal. It is just that coronavirus is more infectious.

Risk assessments are, as many will be familiar with, dependent on both the potential injury/risk, as well as the likelihood of said risk occuring.

So whilst the potential injury resulting from coronavirus infection is similar to the 'flu, the greater risk of catching it (generally speaking - right now in most places it's probably the reverse!) means it presents a "higher" risk.

Of course, there are always ways and means of twisting these analyses to support your desired outcome. But ultimately I doubt the Courts would penalise an employer perceived to be overcautious.

They would have to provide the face coverings, presumably?

And could they ask for proof or evidence of a disability, medical reason or other protected characteristic?

If a face covering can be considered part of the dress code then I don't see that they necessarily have to provide it, any more than they have to provide clothes complying with their dress code.

If, on the other hand, face coverings are an item of PPE then the employer must provide it free of charge as usual.

You will struggle to make a case in Court if you refuse to share evidence with your employer of the protected characteristic against which you claim to have been discriminated. The same as you couldn't take extended sick leave without a doctor's note or employer's medical assessment.

The issue of lack of a requirement for proof is really more one for individual encounters with the police or other people enforcing face covering mandates - as it is impractical for them to require it in most cases. This is not so when you are working somewhere for a long period.

Does anyone know the legal position?

I concur with @island - there is no indication of any legislation which puts the Government's "requirement" of a face covering in communal areas in secondary schools on a criminal law basis. That's just to say that it's not an offence to fail to wear a face covering.

That doesn't necessarily mean you couldn't face disciplinary action for failing or refusing to wear one without a valid exemption/reason. It's the same as how it's not an offence to speak poorly of a colleague or manager on social media, but it could quite legitimately mean disciplinary action.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm afraid they have already said they are considering it, this was only a month back:

Ministers 'considering telling public to wear gloves to curb virus'

It comes on the day people in England were required to start wearing face coverings in shops

www.standard.co.uk

It does seem worrying that they are even looking at the idea, this one should have been thrown out with the bathwater. However the key phrase in that article is "correct use". I would hope that all medical advice would be that it would be impossible to have the correct use of gloves in public settings (as it should have been for masks).

 

[LAX54]

I'm afraid they have already said they are considering it, this was only a month back:

Ministers 'considering telling public to wear gloves to curb virus'

It comes on the day people in England were required to start wearing face coverings in shops

www.standard.co.uk

Well, if they want a so called 'spike' then wearing gloves will greatly assist in that respect ! It's a stupid suggesttion

 

[yorkie]

Well, if they want a so called 'spike' then wearing gloves will greatly assist in that respect ! It's a stupid suggesttion

It is, but so are many others the hysterical brigade come up with; the government is keen to pander to the hysterical people, but I think they will realise it's a step too far.

But the fact anyone is even considering it tells you all you need to know!

 

[adc82140]

It seems regarding gloves that once again the headline has no relation to the content of the article (straying in to the Media thread here). One ignorant member of the House of Lords has suggested it, and they've been given a "there, there" response by the department of health.

 

[LAX54]

It is, but so are many others the hysterical brigade come up with; the government is keen to pander to the hysterical people, but I think they will realise it's a step too far.

But the fact anyone is even considering it tells you all you need to know!

What I did see, only yesterday was a person, with a rather large mask, not even sure how she saw to walk ! also wearing blue latex gloves, which she covered in 'gel' on the way out of the shop (not that there is anyhting wrong with applying gel on the way out I hasetn to add, it was just gel & gloves combined....messy )

 

[43066]

Being “up north” this week (well, away from what we would call London & South East) I’ve noticed there is very conspicuously more hostility to those who aren’t wearing a mask. We had an under-breath comment in a tourist attraction today, which was responded very much in kind. Likewise I sensed considerably more dagger looks in Tesco’s compared to at home.

Interesting that there’s such a marked regional difference. Perhaps that’s partly down to the fact that London is generally fairly anonymous, without much sense of community. At the moment that’s a very good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

I’m coming to the conclusion that communications with MPs is what is required, both regarding Covid and - ultimately - disposing of this useless amateurish and out-of-depth prime minister. There’s been a noticeable increase in news reports this week where it’s been hinted that Conservative MPs are starting to get jittery, and that’s hardly surprising.

Agreed. The Tories’ lead over Labour in the polls has completely evaporated. Boris is holed below the waterline and hopefully a successor (but who?!) will be brave enough to change approach.

 

[Scrotnig]

Boris is holed below the waterline and hopefully a successor (but who?!) will be brave enough to change approach.

Be careful what you wish for. It seems that most potential successors - both within the Conservative party, and in the Labour party in the unlikely event we end up with an early election - seem to be in favour os even stricter restrictions.

I'm afraid these people cannot help themselves. The chance to restrict, control and micromanage every aspect of people's lives is not something any of them will let go of easily. I've said this from the start. That we so meekly handed them such immense power is something we will come to regret.

Trying to explain this to most people however simply results in hysterical shrieking along the lines of "You're killing people", "so you want everyone to die" etc etc. I genuinely despair.

 

[talldave]

Interesting that there’s such a marked regional difference. Perhaps that’s partly down to the fact that London is generally fairly anonymous, without much sense of community. At the moment that’s a very good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

Even within a small area of London there are observable differences. We have 4 branches of Sainsbury's within easy reach and it's possible to predict mask uptake in each based on the affluence or poshness of the immediate area. Compliance is higher the more affluent you go because the "doing the right thing", "not wanting to offend" level is proportional.

Unfortunately our closest branch is the "poshest", so as a non wearer I feel like a posh fish out of water!

 

[bramling]

Interesting that there’s such a marked regional difference. Perhaps that’s partly down to the fact that London is generally fairly anonymous, without much sense of community. At the moment that’s a very good thing, as far as I’m concerned.



Agreed. The Tories’ lead over Labour in the polls has completely evaporated. Boris is holed below the waterline and hopefully a successor (but who?!) will be brave enough to change approach.

It would be nice just to have someone with some element of leadership ability, rather than a dopey media hack who seems incapable of looking further than social media to inform key decisions. Likewise perhaps appoint a cabinet with a little more talent than Gavin Williamson and a dopey popularity contest chancellor.

Allowing the country to descend into mass hysteria is unforgivable.

Time will judge whether or not Sweden got it right, but at least their government were prepared to lead.

 

[DB]

It would be nice just to have someone with some element of leadership ability, rather than a dopey media hack who seems incapable of looking further than social media to inform key decisions. Likewise perhaps appoint a cabinet with a little more talent than Gavin Williamson and a dopey popularity contest chancellor.

Indeed. I don't think that Starmer would make a great leader, but he'd be a heck of a lot better than Johnson.