Per today’s Rutland Herald, in a piece about Snowboard manufacturer Burton moving its production facilities out of state:
David Mace, a spokesman for the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, said… the state had worked with Burton in the past to create jobs, most recently in 2008 when the company was authorized to receive $1.6 million in Vermont Employment Growth Incentive payments. The cash payments are made to companies that create jobs and make capital investments.
Mace said Burton was authorized to receive VEGI payments based on the creation of research and development jobs. He said to date the company has not claimed any incentive payments.
He said the loss of the Burton jobs is an example that the state needs to do more to reduce costs for businesses, including high taxes, workers’ compensation and burdensome regulations and mandates.
Okay. So.
We need to reduce costs for businesses, but Burton turned down $1.6 million in money we were ready to hand them? And this couldn’t, possibly, have anything to do with the controversy over Burton’s risque snowboards from a couple years ago? Burton’s relationship with Vermont changed quite a bit after that and that could easily influence whether a company stays or leaves a state. Losing partnerships with local resorts makes a big difference to this sort of thing.
But hey, why dig deeper when you can just blame high taxes and regulations (you know– the sort of things that keep products from killing, wounding or maiming us) for everything?
When interviewed yesterday, State Commerce Commissioner Tayt Brooks said it was a reminder of how tough it is to operate a business in Vermont. [And that’s because . . . ?]
Wake up call Commissioner — In Vermont and the U.S. generally, government forces businesses and individuals to carry the burden of everything from maintaining public utilities, by subsidizing corporate utilities, to paying exorbitant health care costs. Our tax structure is high on low wage labor and low to non-existent on high incomes and passive hoarding of wealth. Vermont and the U.S. government policy is to impose high costs of doing business primarily by not regulating skimmer industries such as health insurance and by not investing in social policies to protect our workforce.
Which leads to this asinine comment by Mr. Brooks, who could not wait to go on the air and demonstrate just how ignorant he is of the realities of global and U.S. economics. This is pathetic:
So where is Burton going with the jobs? Austria! A country with universal health care and mandatory job-protected PAID SICK LEAVE.
The cost of doing business in Austria is apparently better because Austrian law keeps the cost of living in check for workers and the cost of doing business stable. No rising premiums by 20-50% every year because conservatives refuse to protect access to health care. No bridges collapsing under conservative GOP rotting infrastructure polices.
So Mr. Tayt, what message does that send!
but the fact is that Burton moved out of Vermont a long time ago. Only 7% of production was being done here in Vermont. Their facility in Austria has been in operation since 1985. According to the information I have read, both locations have been exclusively turning out high-end snow-boards in the range of $700. to $1,000. They refuse to discuss production figures specifically because they don’t have to since it’s a private company; but one can easily guess that the demand for such high-end product is way off. So they can choose one of two locations to close and they chose Vermont…no doubt in large part because Austria has universal healthcare which keeps that significant cost down for an employer. They moved major production to China long ago; but I, for one, don’t think Douglas should get his wish to see Vermonters lives as miserable as those of Chinese laborers just so businesses will flock-here to exploit them.
Health care in Austria is through the State. Burton is leaving because private health care in Vermont is too expensive. Doesn’t this prove the argument that we need the public option or a single payer system?
At your kickoff the Carpenters – Jake and Donna – who are the founders and owners of Burton, were listed as sponsors meaning I assume they were and are two of your highest donors. Given your campaign is all about jobs, how do you respond to this closure and what could Burton and the state have done differently to avoid this action?
Thank you
Don’t forget the wonderful five weeks of paid leave that most all Europeans get. Austria’s government sponsored health care, great paid vacations, early childood education, free college tuition and more, maybe those are the reasons Mr. Brooks.
So where is the counter to this Republican bullshit? Even with at least 5 people running against Dubie, I haven’t heard a peep in response to this. The Dems (and I mean all the way up to DC) need to get a message machine that works.
What business does the state government have in supporting specific organizations? We should support and strengthen the rules that abate the effects on the employees and the local town, if its a sizeable employer. We should have an open-to-everyone infrastructure that supports good non-polluting jobs. But direct subsidies to specific private companies is not a proper role for state government.
Commenting on a snowboard company moving the rest of its manufacturing to an existing offshore plant in a high-wage country should consist of expressing sympathy for the dislocated employees. Getting into the decision making of specific businesses (when their actions are legal and ethical) is a tar pit that is foolish for a would-be-governor to stroll into. If there were a provable statistical pattern, that becomes a proper subject for public policy. But as we’ve read here on this blog repeatedly, it just ain’t so.
Why don’t journalists ask these blowhards why the state government should select specific companies to enrich? Why don’t they ask for statistical evidence instead of anecdotal sob stories? Sheesh.
*** Losing partnerships with local resorts makes a big difference to this sort of thing. ***
Did Burton lose partnerships with local ski resorts over the Burton Love Series? As much as I couldn’t stand the snowboards, I would think their partnerships with local ski resorts are much stronger to not let a dumb and bad series get in their way. Know what I mean? What evidence is out their that Burton made their decision based on local response to the snowboards? That’s what I’d like to know.
David Mace is claiming that the state needs to do more to reduce costs, and he specifies one of the issues as workers compensation insurance. Is he not aware that just a couple of weeks ago the governor issued a press release boasting that workers compensation rates are going DOWN for the fourth year in a row? Didn’t anybody in the mainstream media make the connection between that press release and this silly statement?
See: http://vtdigger.org/2010/03/03…
I would venture that the move is purely an economies of scale issue. Surely even in the same environment, the per board cost of producing 7% is more than the per board cost of producing the other 93%.
Of course, the anti-tax people hand wave away that these types of decisions are simply an effort to improve efficiency and try to claim this is red flag on Vermont. And every time they do this, I have think they are such lousy business people that they wouldn’t succeed in any environment.
News flash – – you can make labor intensive products cheaper overseas! Oh – – you already knew that.
So what is the big deal about Burton Snowboards? The big deal isn’t that they are reducing manufacturing, it is that they are remaining in Vermont with almost 400 employees.
The big story is how these entrepreneurs and inventors have developed this highly successful product here in Vermont.
In my previous position as founding president of InventVermont ( http://www.inventvermont.com ) it was my privilege to meet and get to know many of Vermont’s great inventors ranging from high tech to simple devices.
Vermont has created an atmosphere that allows entrepreneurism and creativity to flourish. We should build on our strengths. The state should be looking at ways to help early stage inventors become successful rather than join a race to the bottom by cutting employee benefits and figuring that we can then compete against other countries for low wage manufacturing jobs.
NE