Originally Posted by certifiedfunds
So did they let water in or did the union reject them because of the packaging?
Well, the first clue we had that they didn't stop BBP (bloodborne pathogens) is when the label said as much. And, we didn't "reject" them - we were forced to use them, since they were the only gloves provided, for months.
I still don't get your attitude - you really think that gloves, which are specifically labeled against use with blood, will stop blood and disease anyway, and that the union is bad for demanding proper equipment?
What a dumbass. Pull your head out, and live in the real world. Better yet, come fight a guy with HIV that like to bite his lip and spit blood on you. Then, tell me which gloves you want to be using. And yeah, we've got "that" guy in custody right now. Seems we have to fight him at least once per week or so. But hey, I'll let the admin know they can go back to buying cheap gloves, because good ol' no-nothing CF said there was nothing wrong with them.
Again, the perfect example of the "I got mine, screw you" attitude the libs love to hold up against the wealthy.
For the poster who asked about OSHA -
Yes, OSHA requires proper gloves, as well. Which do you think gets resolved faster? An OSHA complaint, or a grievance filed to the local government? I'll give you a hint - the Feds aren't my first pick...but, they were next on the list, should the grievance have failed.