A recent editorial in the Coastal Maine’s “The Times Record” makes the case that the Berry Amendment is an important, valid rule for procuring Soldier equipment. But the author brings up an interesting pint which is that there is currently a Berry waiver for athletic footwear. Fortunately, Sen Susan Collins, (R-Maine) along with other Congressional members are asking DoD why.
According to the editorial, the Pentagon is hiding behind the contention that one shoe will not do it all. Hopefully, this isn’t their real fall back position as they don’t rely on one boot to do it all. Why would they expect one running shoe to be all things to all service members?
Apparently, Senator Collins was satisfied with this answer either so she inserted language into the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization bill requiring them to provide the proof that there are no American made athletic shoes that fit the bill.
Lest we forget to mention New Balance happens to make running shoes right here in the US of A.
Tags: New Balance
In 26yrs of active duty I have never been issued running shoes! Back in 1981 when the Army changed from running in boots to running in sneaker, we all have had to buy our running shoes out of pocket every since. Maybe some units get them but my Brothers in arms that I know have never been issues running shoes.
Same here but I have heard some units issue them.
When I went through the Navy’s Basic Training at Great Lakes during 2002, they issued us New Balance running shoes so I’m surprised to hear that there’s no shoes that fit the bill.
I rather prefer choosing my own running shoes, thank you. Now if the military wants to stick $100.00 in my pay every 300 miles… I’m all for it…
Too many foot shapes, sizes, widths, arches, and comforts to choose a common running shoe.
Stupid. There are huge differences in fit and performance of athletic footwear. As a long distance runner I know that I CANNOT wear new balance shoes. Forcing one brand of footwear onto everyone is just about as logical as forcing peoples gear to be “dress right dress” regardless of dominant hand or duty assignment.
Why aren’t there Berry compliant running shoes?
Because the manufacturer’d have to sell them for $300/pair to not loose money. Manufacturing something like a good quality running shoe in the US is not a lucrative endeavor.
Not lucrative? The companies moved off-shore so they could maximize profits by getting some guy in a 3rd world county to work for 50 cents a day with no breaks. Shoes haven’t gotten any cheaper so the savings in labor costs aren’t being passed on to consumers, the savings are passed on as profits to the shareholders.
If a company charges a $150 for a pair of shoes made in China, it isn’t because it costs $200 to make the same pair in the US, it’s because it costs $100 to make in the US, but only $25 to make in China. The company will charge you $150 regardless because that’s what you’ll pay for it no matter if it is made in Gaung Dong, China or Gary, Indiana. And the shareholders would rather the company only pays $25 to make shoes in China than contribute to the US economy.
Free trade ain’t Free.
Scott,
New Balance don’t cost $300.
Also, only 25% of NB shoes are “Made in the USA.” And of those 25% only 70% of the shoes are “Made in the USA” excluding the packaging…
Not completely true. At least 70% of the raw materials must be of US origin for Made in USA.
Also, 25% beats the hell out of 0%
Also, we wanted to let you know that Rocky has a Berry compliant cross trainer. You be the judge of the style.
http://rockyboots.com/berry-compliant
Paralus made my point…capitalism. Are you an anti-capitalist,leftist hack? ?
Companies are in businees to make money not break even or to lose money.
You just can’t argue that it is more lucrative to manufacture in the US.
Manufacturing technically superior shoes is a major endeavor as sizing and variation = tooling costs, etc..
Imagine how much a US made zipper would cost? Now you know why they don’t make them here.