Updated 5:37 p.m.
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!
“Stop trolling the internet to advocate for your partisan Prog beliefs and get back to work.”
Yeah, leave trolling pontification to conservatives without jobs.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
“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?
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.
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?