Uncategorized
The case of the Unsafe Safety Shoes
There is so much to say about “safety shoes” and the whole amount of human energy associated with them. This story actually happened to me and illustrates an important point about “product quality” and how it is defined. As in many cases, the story leads into the area of “compliance” which is a topic near and dear to many of us because it is a source of revenue.
Back Story
You do know what we are talking about, right? In a lot of places I go, it is a requirement of the workplace to wear “safety shoes”. These are shoes with a reinforced toe, or in some cases metatarsal area, to protect your feet against impact or compression.
The definitive explanation of this was done by none other than the Mythbusters.
There is some expectation that the shoes themselves pass a set of tests defined by the ASTM as follows:
https://www.astm.org/Standards/F2413.htm
and the test method is further defined in F2412
https://www.astm.org/Standards/F2412.htm
There are a couple of side points on this.
In my 45 years of experience that extends all the way back into the disco era, I have worked in places where “safety shoes” are a requirement. But, as the boys explain, in some of these places it is not at all clear what this means, and there is some question about whether or not it makes it worse.
In some places, the rule is stated to be “steel toed shoes”. In some places, it is more refined to say “protective footwear” or some other similar phrase. The intent of the ASTM testing and labelling protocol is to clearly define how much weight our feet need to be protected from, either in compression or impact and then have the workplace set up their work rule based on that amount.
The reality, from the point of view of “the company”, is that they are required by OSHA regulation to make employees wear protective shoes. Here is the link to the regulation.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.136
A Job Safety Analysis is done by the company, signed off by some authority figure, and it is a rule which is adapted for that situation.
Story from the Disco Era
Back in the 70s, the most likely scenario on this is that you would be called out if your shoes did not “look uncomfortable” to your hard headed supervisor.
I started work in a hostile union environment where this was one of a number of petty squabbles that could be started by either labor or management if they were bored that night. A bratty union guy would wear a pair of shoes onto the floor. The supervisor would challenge him or very rarely her for them not being safety shoes. The steward was summoned. There was a big inspection and argument that would take half the night. Nothing got solved because it was used as a weapon by either side.
This had nothing to do with employee safety, but everything to do with forcing union members to buy footwear from the company-approved supplier at an exploitative price, part of which could conceivably be thought as a kickback.
The more modern approach
In this era, most of this kind of conversation has disappeared, thankfully. A lot of these “safety shoes” are now designed to look like athletic shoes, and you literally can’t tell whether they are safety shoes or not. Add to this the fact that the authority structure on the floor of some of these factories is now such that your “lead operator” is now just a slightly more glorified employee that is in the same boat as you. I wear safety shoes all the time, and when challenged, I just say “yeah these are safety shoes” and that is where it stops.
Shoe Labeling
Nowadays it is required by the above ASTM standard that there be a little label inside the shoe that designates them as “safety.” One code on this is a compression rating, which is to simulate a forklift rolling over your foot. There is also an “impact rating” which is to simulate some idiot dropping a heavy object from a height of 1.5 meters and having it land on your foot. There is also a rating for electrical hazard just in case that same idiot also was carrying a live electrical line of some kind. This is all because of the theory that it is up to someone besides you to warn you of hazards.
Here, actually, is a more definitive articles on this topic:
https://www.shoesforcrews.com/sfc3/Images/rwd/pdfs/Articles_ASTMCompliance.pdf
My research on this is so interesting, that it is worthy of a second post.
Customer Requirements for “safety shoes”
A few years ago when I started auditing I got a pair of cheap “safety shoes” from the local discount store for about 50 dollars. This was because I did not wear these full time and I only needed to meet the requirement. No one ever checked to see if they had the little label or not. What I did know was that these were cheap, but very uncomfortable. The main customer requirement, I guess, was that they look “safety enough” so that I would not be called out during an audit by one of my tour guides.
Unsafe Safety Shoes
I sometimes walk pretty close to 3 miles during an audit. The walk between the gate and my car at the Atlanta airport averages about 1.5 miles, most of this is on concrete. So, from a hazard standpoint, most of the pain I ever felt from shoes was due to walking. Nobody ever dropped anything heavy on me. Therefore to me, “safety shoes” were much more “unsafe” than normal shoes. I guess we have now advanced enough in the area of kinesiology to understand that you can be hurt just as badly from ill fitting shoes worn all day than you can from having someone drop a load of bowling balls on your toe. This is because it screws up your productivity and makes you crazy.
So at one point, I made the determination to get some “real shoes” that would not kill my feet.
The Greatest Shoes I Ever Had
I went into one of the outlet stores in the local mall, and bought a pair of “Cat” brand work shoes. These did have the little ASTM label, for a 75 C and I rating (compression and impact) which I judged to be general purpose. These were the most comfortable shoes I ever had of any type. I could wear them comfortably without socks. I wore them everywhere, including the airport, and including out to walk the dog and get the paper in the morning. They cost a little more than $130. It seemed painful at the time but less painful than stress fractures, which is what I was developing.
Like all shoes, they wore out eventually. The soles were fine, but the “uppers” basically fell apart from being loved too much. They were given a Viking funeral. I still miss those shoes.
The Replacement Shoes
Shortly thereafter, I ordered a similar pair online. They were the same “CAT” brand, but a slightly different model. I love these shoes too, and I still have them. They have worn a little better. But like all shoes, their time for retirement has come and I need to order some new ones.
Brand Loyalty
It has since come to my attention that the “Cat” brand is a licensed product, and has nothing to do with the famous Earthmover company. These shoes are produced by Wolverine Footwear Corporation. This company is in the footwear business, and runs a portfolio of famous shoe brands, including Hush Puppies and US Keds, which decades ago were among the first shoes that marketed directly to kids.
So the next set of questions: What is the value of “branding” these shoes by invoking the name of the famous earthmover company? Are durability and toughness, defined somehow, an unstated customer requirement? If I owned two of these pairs of shoes, and love them, should I then expect a third pair to be equally wonderful?
The case of the Unsafe Safety Shoes
You can guess what happened. I ordered a third pair of these shoes from a famous online store. I was reasonably happy because I got this pair for about 70 dollars. After trying them on, I wanted to like them, but just couldn’t. I wore them on a couple of audits and grew to hate them, because of their hot spots, general ill fit, and heaviness. Finally I made the determination that they were crappy and I needed to send them back.
Careful Inspection
First of all the insoles in these new shoes were markedly cheaper than my original insoles. I guess from the viewpoint of the company, who sells replacement insoles this makes sense. They almost got me to spend an extra 20 dollars for a set of insoles to make these shoes less uncomfortable. I suppose “they” made the determination that the company was better off selling me cheap shoes, and then charging me an extra 20 dollars to make them comfortable.
Secondly, I weighed them in, and found them to be 2 ounces per shoe heavier than my old ones. My old ones were one pound six ounces, and the “new” ones were one pound 8 ounces. What that means, is that in a day of 8000 steps, which is common, my legs are moving an additional 1000 pounds around and to that I say no wonder I was a little more tired at the end of the day.
What is really happening here?
Well there are actually three things.
First of all, because Wolverine is who they are, they do what is called “portfolio management”. This means that they are competing in all sorts of different market segments of footwear. So, it is possible that the company deliberately “traded down” in the marketplace by deliberately lowering quality so that they could sell these shoes at a lower price point.
Solution from the Product Management Department
For them, the calculation was, that if they reduced the price of “CAT” shoes, even though the shoes were selling at lower margin, they would have better market penetration and make more money.
Here, by the way, is the Wolverine Worldwide set of financial statements. All I can say is, it is hard to make money in a fragmented, complex industry. You are competing against Nike, and Sketchers, and have a 12,000 mile supply chain where there is no legal system.
http://wolverineworldwide.gcs-web.com/sec-filings
The Tyranny of “They”
This is exactly the type of calculation that is made by the “Amorphous They”. I have talked about these people before. These are the highly paid people that have authority, but no accountability. This may even be more than one person, and in fact, usually is a committee of some kind. These people are on the same level as Supervillans.
“They” for sure have no direct accountability to “Me” the hyperloyal buyer that was perfectly willing to pay an extra few dollars or so to get a pair of shoes that I loved. “They” are probably a collection of brand management people, in some office somewhere, and never even wear the shoes that “they” are making these decisions on. Do “they” care? No, “They” don’t care, because “they” get paid based on brand performance rather than whether or not “they” make their loyal customers’ feet hurt.
The Other Thing
The chances are greater than zero that these are counterfeit shoes. It is possible that these shoes are high enough value that someone could attempt to knock them off.
The Third Thing
There will be a second article on this.
What Happened Next
The shipping package already contained a pre printed barcode. I was supposed to take this to a local shipping place and get them to scan it, which should have caused an actual shipping label to be produced. When I did so I was greeted by a little clerk. She was pleasant and obviously baffled. Hilariously, she was actually trying to train a new employee to do their job. You can guess what happened.
After waiting a long time in line, the pleasant clerk (the trainer) scanned the barcode, the return label didn’t print, she shrugged, and it caused customer dissatisfaction because I felt like they should at least accept return postage. When a complex system fails at the lowest level, namely the customer facing level, I am not surprised anymore.
I eventually took it to a safe place printed out my own label, took it to the shipping place, and sent my package off.
I got my refund this morning, which is a little bitty Christmas miracle in and of itself.
Forward Program
I still need to replace my shoes, and now I have a problem, don’t I? My trust in this brand has gone from 100 percent to zero percent in one incident. Since I have my refund, and it was only minimally traumatic to get it, I am at peace.
Should I buy these online, or go back to a physical store where I can see the merchandise?
What to make of all of this?
First of all, this is a case where “customer expectations” have led to a set of unstated customer specifications. The nominally stated spec for these shoes are “meets the ASTM safety standard” and “fit my size 8 ½ feet. ” I may derive a little customer satisfaction from having them be stylish, and having them last a long time, but to me, these are secondary specifications. The product managers also probably believed that the paying of a royalty to use the logo of a company famous for its durability and level of macho would have some value to me, although the value of this to me is actually pretty minimal.
Companies do this sort of thing all the time, as they manage what is called the “product life cycle”. The fact that I picked my original pair up at an outlet store is probably an important clue. Maybe when this product line was developed “they” had focus group and market data that said the licensing deal would have more value than it actually did.
A Limited Market Segment
What probably is also the case is that I am a rarity. I have a third “specification” that is the shoes need to be very comfortable and still maintain the safety rating. Clearly the technology exists for such a thing. To reward the company, I would have been happy to pay an extra few dollars for the shoes. What this suggests is that there are few enough people like me around that the brand managers could walk away from this part of the business and the shoe company would still be better off because there are more people who have less tender feet.
There is a lot more to this topic, it seems. In fact, I, and everybody else that is required to wear “safety shoes” has a problem.
