I think an important point to keep in mind is that the sponsorship and the layoffs are unrelated. Their decision to sponsor this team came after the execution of the layoffs, and more likely by two completely different groups of people, probably not even up to Tim Boyle\’s level. I don\’t know enough about Columbia to say, but it\’s unlikely that people got together and said \”hey, we\’ve got some money now from laying those people off, so let\’s sponsor a bicycle racing team.\” Businesses this big and fast-moving rarely coordinate activities this precisely (hence the growth of \’business intelligence\’ in the IT world).

Please don\’t read into my words, meaning that doesn\’t exist. I made no such statement about the importance of team sponsorship over people gainfully employed, and that does not represent my feelings.

I also read the article Pete mentions in comment #22. Another statement the writer made was that Columbia explained it\’s actions by saying they were aimed to achieve long term growth in exchange for short term profits. I\’m not sure I take exactly to how they explain their actions, but I don\’t know for a fact that it\’s misleading or deceptive. No doubt, some people reading here have a fairly good grasp of how big business works, far better than me at least.

I think people are generally aware of how corporations spin the nature of business decisions having complicated consequences. There\’s no question that some corporations and their executives have been outright bad. I\’m inclined to believe there are many that aren\’t, and just maybe Columbia is one of them.

Still, Columbia, like other big corporations, is subject to the vagaries of the economy and world supply and demand. I sure don\’t know if Columbia did the right thing, but it probably had to do something.

If I\’ve read the news items correctly, though Columbia hadn\’t yet reached the point where it was losing money, it\’s growth had declined, raising concerns about the future might hold. Declining growth represents a trend that any company shouldn\’t want to continue, for obvious reasons. Stable activity is o.k., but not declining.

If the number of employees let off was 600, and you think the Columbia would have been better advised to keep them on, what\’s your suggestion to obtain the goals of both Columbia and the employees until the next growth upswing? Keep all of them on staff at minimum wage pay?

Anytime layoffs happen, it\’s a big suckeroo. A number of the jobs lost were buyouts (read: a very cushy landing), while others were layoffs. All were apparently in their headquarters in the Northwest corner of Oregon.

Also, 600 employees would be 15% of their 4000-person labor force globally, and 35% of their 1700 U.S. headcount. That\’s a HUGE percentage, while they categorized the job cuts as \”small.\”

I believe as a publicly traded company, investors would clamor for a hard number and more information: where\’d you get 600 jobs? Are you quite sure it\’s correct? No news source I\’ve seen cites that number, but maybe you\’ve got some insight we don\’t.

Also, who knows why they cut those jobs? Maybe that division was underperforming. Maybe they tried to sell that division of the company for the past year or two, but no one wanted it. Hell, I dunno. Maybe they did wake up one morning with the idea that trading a few employees for a tour de France team would be a deal they could live with.

But finally, I actually agree with you. It sucks when companies lay people off, especially big companies because it feels so faceless until its your neighbor shopping his resume around. Gawd, I cannot imagine losing my job with the uncertainty in the economy right now, but this I do know: Short-sighted profitability will tear this country apart. So what if Columbia they went into the red for a year? Keep the people on and re-focus their efforts somehow. For example, white-collar workers who design unprofitable rock-climbing apparel can\’t switch gears to design some other technical apparel?

Anyway, based on what I\’ve read, I\’m not ready to totally slag on Columbia. Evan\’s got more vitriol than facts, and that\’s not enough tonight.

I didn\’t see anything in the article you posted or any that I\’ve read that says they were losing money.

They did it to make more money. So I really don\’t want top hear anymore whining about the oil companies, since they have the same rights to maximize profits as Columbia does.

Sorry you all feel that sponsoring a cycling team is more important than sponsoring 600 employees and their families.

I guess you have to look at the bright side, they won\’t be driving to work.

Mama Gert in lycra–yeesh!

There\’s an article in the Oregonian\’s business section today about the sponsorship, which Columbia views as an opportunity to reclaim declining European market share. With the US$ value so low and America reportedly on a recession/inflation verge companies have to focus on EMEA and Asia-Pacific exports, so this seems a sensible survival tactic (bike racing in Europe is way more popular than in the US anyway). (Nike, for instance, reported record earnings in first quarter primarily due to phenomenal growth in Chinese retail).

Thanks for the reply roner. I hearby remove your \”A$$hole\” lable.

I miss-inturpreted your poke. My bad.

~n

I\’d have to say that I\’m largely uninformed about business and how it works, so I\’m always open to insight about how and why businesses do what they do. Years ago, I actually met Tim Boyle. We didn\’t talk business, but he seemed like a decent guy, and definitely an Oregonian. Columbia is a publicly traded stock company, but doesn\’t Tim Boyle and his mom still head this company up?

Unless there\’s something fairly solid to prove it, I\’m not yet convinced Columbia dumped those 600 jobs just to make more profit. Doing it to stay in the black sounds more likely. I did a quick check, found some short stories about the jobs. Here\’s one:

\” AP
Columbia Sportswear trims jobs in Ore.
Tuesday May 20, 3:15 pm ET
Columbia Sportswear trims undisclosed number of jobs in Oregon

BEAVERTON, Ore. (AP) — Columbia Sportswear Co. says it has cut an undisclosed number of jobs at its Beaverton headquarters.

Columbia spokesman John Fread says the reductions came through layoffs and voluntary buyouts. The company wouldn\’t say how many people were affected but classified the number of layoffs as \”small\”.

The outdoor clothing company says it made the cuts because of increased investment in marketing to help the company grow globally and because of concerns about a continued weak domestic economy.

Columbia said last month that its sales and earnings for the rest of the year would be lower than expected.\”

Lingering questions about the company\’s business practices aside, Columbia Sportswear sponsoring this team could be a great thing for Oregon. Among other things, I\’m curious about whether the company can somehow be an influence in leading competitive cycling away from the temptation and practice of using illegal performance enhancements, aka doping.