“If someone is overweight, that’s a choice they’ve made. Why should we pay for it?”.
Employers are already funding mental health platforms, financial wellbeing apps, EAP programmes, and everything in between. The list of things that fall under “employer responsibility” gets longer every year, so it’s no surprise there’s some push back on this topic.
It can also be a deeply sensitive one to approach. But the OEUK weight limit isn’t a wellness initiative. It’s a safety policy. That means it’s not a lifestyle issue - it's a compliance risk.
From 1 November 2026, any offshore worker weighing more than 124kg fully clothed will not receive a valid medical certificate. They will not be permitted to travel offshore. Full stop.
Just last week, the BBC published updated figures (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gk2zlv0e6o) that suggest there are still hundreds of offshore workers who exceed the safe weight limit.
So let’s set aside the conversation about personal choices for a moment and ask a more practical question: what happens to your operation when key individuals can’t do their job?
These aren’t new recruits. These are people with years, sometimes decades, of experience. People your operations depend on. And right now, some of them are in the transition phase - receiving reduced-duration medical certificates and quietly running out of time.
The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of acting.
I’ve spoken to employers who frame this as “not our problem” - and I understand the instinct. But consider what “not our problem” costs.
It costs you a worker who fails their medical in October 2026 and can’t go offshore. It costs you the recruitment and onboarding of a replacement - if you can find one with the same experience. It costs you the productivity lost in the gap. And depending on how the situation is handled, it may cost you significantly more if that worker believes they weren’t given adequate support.
OEUK has been explicit: employers are encouraged to provide access to health and weight management support during the transition phase. That’s not a suggestion buried in the small print. It’s a clear expectation from the industry body that set the policy.
We don’t ask workers to get their own safety certifications.
Here’s the comparison I keep coming back to. In my experience, if an employee needs to renew a safety certification to remain deployable, employers don’t say “that’s their personal responsibility - they can pay for it themselves.” That’s not how it works. Certification is a condition of deployment, and employers fund it without debate.
Weight is now, functionally, in the same category. It is a condition of deployment. The mechanism is different, but the principle is identical.
And let’s talk about duty of care.
Most employers in the offshore sector take duty of care seriously. They invest in safety culture, mental health awareness, and occupational health. They understand that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce.
But duty of care isn’t just about the things that happen on the asset. It extends to helping workers remain fit and able to do their jobs. Especially when there’s a clear deadline, a clear risk, and clear, affordable solutions available from less than £10 a week.
Employers who provide support won’t just be protecting their operational headcount - they’ll be building trust and loyalty.
The deadline is 1 November 2026. The transition phase is underway. The time to act is now - not because it’s a nice thing to do, but because it’s the right thing to do, and frankly, the smart thing to do.