Back in June, I commended Congressman Peter Welch for joining sixty-five members of the House of Representatives in signing on to a letter condemning Russell Athletics for "severe violations of internationally recognized labor rights" based on "troubling reports from credible labor rights monitors [that] detail numerous violations of workers' associational rights at Jerzees de Honduras", one of Russell's plants. Russell Athletics, the owner of the contract to produce NBA and NCAA basketball apparel, is alleged to have routinely threatened to close its factory if the workers pressed for better wages and working conditions.

These comments earned me the ire and condemnation of one of Vermont’s premier economists for allegedly preaching protectionism. His point was that if the workers pressed for improved working conditions and wage increases above the $13 dollars a day that they are paid, then the company would probably close.

To quote his letter posted on the Vermont Tiger website: “What is more important is that the workers in the Russell plant earn more than they could earn elsewhere in Honduras, and if Russell was forced to pay higher wages, it might decide to close the plant and move it to a lower wage Asian country.”

It is heartening to see that sometimes corporations act in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of its workers while protecting its own long term interests. It was reported in the November 18th edition of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/18labor.html?_r=1) that Russell had agreed to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who lost their jobs when Russell closed their factory soon after the workers had unionized. I am sure that concerns for the workers wellbeing in part drove this decision. However, it is just as likely that the cacophony of protests from a newly awakened student protest movement that boycotted campus bookstores selling Russell made collegiate wear; NBA teams that were rethinking the lucrative contracts they had signed with Russell; and the on-site protests at stores like Target had a profound effect as well. Whatever the reason, we should all applaud corporate social responsibility.

Speaking of which, it is easy in this day and age to take a factory from one country to another in search of cheaper labor, reduced work site protections and lower environmental standards. We have seen the flight of manufacturing from our country and our own state. Those who remain, especially businesses in Vermont, struggle to be competitive in the face of the ever-risings costs of doing businesses. Let’s all take time out to thank those business owners and CEOs that have decided not to move out of state or to off-shore its manufacturing and who have committed to trying to make it work in Vermont.