I recently published an article about the impending closure of a 75 year old instant coffee plant in Freehold. In it, I went off the news available at the time explaining that the company had decided to pull out due to the high cost of upgrading the factory. But it is now becoming apparent that it isn’t the productivity of the facility or its machinery, but the fact that it no longer complies with the state’s new Environmental Justice law, so named because it saves those in impoverished areas from dirty old production facilities.

I also, again based on news available at the time, justified the whole situation by explaining such things happen in the free market. Sometimes it isn’t worth the cost to upgrade. Well, the Little Factory That Could might actually have been able to produce instant coffee fast enough, but would do so at too dirty a level.

So, is it better to close the building to save the environment, or is it better to save the jobs and revenue? I can tell you that I’ve given this question a lot of thought and I still can’t say something that wouldn’t come off as hypocritical. To close because of money and to close because of environmental concerns can both seem to be arbitrary reasons to shut a business down, so it’s hard to argue in favor of one or the other.

But I keep coming back to the thought that closing due to financial concerns is more realistic and empirical than closing because of what may or may not happen to the environment in fifty years. And to cut 200+ people off from an income based on speculation is unwise and unkind.

People that work in factories are not easily able to go off and find a job of equal pay or higher because they are typically low skilled and devoid of an advanced degree. Factory jobs are also typically union jobs, and thus have comprehensive benefits working class people count on. I really do wonder where the over 200 workers will end up later this year.

Another key difference is in the structure of each side’s philosophy and execution. Businesses make decisions to lay off based on finances, but there is no law or regulation forcing them to do so. States make laws that force compliance, sometimes in ways that are unfriendly to business practices.

However, states can sometimes help business, as its success is beneficial to state economics. Case in point is the additional $20 million in funding for manufacturing vouchers that brings the total to $53 million. The vouchers are designed to help manufacturing companies modernize and become more efficient. Could this be an avenue for Nestlé to pursue? Unlikely, but it would be nice.

Unfortunately, this is a done deal. We end up losing another food manufacturer and a lot of people lose their jobs. Now the question is, where do those people go? We can’t know that right now, but my hope is that a lot of them are already looking and will find something. After that, my hope is that our governor will relax on climate-based initiatives.