MSA Safety, Type 2 Hard Hats, and Skechers Work Boots: Lessons from 12 Years of Buying PPE

If you're building a PPE program, stop starting with brand names. Start with the hazard assessment, the test standards, and the maintenance plan. I've spent 12 years buying safety equipment for industrial crews, and my mistakes have cost roughly $54,000. Today I'd spec MSA Safety for head and eye protection, Type 2 hard hats for most sites, and Skechers work boots for general crews - but none of it works if the gear doesn't get worn and doesn't get cleaned. The most expensive PPE is the piece hanging in a locker.

Why I get to be skeptical (and why I still got burned)

I'm a safety coordinator at a mid-sized industrial contractor. I've handled PPE orders for 12 years - maybe 200 orders? 190? I'd have to check the system. I've personally made seven significant mistakes, and I documented every one. Together, they totaled roughly $54,000 in wasted budget. That doesn't count the time I lost or the trust I had to rebuild.

In my first year, I made the classic specification error: I ordered 40 Type 2 hard hats because Type 2 sounds better. I didn't verify the suspension type or the shell markings. The hats sat wrong on nearly every crew member, and the supplier wouldn't accept the return because I'd opened the sealed cartons to check one. $3,600 wasted, a one-week delay, and a safety manager who didn't trust me for months.

That lesson became my checklist. Now I keep a pre-buy checklist for every category: head, eye, foot, fall protection, gas detection. I don't pretend to know every standard by heart; I look them up every time. It's the checking that saves the budget.

Why MSA Safety keeps showing up in my specs

Part of my preference for MSA is engineering. Part of it is direction. I don't follow the MSA Safety board of directors the way a stock analyst would, but I do read their public reporting before I commit to a big tender. Leadership decisions show up in the physical product. When MSA invested in Type 2 helmets with MIPS instead of just selling cheaper Type 1 shells, that told me they were betting on the next decade, not the next quarter.

And because we buy across multiple hazard categories, the breadth matters. One vendor for head protection, gas detection, fall protection, and eyewear means fewer fragmented specs to reconcile. It doesn't mean MSA is the only option - it means when I do a comparison, they're consistently near the top. That's worth something in a market where certified doesn't always mean comfortable enough to actually wear.

The first gear lesson: Type 2 hard hats aren't Type 1 improved

A lot of buyers think Type 2 is simply a tougher version of Type 1. It's not. Under ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2014, Type 1 hard hats are tested for impacts and penetration to the top of the head. Type 2 hard hats are tested for lateral and angled impacts as well. The extra coverage is exactly what you want on a construction site where a worker can swing into a beam or get clipped by a crane load. But it comes with tradeoffs: more material, more heat, more weight. If your crew takes the helmet off because it pinches or slides, you've bought a wall ornament.

When I compared our old Type 1 helmets and a sample Type 2 side by side, I finally understood why the details matter. The shell is only half the story. The suspension, the liner, and the way pressure spreads across the skull decide whether someone will trust it on a 13-hour shift. MSA's V-Gard family is where I usually land because they've solved more of that fit problem than the alternates I've tested. Some of the newer V-Gard Type 2 models include MIPS - a feature I initially dismissed as bicycle technology parachuted into construction. Then I took a side impact while ducking under a beam. The lateral protection is real.

If you're shopping for a Type 2 hard hat, the first question isn't the brand. It's the fit and the class. Class G helmets provide 2,200 volts of protection; Class E provides 20,000 volts; Class C provides no electrical protection and should never be used near live conductors. I've caught that mistake on an order for a crew working near substations. It's the kind of detail that doesn't show up on a sales sheet but shows up in the incident report.

Eye protection: why the crew actually wore MSA safety glasses

Eyewear is the PPE equivalent of socks. Everyone has a preference, and if you get it wrong, they'll find a workaround. For years, I bought basic clear spectacles from the lowest bidder. They met ANSI Z87.1 on paper, but crews in humid trenches were wiping fog every few minutes, and the arms pinched behind their ears. So the glasses stayed in the truck.

Then we tested MSA safety glasses with anti-fog coatings and adjustable temples. Same impact rating, but a much lower I'll just skip this rate. Why does that matter? Because OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132 requires a hazard assessment before selecting PPE, but the assessment is useless if the selected PPE doesn't get worn. The best-rated lens in the world does nothing from the bottom of a toolbox.

Look, I'm not saying MSA's glasses are the only option. But they taught me a broader lesson: comfort is a safety feature. A slightly heavier but more breathable frame will protect more eyes than a featherweight frame that slips off every time someone bends over.

Boots: why a 12-year PPE buyer finally approved Skechers work boots

For a decade, I specified traditional leather boots with a steel toe and a defined heel. They met ASTM F2413-18, and that was my entire argument. Then a foreman bought his own pair of Skechers work boots. I'll be honest: I was skeptical. A safety toe in a sneaker-shaped boot? It didn't fit the image of a real safety program.

Then he wore them for six months straight. His foot fatigue dropped, and he stopped slipping on wet concrete because the outsole pattern kept the contact area clear. I checked the tags. They carried the ASTM F2413-18 marking for toe impact and compression, plus an electrical hazard rating. We adjusted the PPE allowance, and Skechers work boots went on our approved list.

This is where the industry-evolution viewpoint matters. What was best practice in 2020 may not apply in 2025. Ten years ago, no serious contractor would call a sneaker-look boot a work boot. Now composite-toe, low-weight boots are standard options on big projects. The fundamentals haven't changed - protect the feet from impact and compression - but the execution has transformed.

That doesn't mean every crew should wear the same boot. Skechers work boots aren't right for heavy steelwork where you need a true heel to lock onto a rung. For general construction, warehouses, and light industrial, the comfort advantage is real. Fit the boot to the task, and let the worker's feedback be part of the decision.

How to clean work boots without wrecking them

The safety feature people forget is the tread. Mud-packed boots on a wet steel deck are basically ski blades. Here's how to clean work boots without ruining the leather or the sole:

1. Remove the laces and insoles. You can't clean what you can't see.
2. Tap the boots together outside to knock off loose dirt. Then clean with a soft brush, lukewarm water, and mild soap. Don't use a pressure washer - it forces water into the seams and can delaminate the sole.
3. Dry them slowly, away from direct heat. Newspaper stuffed inside helps them hold their shape.
4. Condition the leather regularly if you work in dry, gritty conditions.
5. Inspect the sole and the stitching where the upper meets the midsole. If the sole separates, the protective toe cap can slide out of position.

Why does boot cleaning belong in a PPE article? Because I once had a worker slip on a ladder because the mud-packed soles of his work boots gave him no traction. He wasn't wearing a bad brand; he was wearing an expensive pair with zero maintenance. Cleaning isn't cosmetic. It's hazard prevention, and it costs almost nothing compared to the injuries it prevents.

Where I'd still hold back

I don't want to oversell any of this. Type 2 hard hats can create a false sense of security. They're not bubble wrap. They protect against lateral impacts within a defined energy range, not against a falling I-beam. MSA safety glasses meet impact standards, but they're not chemical splash goggles, and they're not welding filters. Skechers work boots are comfortable, but no boot replaces a housekeeping program that keeps floors and access points clear.

The fundamentals haven't changed: know the hazard, select PPE to the relevant standard, fit it to the person, and maintain it until retirement. The execution has changed. Better materials, better fit systems, and real R&D from companies like MSA Safety have made compliance easier than when I started.

Oh, and one more thing: when you write your next PPE spec, don't stop at the logo. Check the sticker. Check the rating. Check the maintenance plan. That's what the last $54,000 taught me.