In January 2007, the Tasmanian bootmaker Blundstone announced that rising production costs would push much of its manufacturing away from Hobart and New Zealand to facilities in Thailand and India. The decision threatened approximately 360 Australian jobs and marked a major break with the company’s long manufacturing history in Tasmania, where its operations had included factories, a tannery, and generations of local industrial employment. Blundstone said it would retain production of roughly 200,000 pairs of footwear annually at its Tasmanian factory, most likely gumboots, but the scale and character of the remaining work were substantially narrower than the company’s previous domestic manufacturing base. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union responded by announcing a boycott if the overseas move proceeded, turning the restructuring into a public confrontation over the meaning of an Australian-made heritage brand in an increasingly globalized footwear industry. The episode was not described in the source as a factory disaster or a proven case of abusive overseas labor; its significance lies in the displacement of skilled local manufacturing and the labor backlash against outsourcing to lower-cost production centers.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2000s
Blundstone’s 2007 Overseas Shift Cost 360 Australian Manufacturing Jobs
Blundstone Footwear / 2000s
In January 2007, the Tasmanian bootmaker Blundstone announced that rising production costs would push much of its manufacturing away from Hobart and New Zealand to facilities in Thailand and India. The decision threatened approximately 360 Australian jobs and marked a major break with the company’s long manufacturing history in Tasmania, where its operations had included factories, a tannery, and generations of local industrial employment. Blundstone said it would retain production of roughly 200,000 pairs of footwear annually at its Tasmanian factory, most likely gumboots, but the scale and character of the remaining work were substantially narrower than the company’s previous domestic manufacturing base. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union responded by announcing a boycott if the overseas move proceeded, turning the restructuring into a public confrontation over the meaning of an Australian-made heritage brand in an increasingly globalized footwear industry. The episode was not described in the source as a factory disaster or a proven case of abusive overseas labor; its significance lies in the displacement of skilled local manufacturing and the labor backlash against outsourcing to lower-cost production centers.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
