Back at the start of Gov. Angus King’s first term he proclaimed that he wanted no fish to leave Maine with its head on, meaning that he wanted Maine goods to have value added to them, to be worth something so that the industries of Maine could become more prosperous, so that people in Maine could lead better lives. It remains a good idea and one that he and the Legislature can support with their own public spending by supporting LD 1748, a purchasing code of conduct.

The code, to be heard today in the Legislature, asks bidders of state contracts to look at whether the goods they are selling were produced under fair work rules, fair wages and without child or forced labor. The State Purchasing Agent would help vendors comply with the bill, which sounds onerous but would largely consist of sending out a form to the point of final manufacture to check whether the details of the code had been met. Anyone, for instance, meeting the work and wage conditions in any state would meet the standards in the bill, which is designed to steer Maine away from sweatshops.

The bill grew out of a study commission of lawmakers, human-rights workers and representatives of labor, industry, the public and state government. The diversity of opinion allowed for good legislation. And like Maine regulations that give preference to paper products with recycled content, to fuel-efficient vehicles and in-state bidders, this one too has benefits to the public. It says, in essence, that Maine does not want to participate in the worldwide race to the bottom of the wage scale, which affects what a worker earns in Guatemala and what one earns in Waterville. If Maine wants the benefit of value-added products at home it has to value the products made elsewhere.

The lack of enforced standards internationally makes it easier for manufacturers here to look elsewhere. The Department of Labor has certified that when Franklin Shoe closed and left 400 unemployed in Farmington last year, the work went to Asia and when Kimberly Clark moved its production out of Winslow a couple of years ago, the jobs reappeared in Mexico and, no, not Mexico, Maine. The same or similar happened with Dexter, G.H. Bass, Carleton Woolen Mills and a half dozen others totaling thousands of manufacturing jobs here, lost one way or another to foreign labor. That doesn’t mean that these specific moves resulted in sweatshop labor or that LD 1748 would have stopped them from leaving. But the bill sets a minimum standard for Maine to decide whether the labor conditions at these manufacturers are something it wants to support.

An important part of the code of conduct asks vendors, when they do find they are contracting with suppliers who do not meet basic working conditions, to not quit the supplier immediately. Instead, the vendor is asked to use its influence to correct the conditions. What does this mean practically? Not that a Maine vendor has to fly to Central America to clean up a sweatshop before it can do business with Maine. It means some formal expression of concern – perhaps just a letter, for instance, detailing the problem – needs to be sent.

Ensuring that a fair value is placed on the world’s labor is a long process and Maine is a tiny place. But it can stand up for what is right and encourage others to do the same. What other choice does it have?