Auditor
design engineering
fake ISO cert
Fake NSF stamps
ISO Auditing
lack of alarm systems
outsourcing
Uncategorized
The Case of the “Unsafety Shoes” (Part 2)
This is the second part of the unpredictably long story involving “safety shoes”, as required by various companies. Based on a few minutes of research, there is an excellent probability right now that everybody’s safety shoes are undocumented and not auditable. Here is Part One. (Link)
Disclaimer: If your research is different from any of this, feel free to contribute and straighten me out. I would love to think I am wrong and this system is actually wonderful. I am actually not a safety guy.
We talked about this issue in a previous article:
Here is your problem. The ASTM, being the progressive entity that it is, is always upgrading its testing methods and standards. The prevailing standard F2413-11 was the 2011 version and describes in detail the testing methods used to measure the protective capability of your footwear.
The Audit Trail
The frequent readers of this blog should be able to recognize an audit trail when they see one.
The obvious question is, and should be, “It is easier to print the little label than it is to engineer a shoe properly. Who is to say these shoes passed the test? Who is to say they aren’t counterfeit shoes?”
Well, come to find out, the correct answer to this is up in the air.
Apparently, up until 2018, there was no requirement for objective evidence of who did the testing, and whether or not the testing was valid. There is obviously no traceability on my label above.
Now, however, there is a requirement:
Side Note
I did not spend the $50 to get the updated ASTM specification to read it for myself because I am thrifty. There is a Paypal button at the bottom of this page in case 50 of you choose to chip in a dollar each, and I will read the unfiltered version.
The Can of Worms
Here is your apparent problem. In order to be in conformance with ASTM 2413-18 the manufacturer has to present a certificate of conformance that the shoes were tested by an objective third party.
To an auditor, that makes perfect sense. Who is to say that the label actually means anything? Actually, per the ISO standard, there needs to be a system of validation and revalidation of this stuff to assure that once production starts, the shoes still meet the specs.
The further can of worms is: Are you then going to have the third party testing company be certified somehow? There already is a standard for that.
The Challenge
Despite the fact that the new rule went into effect a year ago, the supply chain is still full of shoes that were produced under the old standard, which apparently did not require the Certificate of Conformance.
Here is an article from the Timberland, website and they are still promoting the 2011 standard:
https://www.timberland.com/timberlandpro/safety-toe-boots.html
In fact I “sampled” a few of the 33 styles of safety shoes these guys have and to their almost credit they either did not make a claim of ASTM F2413 conformance of any type, or did claim the 2413-11 certification.
Here is another example: Red Wing has two styles of boot that they claim is in conformance with the 2018 standard:
http://www.redwingsafety.com/safety-boot/971-safe-intl/mens-truwelt-6-inch-boot-6-inch-boot-black
The Supply Chain
But “Frank” here, who is a distributor, is still offering this product in conformance to the F2413-11 Standard.
https://www.frankssports.com/Red-Wing-2206-Mens-6-inch-Waterproof-Boot-P4136.aspx
which suggests that the supply chain still has not caught up with the standard.
Here is the wally mart ad. This pair of shoes subscribes to the 2017 version of the standard, which was only in effect for a year. Perhaps they will become collectors items.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nautilus-Men-s-N1343-Steel-Safety-Toe-Athletic-Work-Shoe/279965996
What about those slip-on toe caps? In a lot of the places I go, the company provides a toe cap that slips on over your shoes, and they also have some validation from an outside entity. Are those now all obsolete?
This is what I am talking about, from the Grainger catalog.
So here is the situation:
Unless you basically got a new pair of very specific shoes for Christmas this year, the chances are excellent that when you go back to work on Thursday your shoes will be un-auditable. This did not happen overnight, chances are they were that way since 2018. The ASTM standard is considered to go into effect when it was issued, which was at some point in 2018.
The situation is further clouded by the fact that the ASTM is not going to make the manufacturers fix anything, per the following quote from the above ASTM blog:
Statement from ASTM (Per the above link)
“Manufacturers are generally not prohibited from labeling a product with an outdated standard, should a request or situation require labeling that indicates compliance with the Z41 standard – as long as the standard is publicly available and it is recommended that the recipient of the product be informed that more technically current documentation is available (an example may be a request that, in its specifications, refers to a dated regulation citing the Z41 document).
So it is possible that you could get a new pair of safety shoes that meets the 2413-11 standard (which does not require C of A) and since it is only “recommended” that the customer be informed that there is a more technically current standard, there is nothing that keeps them from doing so and not telling anyone.
The Further Deepening Unsafety Shoes Can of Worms.
There are now so many questions:
First of all, are my old safety shoes safe? Who is to say they were tested properly in the first place, however long ago I got them? Who validated them, and is there objective evidence that they aren’t counterfeit?
Secondly, are anybody’s “safety shoes” actually safe? Even though they have a reinforced toe, and look like “safety shoes” is it not true that the user is accepting the risk that they are counterfeit? Or, if not Counterfeit, who is to say they meet the C/I spec, even if made by someone reputable?
Thirdly, what happens when someone drops something heavy on some poor worker’s foot, and it goes to trial? Can the company now say “it is up to the employee to figure out whether his or her shoes are legit?” Who gets sued?
A Further Can of Worms
Fourthly, what happens when one of these big conservative companies says “OK everybody’s shoes now must meet the 2018 specification. Show me your certificate of authenticity before you go to work.” Or an alternate scenario: “We don’t know whose shoes to trust. You need to buy an audited, certified company-accepted version which costs 3 times as much or you can’t work here.” Or “Ah, I see you have on a pair of new shoes, we need to keep on file a C of A for your shoes, and you need to let me know if you wear a different pair to work tomorrow.”
Fifthly, is this an audit trail for me, as an ISO auditor? If the first line of the work instruction says “make sure you are wearing proper PPE” am I now able to ask the employee to show me him or her the certificate of conformance?”
Unintended Consequences
You can see where the ASTM was going when they cooked this idea up. What is the point in mandating “safety shoes” if there is no validation that the shoes actually protect you from anything?
The apparent remedy, “have the manufacturers provide documentation” seemed like a good idea at one level, but it opens up at least five cans of worms. It is only a matter of time before this ends up in court.
What about my buying decision?
In the meantime, do I, the pesky ISO auditor, accept the risk of my old shoes being counterfeit? Do I take the high road and buy the high-end Red Wing (which are about $200) and have them beat up my feet? (Side note: back in the disco era I bought a pair of shoes from this company which were just horrible from a comfort standpoint. My co-workers back in Des Moines used to laugh at me for stepping on the shoe backs and wearing them around the office like clogs.) Do I buy a pair of 2413-11 shoes and count on the lack of clarity in the system and trust that the people in the giant factories won’t throw me out?
I can further envision a conversation like this:
Conversation About Safety Shoes (A play in Two Acts)
Act 1: 10:37 PM, some dark, noisy factory floor.
Hard Headed Supervisor: Hey, what are you doing with those shoes on the floor?
Union Guy: What shoes? These?
Hard Headed Supervisor: Yes. They’re Hush Puppies.
Union Guy: Hey, you’re right! they’re soooo comfortable.
Hard Headed Supervisor: Those aren’t allowed. You have to wear safety shoes. I’m going to have to stop your time.
Union Guy: FU. I want the steward.
(45 minutes goes by)
Steward: What’s the problem?
Supervisor: This union guy has illegal shoes.
Steward: Let’s see these shoes. They look like Hush Puppies.
Union Guy: They are. They’re sooo comfortable.
Supervisor: They have to be safety shoes. This guy makes trouble for me every night.
Union guy: These shoes are fine. See? They have the ASTM label on them.
Steward: Hey, you’re right. The ASTM label is on them.
Supervisor: He just glued these on with super glue. Those shoes aren’t safe.
Union Guy: Yeah they are, they have been tested. I tested them.
Supervisor: You can’t test them.
Union Guy: Yeah I can. There is nothing in the ASTM spec that keeps me from being the laboratory that tests the shoes. For the compression, I drove my truck over them, and they were okay. For the impact, I dropped a bag of bowling balls off my roof onto them, and they are still okay.
Steward: He’s right, you know.
Supervisor: I gotta call the Safety Manager.
Act 2
(Another 45 minutes go by. The Safety Manager appears)
Safety Manager: Now what?
Steward: This supervisor is ragging my guy about his footwear.
Safety Manager: What’s the problem this time?
Supervisor: Those are Hush Puppies. They’re unsafe.
Union Guy: No they aren’t. They have the ASTM label on inside them. See?
Safety Manager: They look like you super glued them in there yourself.
Union Guy: I did. But I tested the shoes myself and found out they were fine.
Safety Manager: You can’t do that.
Union Guy: Yeah I can. For all you know, the Vietnamese shoes you are wearing were tested the same way. I tested these shoes myself, and even put it on You Tube.
Safety Manager: Good Grief. You can either get “approved shoes” or go home. You must have a lot of spare time to get into all this.
Union Guy: Just the opposite. I have an exam tomorrow at 8. See ya later.
(Union guy and Steward depart.)
Supervisor: That guy is driving me crazy. He makes rate every night, but is turning me into an old man.
Safety Manager: When does he graduate from Law School?
Supervisor: Not soon enough. You know he’s going to win his grievance.
Safety Manager: Yeah. We should probably hire him as our lawyer.
More Questions than Answers
In the world where we all take individual responsibility for our safety equipment, we accept the risk and accountability for a bad decision. “Don’t sue us if you get your foot crushed. Work barefoot for all we care.” Note: This is the prevailing philosophy in some of the “lower wage” countries at the moment.
When some higher authority makes a decision like that for us, it is also easy. They accept the risk. “In order to work here, we require you to wear these specific shoes. We have an insurance policy on you in case you hurt your foot wearing our shoes.” Never mind that they reduce productivity that much more by screwing up the employees’ feet.
A Mixed System of Unsafety Shoes
What we have now is a “mixed system” without required independent verification. That’s just like not having a system at all. In an era when you could more or less trust the manufacturer to tell the truth, that may have worked. In this era, which condones counterfeiting when it is convenient, it may not work. Time will tell.
And of course the ultimate question: Who is paying for any of this? It is pretty easy to imagine a line in the sand to be drawn, and the price of shoes going way up. My feet and wallet both hurt just thinking about it.
I don’t miss the disco era. I am a little worried about the future though.
PS:
Like I said above, if you feel I am in error on any of this, please tell me and I will retract it.
