Keurig Green Mountain is laying off 53 manufacturing employees, including 35 in Vermont, the company said Thursday.
The coffee and beverage giant notified Vermont Labor Commissioner Lindsay Kurrle that the layoffs involve employees at its Essex, Williston and Waterbury locations, according to Kurrle.
The layoffs are part of an effort to consolidate and restructure the company’s manufacturing operations, spokesperson Katie Gilroy wrote in an email to Seven Days.
It’s not the first effort to slim down the company. Keurig Green Moutain laid off 200 workers during cuts in 2015, and an additional 108 after it ended its cold-brewing line the following year.
The company currently operates in five U.S. states and Canada. In January, Keurig announced it plans to merge with Dr Pepper Snapple Group.
The Department of Labor requires notice of layoffs only if the cuts affect more than 50 Vermont employees, Kurrle said. But Keurig Green Mountain nonetheless agreed to provide the state a list of employees. The Department of Labor will reach out to them with information about unemployment benefits and other job openings, according to Kurrle.
Keurig will offer the employees a severance package, according to Gilroy.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Keurig was awarded $10 million from VEPC and the VTP over the years.
We’ve now lost 361 jobs in the last three years.
Growing businesses make bets that don’t always pay off — a business that doesn’t make big bets won’t succeed. It’s unfortunate for those affected, and I hope they get the support they need.
Re the preceding comment, after a decade of making the same points, I’m beginning to suspect that Mr. Hoffer’s focus is more on his own PR and reelection than actually improving anything about the way the state does economic development. He’s never proposed any sort of substantive alternative — he seems to enjoy the attention he gets from being negative rather than working to improve economic development programs.
RomanV First, I have been addressing the issue of questionable business incentive programs for almost 20 years, not ten. While working under contract for State Auditor Ed Flanagan in the `90s, I was the principal author of the first review of the original program (EATI). That report was released in 2000.
Later, while self-employed, I helped others (including the legislature’s economist) highlight serious problems in the program that led to major changes by the legislature in 2006. Pretty sure that counts as working to improve economic development programs.
Second, its interesting that you characterize the presentation of relevant facts as being negative. A meaningful conversation about public policy must begin with an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of current efforts. There’s only so much money so we need to ensure that we’re getting a good return on existing programs. If not, we should reallocate the resources for more effective programs.
I’ve been doing that for 30 years and am proud of it (and for years before I ran for office so your comment about wanting attention for campaign purposes is baloney). Moreover, you see my posts on this (and related subjects) because reporters rarely include such information. In my view, readers benefit from more information.
“We’ve now lost 361 jobs in the last three years.”
The first two of those 3 years would be under a Democratic governor, and all three of those years would be under an overwhelmingly Democratic dominated Legislature.
“The first two of those 3 years would be under a Democratic governor, and all three of those years would be under an overwhelmingly Democratic dominated Legislature.”
First, the issue is not the economy at large, but the value of the business incentives as an investment of taxpayer funds.
Second, I said nothing about politics, parties or elected officials so I’m not sure why you are viewing this as a partisan issue. I don’t.
“Keurig was awarded $10 million from VEPC and the VTP over the years.”
Interesting that Keurig, previously largely owned by a billionaire, then sold as a public company, was awarded $10 million from the state.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?statesum=VT
Whatever happened to “free enterprise”?
Governments in the U.S. seem to be the largest creators of billionaires, via subsidies.
Those billionaires then go on to use their publicly funded wealth to influence government, in their favor (read “A Republic No More by Jay Cost).
It seems only suckers try to do their own thing anymore, when the “successful” are receiving billions in grants.
No wonder the U.S. work ethic seems to be getting worse & worse.
Everyone’s a slave to the new-feudal Lords, whom are those tied closest to top government officials.
I just moved to Vermont from a highly Republican/Red state, and it seems the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which group each decides to throw public money at.
Governments in the U.S. has become a cash cow, and anytime you have any entity in control of so much money, you have the biggest shysters looking to control that entity.
Just like Mobs.
Hoffer: your selection of the facts you deploy is negative. How many new jobs has Keurig created over the years? I would wager that it’s well above 361. If they created 1000 jobs, say, but lay off 361 — that is not a “loss” of 361 jobs — it’s a net gain of 639. You conveniently leave that number, whatever it is, out. And don’t tell me you don’t have these numbers — isn’t that your job, to know these figures? Aside from jobs, how much have they paid in taxes? How much have they invested? You leave these facts out, and yet you claim that “a meaningful conversation about public policy must begin with an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of current efforts.” These all seem at least as relevant to me as the number you cited.
You also did not respond to my point: you have yet to propose a substantive alternative scheme for encouraging economic development that is realistic or workable. Reading your other public comments, about how you question that a state can meaningfully influence economic growth with policy, it’s clear that your alternative is to do nothing, since you think growth will happen anyway.
That doesn’t strike me as a very progressive attitude toward policy, no matter your credentials. To me a progressive believes that government has the power to correct market imperfections in order to make better lives for citizens. Your comments on this matter seem less in line with that ideology and more in line with stirring up animosity against businesses to win emotional votes, rather than votes based on rational analysis.
All I am interested in is more action, and fewer words. You ran on not being a politician before — and now, that’s exactly what you look like to me.
And in Randolph, homegrown LEDdynamics is breaking ground on a $5M expansion and adding 40 jobs. But that kind of good news doesn’t conform to the obligatory “Vermont is a terrible place to do business” trope that grabs headlines. Unless, of course, you are VTDigger: https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/01/leddynamic…
This rotten pessimism about Vermont’s economy is pervasive and self-defeating. Even our dear governor can’t help but qualify good news with dreary facts about an aging workforce and unfilled jobs. We don’t seem to grasp difference between knowing the bad news and shouting it from the rooftops. What we tell the rest of the country is what they will hear and believe.
Roman V – I’m afraid you missed the point (again). My original comment was about the value of the state’s business incentive program, not Keurig or the economy at large.
As for your false charge of negativity, I guess you’ve missed the hundreds of posts over the years where I’ve pushed back (with facts) in response to those who refer ad nauseum to the phony rankings that supposedly show Vermont as a failed state circling the bowl.
And I presume you were never in legislative committees over the years when I said many times that Vermont should stick to the basics and forget questionable “incentive” programs. That means real long-term investments in the only things we have control over: quality of life, workforce education & training, and infrastructure, including social infrastructure like affordable housing, energy efficiency, and child care.
Nor are you aware of the other relevant work I’ve done such as Phase 6 of The Vermont Job Gap Study on strategic import substitution, or the report for the State Treasurer on using pension funds for Economically Targeted Investments, or the effort to adopt preferential purchasing policies to help Vermont-based businesses, and so on.
Unfortunately, not knowing anything about me didn’t stop you from attacking me and completely mischaracterizing my work.
As for your crack about me as a politician, I am an elected official so it goes with the territory, but here I am engaging with you. Imagine. How many others do that?
Finally, notwithstanding your expectations (whatever they may be), I encourage you to visit the Auditor’s website and learn what we actually do.
Um . . . How about you stop trolling the internet and praising yourself during work hours and do the auditing that the taxpayers are paying you to do?
knowyourassumptions – Actually, we are about to release a 50-page report on this very subject so it is part of my job. And we’ve been down this road before. You try to bully people into not commenting. Not gonna work.
BTW – Why don’t you tell us your real name?
Hoffer, I got your point, and to be clear, my point is this: To me, your comments are a transparent case of you taking the opportunity of unfortunate news about people losing their jobs to promote your personal agenda. A few select clarifications and rebuttals, due to space constraints:
– “The issue is not the economy at large,” Not the point I was making. Those other stats are at least as relevant to relative value of these programs. Citing only layoff numbers that may have no connection (or do they? you dont specify) to what the company got, without other data, is misleading.
– Re: visit the Auditors website This read as a response to my comment that you shouldnt be able to claim you dont have the figures asked for in previous point because its your job to have them. I dont have to check your site: 32 VSA 167 should make all records of state, which presumably contain this information, available to you.
– Re: all the initiatives you’ve advocated for: If you do a simple Google search, you can find a negative Hoffer quote on just about any state program, including ones that are contradictory. E.g., in this VPR story (https://bit.ly/2JfGQBT) you state that VTP trains too many new hires; in this Rutland Herald op-ed (https://bit.ly/2JlTHWp) you suggest VTP trains too few new hires.
– Your negative quote this week about the remote workers law (https://bit.ly/2xFBgak) is asinine. Its innovative, so of course theres no data yet!
– Re: all your other work: Arent all of the things you cite at least decade old?
– Re: Attacking you My responses have been questions and observations, nothing ad hominem. Your response reminds me of a certain thin-skinned politician who overuses social media while on the job.
“it is part of my job.”
And weighing in on articles or topics such as the nurses’ strike, paid family leave, welfare, the Mayor’s race, the economy, the women’s march, and the minimum wage — many of which comments came during work hours — is that part of your job, too? Or is that just you trolling the internet with Prog advocacy?
Roman V: Keep reaching
“I dont have to check your site: 32 VSA 167 should make all records of state, which presumably contain this information, available to you.”
You asked for employment records from a private company. I can get them as part of an audit, but I can’t share them because they’re confidential.
“In this VPR story…you state that VTP trains too many new hires.”
The statute only allows grants for training that would not have occurred anyway (to save taxpayers from paying for normal business costs). Since virtually all new hires require training, the program may not be in compliance with the statute. Pointing that out is my job.
“Your negative quote this week about the remote workers law…is asinine. Its innovative, so of course theres no data yet!”
You’re dead wrong. For legislative proposals, best practice is to get a “fiscal note” from the legislature’s economist to estimate the economic & fiscal costs & benefits. This program had no such analysis. If it had, it would have been exposed as a very questionable “investment.” As with many other giveaways, its impossible to know if these folks would have come without the “incentive” or with a much smaller one. That’s policy analysis 101.
“Re: all your other work: Arent all of the things you cite at least decade old?”
You asked what I had done to advance positive alternatives to the policies & programs I have questioned or criticized. I gave you work from prior to this job. There is no expiration date on ideas.
What you view as negativity is just honest questions about flawed policies and programs. Its unfortunate that you don’t see it is essential for us to do exactly that.
Hasnt a lot changed in 10 years: a recession; a recovery; the smart phone; the gig economy; a real estate bubble, crash, and resurgence; the 2017 tax reform? In what universe are ideas from 2006 about the US or VT economy still the best ones out there?
Is Doug telling us he has had an omniscient view of state government since 2012, but he hasnt learned anything new to make him change his position on anything related to economic development, or had any fresh ideas since? Wouldnt an objective observer wonder whether thats due to confirmation bias and/or a lack of creativity?
Is someone who cherry picks the facts he wants objective and rational? And if that person constantly trumpets his adherence to rationality and data, does that make him a hypocrite, or just a bad auditor?
Didnt Doug say, regarding remote workers, that he opposes the law because Attraction and retention are notoriously difficult to prove? Would a fiscal note have done that for Doug? Are the bounds of human understanding coterminous with Dougs knowledge? Or does Doug just question data when he is out of other ideas?
Do former Keurig employees think Doug has their back? Or does Doug only have Dougs back?
Roman V
Wow. You just keep going.
“In what universe are ideas from 2006 about the US or VT economy still the best ones out there?”
I don’t think you know anything about economic development or tax policy. Have you read any of the peer reviewed literature? What is your experience in this discipline?
“Is someone who cherry picks the facts he wants objective and rational?”
Please provide examples.
“Didn’t Doug say, regarding remote workers, that he opposes the law because Attraction and retention are notoriously difficult to prove? Would a fiscal note have done that for Doug?”
That’s exactly what I said. That’s called due diligence. Seems like you’re ready to accept an untested program with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Bad form. Voters have repeatedly said they prefer my approach.
I wonder where all this anger comes from. Your opinions are your own, but I deal with facts. If you have some, please share them.
Have you read any of the peer reviewed literature? Of course.
What is your experience in this discipline?
Irrelevant; one does not need to tell everyone her resume in order to be heard on an issue of public concern.
Please provide examples.
Your initial comment in this thread is my example; see my other responses in this regard.
Seems like you’re ready to accept an untested program with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Yep! Its only $500k. No programs will have funding if we dont have more taxpayers, so it seems worth a shot to me. And by your logic, guess we shouldnt have had: the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, Act 250, Clean Water Act, etc. While initiatives of such scope were admittedly subject to more analysis beforehand than the remote worker bill, they were untested relative to their scope and also all cost significantly more than $500k.
I said “What is your experience in this discipline?”
You said “Irrelevant; one does not need to tell everyone her resume in order to be heard on an issue of public concern.”
Ah, the Age of Trump. Knowledge and experience are not irrelevant. You are entitled to your opinion, but facts matter. You can certainly be heard, but you may not be convincing if you don’t know the facts.
As for the new “incentive” program, you said “Its only $500k.”
With respect, $500k of taxpayer money is not peanuts and should be challenged. If you think otherwise than I guess we will agree to disagree.
Good night.
“but I deal with facts.”
Oh, good lord, Hoffer. If you are suggesting that you deal with some sort of “objective truth” then your capacity for self-delusion is more profound and disturbing than I thought. Your analyses always come out supporting your Prog agenda. It’s hackery. Period.
Stop trolling the internet to advocate for your partisan Prog beliefs and get back to work.
“Stop trolling the internet to advocate for your partisan Prog beliefs and get back to work.”
Yeah, leave trolling pontification to conservatives without jobs.
No, let’s welcome posts from conservatives, moderates, liberals, and even morally superior Progs, and whether the authors are employed or unemployed. But let’s not have partisan advocacy posts from a statewide official working on the public dime and elected to a job that should be, and should be perceived to be, completely neutral and totally free from politics and bias.