Okay, you brought it up so, I guess I'm going to bite.
Obviously there's the entanglement risk of things like workman's gloves or riggers' gloves or gardening gloves or the like. I expect most sensible people would never argue with the 'no gloves' thing there.
However,
skin-tight, very thin nitrile or latex gloves,
the kinds of gloves that will tear as easily or in some cases even more easily than skin, seem to me, not to have the characteristics that lead to the risk.
Is there a good explanation why, in a hobbyist shop, where it's just the individual working and there isn't the requirement for a blanket H&S company policy to protect it from litigation (which is the reason H&S policies are implemented at companies
) the above paragraph isn't true.
It won't be news to any of us here that it's vital to have a good, specific, credible and easily defended rationale for any safety prescriptions/proscriptions.
If individual bits of safety advice that have quite a broad interpretation (like the somewhat
absolute "no gloves" prohibition) don't have good logical reasoning that covers their rather broad application, then people may lose patience with safety advice generally.
By the way, although the above paragraph is true, my main reason for asking is that I do prefer to wear the very thin nitrile gloves and I'd like to know if there's a good, logical reason I should stop wearing them.
